Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
The Ideal Protein Concept in broiler nutrition 1. Methodological aspects opportunities and limitations by Dr. Andreas Lemme
Poultry
The Ideal Protein Concept in broiler nutrition 1. Methodological aspects opportunities and limitations
Key information
tions, the ratios between these amino acids remain fairly stable at the same time. Therefore, the responses of only one single reference amino acid -usually lysine- to changing production conditions have to be evaluated while the remaining amino acids are then to be adjusted simply by calculation. Only essential amino acids are considered in this concept. However, there is still a scientific discussion about the adequate ratio between essential and non-essential amino acids especially in low protein diets.
Figure 1: Daily net Lys (left) and Met+Cys (right) requirement for broilers from 7 to 63 days of age, expressed as a total and differentiated between requirements for body protein deposition, feather growth and maintenance
1200
1200
800
Total Lys requirement Lys for body protein Lys for feather protein Lys for maintenance
800
400 0 0 7 14 21 28
400
0 35 42 49 56 63 0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63
Days of age
Days of age
2
di i
(Lys) is taken as the reference amino acid as well supported by the following three arguments: Lys is almost exclusively utilised for body protein accretion and thus requirement is only affected very little by other metabolic functions (maintenance requirement) or feathering as this is the case for Met+Cys (Figure 1). There are no metabolic interactions between Lys and other amino acids. In contrast, Met can be converted to Cys by the bird but the opposite way is not possible. From the analytical perspective, it is easier to analyse Lys than Met and particularly Cys.
the contributions of protein accretion, feather growth, and maintenance to total requirement differ markedly between both amino acids. Lys is almost exclusively used for protein accretion, whereas relatively high proportions of Met+Cys are required for feather growth and maintenance. Since the latter is a function of body weight, it increases with age. This underlines the advantage of Lys vs. Met+Cys as the reference amino acid. The overall requirement for digestible Met+Cys and Lys as well as their respective ratios are presented in Figure 2. Coefficients related to the utilisation of the absorbed amino acids are taken from Baker (1991). The value for Lys has been reported to be 80 % while it was found to be 76 % for Met+Cys. These factors are assumed to be constant which has been criticised sometimes because the closer the amount of absorbed amino acids gets to the requirement, the more of them will be oxidised. Thus, linear dose-response relationships between retention and intake of digestible amino acids are rather unlikely especially when considering a population of animals. Furthermore, under
Figure 2: Overall requirements of broilers 7 to 63 days of age for digestible Lys and Met+Cys and the respective Met+Cys:Lys ratios
1600
80
1200
60
800
Lys requirement
40
400
20
0 0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63
Days of age
3
di i
practical conditions, amino acid levels are very close or even above the requirement. Not only the amount of digestible Met+Cys and Lys changes with age, but also their ideal ratio (Figure 2). The calculated digestible ideal Met+Cys:Lys ratio increases from 65 % at day 7 to 99 % at day 63, mainly due to the increasing Met+Cys demand for maintenance. It is worth noting that NRC (1994) recommendations suggest quite the opposite trend by stating an ideal Met+Cys:Lys ratio of 82 % in the starter but only 72 % in the grower phase, showing again the limitations of the literature survey method. Changing ideal ratios with age can be expected also for other essential amino acids. Examples for ideal amino acid profiles obtained by the factorial approach are the Illinois Ideal Chicken Protein published by Baker (1994) and GfE (1999) (Table 1). It should be noted that Baker (1994) related the profile to digestible amino acids, whereas GfE (1999) gave ratios on a total amino acid basis. Ideal amino acid ratios should be based on digestible rather than total amino acids because digestibility can interfere with the ideal ratios. This becomes important when raw materials with different amino acid digestibilities are used. The amino acid profile arriving at the respective tissues is crucial, and it can be different from the dietary amino acid composition due to losses during digestion (and oxidation as discussed above).
conducting simultaneous or multiple dose-response studies. Thus, the growth and body composition responses of birds can be used to derive amino acid requirements including utilisation of absorbed amino acids. Moreover, experimental conditions like feed composition, feed ingredients or environmental aspects can be kept as uniform as possible. The only difference between trials should be therefore the dietary levels of the respective amino acid under test. Additionally, other criteria such as feed conversion or breast meat yield can be investigated and assessed at the same time. Such a project, conducted with growing male chicken (20 to 40 days of age), has been realised by Mack et al. (1999). The response of broilers to increasing levels of either Lys (2 trials), Met+Cys, Thr (2 trials), Trp, Arg, Ile, or Val was investigated. Since Lys is the reference amino acid, two trials were performed. Also Thr was examined twice because of the unexpected low ideal Thr:Lys ratio of 63 in the first trial. However, the second experiment exactly confirmed the results of the first trial.
As shown in Figures 3 and 4 for Lys and Met+Cys, birds clearly responded to increasing dietary Lys and Met+Cys levels. These responses were non-linear; suggesting data analysis by exponential regression rather than by a linear (broken-line) model. The latter model has a defined breakpoint but often underestimates the optimum dietary amino acid level. Moreover, a linear-plateau relationship is difficult to explain especially when the response of a population of animals is investigated (Morris, 1989). In case of the exponential model, the optimum amino acid level is sometimes defined as 95 % of the asymptotic (= maximum) response. However, 95 % is arbitrarily chosen and any change to higher values will have a strong impact on the final recommendation. This would mean for the example shown in Figure 3, that with rising from 95 % to 99 % of the asymptotic response, the respective digestible Lys level shifts from 1.02 % to 1.17 % for the Ross 208 broilers. Due to the fact that a certain point is defined and that these points represent marginal amino acid levels rather than
Figure 3: Response of male Ross 208 broilers to graded levels of true fecal digestible Lys (Mack et al., 1999) Weight gain (g)
1800
1700
1600
1500
1.02 % at 95 % of the asymptotic response 1.17 % at 99 % of the asymptotic response
1400
4
di i
excess levels, the ideal amino acid to Lys ratios in the project of Mack et al. (1999) were determined by the brokenline model. Subsequently, the Lys requirement was determined by exponential regression analysis. In Figure 4, the response of Ross 208 broilers to graded Met+Cys levels is shown. Relating the Met+Cys breakpoint (0.65) to the Lys breakpoint (0.86, average of two trials), the ideal ratio is 75 %. This result is pretty similar to the ratio suggested by Baker (1994). The complete ideal protein profile obtained by Mack et al. (1999) is listed in Table 1. The data provided by Baker et al. (2002) were also obtained by multiple experiments (Table 1). In the project of Mack et al. (1999), an optimum true fecal digestible Lys level of 1.15 % was found. This figure reflects the level required to minimise feed conversion in both Lys experiments, and it represents 95 % of the as-
ymptotic response. However, using the exponential equation, any percentage of the asymptotic response can be calculated. In addition, the exponential formulas can easily be combined with economic parameters to estimate the most profitable dietary amino acid level as described by Pack and Schutte (1995) or Hhler (2000).
proportion of each amino acid is used to determine a dietary amino acid profile in which all the amino acids tested were equally limiting - an ideal protein. This principle is shown in Figure 5 and explained below using the Lys and Met+Cys data reported by Gruber et al. (2000, Expt. 2). Male eight day-old broilers of a Ross strain were housed individually in cages. After twenty days of feeding the experimental diets, birds were slaughtered in order to determine nitrogen (N) retention by comparative slaughter technique. The final calculations of the deletion method are based on the bird's responses to feeding the control diet on the one hand and the test diets on the other hand. In contrast to the control diet of the multiple dose-response trial approach, the control diet of the deletion method is a positive control and is not deficient in any amino acid. The content of each of these amino acids is set as
Table 1: Selected Ideal Protein profiles (Lys = 100 %) for broilers taken from different references Phase Source Method NRC (1994)a Literature survey total 1.10 e 46 82 73 18 114 73 109 82 122 32 GfE (1999)b Factorial approach total 1.09 e,f 36 71 67 16 108 69 112 96 118 32 Starter Baker (1994)c Factorial approach Baker et al. (2002) Doseresponse study Gruber (1999) Deletion method Starter/ Grower Schutte (1996)d Literature survey NRC (1994)a Literature survey total 1.00 e 38 72 74 18 110 73 109 82 122 32 Grower GfE (1999)b Factorial approach total 0.92 e,f 38 87 76 17 117 78 125 109 137 33 Baker (1994)c Factorial approach Mack et al. (1999) Doseresponse study
Based on ... amino acids Lys (%) of diet Met Met+Cys Thr Trp Arg Ile Leu Val Phe+Tyr His
a b c
true true true apparent digestible digestible digestible digestible 1.12 g 36 72 67 16 105 67 109 77 105 35 1.03 g 56 17 61 78 not stated 1.05 /1.02 e 37 70 66 14 108 63 108 81 121 38 38 73 65 16 105 66 80 -
true true digestible digestible 0.89 g 37 75 70 17 105 67 109 77 105 32 1.15 g 75 63 19 112 71 81 -
Ratios calculated, not explicitly given in the recommendations German Society for Nutrition Also known as Illinois Ideal Chicken Protein d Also known as CVB (Dutch Centraal Veevoederbureau) recommendations e Mixed sexes, f Recalculated assuming dry matter content of the diet: 88 % g For male birds
5
di i
100 %. The test diets are identical to the control diet except for the respective amino acid under test, which is reduced by a certain percentage. In the example shown in Figure 5 (left), the Lys and Met+Cys levels in the control diet were 0.95 % (=100 %) and 0.81 % (=100 %), while in the test diets the dietary Lys or Met+Cys content was reduced by 20 % or 35 % to 0.76 % or 0.53 %, respectively. The N-retention achieved with the control diet, in this case 56.2 % of Nintake (Gruber et al., 2000), was also set as 100 %. Subsequently, the animals' responses to the test diets were related to the N-retention of the control group. Birds receiving the Lys test diet retained 16.2 % less and those fed the Met+Cys test diet retained 14.4 % less nitrogen compared to the control. That means, per percentage point of Lys removal, Nretention decreased by 0.81 %, whereas this figure for the Met+Cys group was only 0.41 %. The relative effect of Lys reduction was stronger being a prerequisite for taking Lys as reference. A crucial point of the concept is that the effects of the test diets on N-retention are related to the slope of the regression line between the Lys test and the control group. It is assumed that the slopes of the individual regression lines are
Figure 4: Response of Ross 208 broilers to graded levels of true fecal digestible Met+Cys (Mack et al., 1999) Weight gain (g)
1900
1800
1700
True fecal digestible Met+Cys 0.73 % at 95 % of the asymptotic response 0.65 % with the broken line-model
1600
identical for all essential amino acids. According to this assumption, a point on the x-axis can be calculated for each amino acid - other than Lys - down to which a reduction of an amino acid would not have affected N-retention. Accordingly, the Met+Cys level of the control diet could theoretically have been reduced to 83 % without an effect on N-retention (Figure 5). Eighty-three percent of 0.81 % Met+Cys in the control diet is 0.67 %. Therefore, with
0.67 % Met+Cys and 0.95 % Lys both amino acids are in the proper ratio (Met+Cys:Lys = 71 %) to maintain performance and to avoid a relative excess of dietary Met+Cys. The ideal protein profile derived by Gruber et al. (2000) is listed in Table 1. Since the effects of the test diets are related to the slope of the Lys dose-response, special attention has to be given to the latter. The linear regression is
Figure 5: Principle of determining ideal amino acid to Lys ratio taking Met+Cys (Gruber et al., 2000) as example (left) and influence of the amino acid level of the control diet on the slope of the Lys dose-response line if only two data points are used (right) N-retention (% of control treatment)
110 100 90
Amino acids in control diet Digestible Lys content 0.95 % Digestible Met+Cys content 0.81 % Ideal Met+Cys:Lys ratio y = (0.81 % Met+Cys x 0.83)/0.95 % Lys = 71 %
100
80 83 %
90
70 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105
6
di i
done using only two data points which means once the dietary Lys exceeds the broiler's requirement the slope of the line will decrease, thus distorting all conclusions drawn regarding the ideal protein. This risk is indicated in Figure 5 (right). Therefore, the N-retention level derived by the control diet has still to be kept in the linear range of the non-linear response curve. The assumption that the slopes of the dose-response relationships are identical for all amino acids might be a matter for criticism since as shown in Figure 1 the three compartments defining the total requirement contribute to different proportions depending on the amino acid.
Figure 6: Response of fat and lean line broilers to dietary threonine (data obtained by Alleman et al. (1999), recalculated) Weight gain (g)
1100
900
lean line
fat line
700
0.57 % True fecal digestible Thr for the lean line at 95 % of the asymptotic response 0.48 % True fecal digestible Thr for the fat line at 95 % of the asymptotic response
Thr:Lys ratio Comparing the ideal protein profiles published by Mack et al. (1999) and Baker et al. (2002) with the other ones presented in Table 1, particularly the low Thr:Lys ratios of 63 % or 56 % are remarkable. This is especially the case since both Thr experiments performed by Mack et al. (1999) revealed the same ideal ratio. However, recent research indicates interactions between Thr requirement and environmental conditions. Kidd et al. (2002) reported that 42 to 56 days old broilers required high-
Arg:Lys ratio According to the ideal protein profiles cited herein, ideal Arg:Lys ratios based on digestible amino acids vary between 105 % and 112 % (Table 1). However, Brake et al. (1998) reported that particularly weight gain but also feed conversion was improved with Arg:Lys ratios up to 139 % at high temperature while this effect could not be observed under moderate temperature conditions. The
7
di i
A broiler experiment conducted with extreme genetic differences has been reported by Alleman et al. (1999). They compared the responses of male genetically lean or fat line broilers to graded levels of dietary Thr fed from 28 to 49 days of age. The study revealed that the magnitude of the response starting from a Thr deficient situation was clearly stronger in the lean line compared to the fat line broilers (Figure 6). The data were re-analysed by an exponential regression model and at 95 % of the asymptotic response, optimum digestible Thr level would be 0.57 % and 0.48 % for the lean and fat line birds, respectively. Keeping in mind that a big portion of the dietary Thr is required by the gut itself as reported for piglets by Law et al. (2000), and that the genetic progress in terms of weight gain or feed conversion is finally the result of altered organ capacity and efficiency, the conclusion that ideal dietary amino acid proportion will change with genetic progress can easily be drawn.
References Alleman, F., J. Michel, A. M. Chagneau and B. Leclercq (1999): Comparative responses of genetically lean and fat broiler chickens to dietary threonine concentration. British Poultry Science 40: 485-490. Baker, D. H. (1991): Partitioning of nutrients for growth and other metabolic functions: efficiency and priority considerations. Poultry Science 70: 1797-1805. Baker, D. H. (1994): Ideal amino acid profile for maximal protein accretion and minimal nitrogen excretion in swine and poultry. Proceedings Cornell Nutrition Conference, 56th Meeting, 18.-20. October, Rochester, New York, USA: 134-139. Baker, D. H., A. B. Batal, T. M. Parr, N.-R. Augspurger and C. M. Parsons (2002): Ideal Ratio (relative to lysine) of tryptophan, threonine, isoleucine, and valine for chicks during the second and third weeks posthatch. Poultry Science 81: 485-494. Brake, J., D. Balnave and J. J. Dibner (1998): Optimum dietary arginine : lysine ratio for broiler chickens is altered during heat stress in association with changes in intestinal uptake and dietary sodium chloride. British Poultry Science 39: 639-647. Fisher, C. (2002): Possibilities and limitations of ideal protein concepts in evaluation of amino acids for fast growing poultry. 11th European Poultry Conference, 6.-10. September, Bremen, Germany. GfE (1999): Empfehlungen zur Energieund Nhrstoffversorgung der Legehennen und Masthhner (Broiler). DLG Verlag, Frankfurt a.M., Germany. Gruber, K. (1999): Experimentelle Untersuchungen zum idealen Aminosurenverhltnis in der Broilerftterung. Doctoral thesis, Institute of Nutrition Physiology of the Technical University of Munich, Germany. Gruber, K., F. X. Roth and M. Kirchgessner (2000): Effect of partial dietary amino acid deductions on growth rate and nitrogen balance in growing chicks. Archiv fr Geflgelkunde 64 (6): 244-250.
8
di i
Hoehler, D. (2000): Evaluation of amino acid dose-response data and implications for commercial formulation of broiler diets. AminoNewsTM 1 (1): 9-16. Kidd, M.T., W. A. Dozier III, S. J. Barber, W. S. Virden, D. W. Chamblee and C. Wiernusz (2002): Threonine needs of Cobb male broilers from days 42 to 56. Abstracts International Poultry Scientific Forum, 14.-15. January, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 5-6. Law, G., A. Adjiri-Awere, P. B. Pencharz and R. O. Ball (2000): Gut mucins in piglets are dependent upon dietary threonine. Advances in Pork Production, Proceedings of the 2000 Banff Pork Seminar, Volume 11, Abstract #10. Lien, K., W. Sauer and M. Fenton (1997): Mucin output in ileal digesta of pigs fed a protein-free diet. Zeitschrift fr Ernhrungswissenschaft 36 (2): 182-190.
Mack, S., D. Bercovici, G. de Groote, B. Leclercq, M. Lippens, M. Pack, J. B. Schutte and S. van Cauwenberghe (1999): Ideal amino acid profile and dietary lysine specification for broiler chickens of 20 to 40 days of age. British Poultry Science 40: 257-265. Morris, T. R. (1989): The Interpretation of response data from animal feeding trials. In: Recent developments in Poultry Nutrition. Butterworths, London, UK. Ed.: Cole, D.J.A. and W. Haresign. 1-11. NRC (1994): Nutrient requirement of poultry - Ninth revised edition. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., USA. Pack, M. and J. B. Schutte (1995): Sulfur amino acid requirement of broiler chicks from fourteen to thirty-eight days of age 2. Economic evaluation. Poultry Science 74: 488-493.
Schutte, J. B. (1996): Aminozurenbehoefte von leghennen en vleeskuikens. CVB (Centraal Veevoederbureau) documentatiereport nr. 18. Zhu, C. L. and C. F. M. de Lange (2001): Influence of graded levels of pectin on the utilization of dietary threonine and lysine for body protein deposition. Proceedings of the Canadian Society of Animal Science.
9
di i
Degussa AG Feed Additives Rodenbacher Chaussee 4 D-63457 Hanau-Wolfgang Germany Marketing Tel: +49-6181-59-6782 Fax: +49-6181-59-6734 Applied Technology Tel: +49-6181-59-2256 Fax: +49-6181-59-2192
AminoNewsTM
NAFTA Degussa Corporation Feed Additives 1255 Roberts Blvd., Suite 110 Kennesaw, GA 30144-3694 Tel: +1-770-419-8812 Fax: +1-770-419-8814 ASPAC Degussa (SEA) Pte. Ltd. 3 International Business Park Nordic European Centre # 07-18 Singapore 609927 Tel: + 65-6890-6865 Fax: + 65-6890-6870 E-mail: feed.additives@degussa.com Internet: www.aminoacidsandmore.com
The information and statements contained herein are provided free of charge. They are believed to be accurate at the time of publication, but Degussa makes no warranty with respect thereto, including but not limited to any results to be obtained or the infringement of any proprietary rights. Use or application of such information
or statements is at user's sole discretion, without any liability on the part of Degussa. Nothing herein shall be construed as a license of or recommendation for use which infringes upon any proprietary rights. All sales are subject to Degussa General Conditions of Sale and Delivery.
di i