1

THE EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT THERMAL

TREATMENTS AND ORGANIC ACID

LEVELS ON NUTRIENT DIGESTIBILITY IN

BROILERS

Farshad Goodarzi Boroojeni and Jürgen Zentek

Institute of Animal Nutrition

Department of Veterinary Medicine

Freie Universität Berlin

2

Introduction

Thermal processing of feed and the inclusion of organic

acids →

Improve the hygiene of feed (Fancher et al., 1996;

Ricke, 2005; van Immerseel et al., 2009)

Alter the chemical and physical characteristics of

feed ingredients (Jongbloed et al., 2000; Engberg et

al., 2002; Jones, 2011; Abdollahi et al., 2013)

Affect the nutrient digestion and availability (Dibner

and Buttin, 2002; Abdollahi et al., 2013)

3

Evaluate the effect of

Different thermal treatments

Organic acids inclusion levels

→ Hygienic status of feed

Performance

Organ size

Nutrient digestibility

Aim of the study

4

Feed Treatments

Heat treatment Acid supplementation

%

Pelleting at 70 °C (P) 0 0.75 1.5

Long-term conditioning at 85 °C for 3 min (L) 0 0.75 1.5

Expanding at 110 °C for 3-5 sec (E110) 0 0.75 1.5

Expanding at 130 °C for 3-5 sec (E130) 0 0.75 1.5

Lupro-Cid®, BASF: 63.75 % formic acid, 25.00 % propionic acid and 11.25 % water

Starter feed

Grower feed

5

Diet composition

Ingredients (% unless noted) and analyzed nutrient composition of experimental diets

Acid inclusion levels 0% 0.75% 1.50%

Starter Grower Starter Grower Starter Grower

Soybean Meal (49% CP) 32.33 20.83 32.55 21.14 32.77 21.46

Maize 32.03 31.00 30.60 31.00 29.43 31.00

Wheat 24.78 38.98 25.06 37.72 25.06 36.52

Soy oil 5.95 4.30 6.14 4.50 6.34 4.65

Limestone 1.46 1.36 1.46 1.36 1.46 1.36

Monocalcium Phosphate 1.84 1.65 1.84 1.65 1.84 1.65

Vitamin and Mineral Premix2 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20

Salt 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10

DL-Methionine 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.19

L-Lysine 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.12

L-Threonine . 0.06 . 0.06 . 0.05

Lupro-Cid 0 0 0.75 0.75 1.5 1.5

Titanium Dioxide . 0.20 . 0.20 . 0.20

6

Diet composition

Ingredients (% unless noted) and analyzed nutrient composition of experimental diets

Acid inclusion levels 0% 0.75% 1.50%

Starter Grower Starter Grower Starter Grower

Crude Protein (%) 23.27 19.02 23.24 19.38 23.06 19.20

AMEN (MJ/kg) 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6

7

Decontamination Trial

Spoilage indicating bacteria (like Bacillus spp.,

Streptomyces spp. and etc.)

Product typical bacteria (like Flavobacteria,

Enterobacteriaceae and etc.)

Product typical molds (like Verticillium spp.,

Fusarium spp. and etc.)

Spoilage indicating molds (like Aspergillus spp.,

Penicillium spp. and etc.)

Yeasts

8

Animal Trial

Experimental design →

960 birds

12 treatments

8 replicate pens

Experimental period →

Starter (d 1-21)

Grower diet (d 21-35)

9

Parameters

Performance (weekly)

Relative organ weights (35 d)

Apparent ileal and total digestibility (35 d) →

Ileal → Distal 2/3 of ileum

Total → Ileo–caeco–colic junction to the cloaca

10

Impact of heat treatment on native flora (l

og c

fu/g

sta

rter

die

t)

11

Impact of acid treatment on native flora (l

og c

fu/g

sta

rter

die

t)

12

Results

13

Results

P L E110 E130 0 0.75% 1.50% SEM

BWG 2082 2094 2092 2073 2071 2095 2090 11

FI 2953 2988 2979 2991 2969 2980 2984 23

FCR 1.418 1.426 1.423 1.440 1.432 1.421 1.426 0.005

1 Data are means of 8 replicate pens. 10 birds per pen.

Effect of the experimental diets on broiler performance at d 35 (mean1 values)

Heat Acid

14

Results

15

Results

16

The clear trends in apparent ileal digestibilities results → Not

supported by the total digestibility

→ The measured digestibility values at the distal 2/3 of ileum →

A more reliable measure of nutrients availability

Results

17

Results – intestinal microbiota Effect of experimental diets on bacterial cell numbers (in log10) in the gastrointestinal tract of chickens on 35 days of age (mean1 values)

Heat Acid P value

Pellet Long term Expansion 110 Expansion 130 0 % 0.75 % 1.50 % SEM2 Heat Acid Heat*Acid

Cro

p

Lactobacillus spp. 10.1b 10.3ab 10.4ab 10.7a 10.4 10.4 10.4 0.056 0.004 0.863 0.363

E.coli/Hafnia/Shigella 6.5 6.8 7.2 6.6 6.7 6.6 7.0 0.124 0.231 0.428 0.366

Bifidobacterium spp. 4.1b 4.4ab 4.6a 4.2b 4.3 4.4 4.3 0.049 0.002 0.674 0.014

Clostridial cluster I 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.9 5.5b 5.0b 5.9a 0.071 0.388 0.022 0.317

Clostridial cluster IV 7.3 7.2 7.1 7.2 7.0b 7.1ab 7.5a 0.084 0.928 0.032 0.104

Clostridial cluster XIVa 8.1 8.1 8.0 8.1 7.8b 8.5ab 8.3a 0.086 0.956 0.026 0.147

Ileu

m

Lactobacillus spp. 10.4b 10.4b 10.5ab 10.9a 10.8a 10.6ab 10.3b 0.069 0.005 0.011 0.018

Enterobacteria 8.2 8.4 8.1 8.1 8.6a 7.9b 8.0b 0.072 0.421 0.000 0.917

Bifidobacterium spp. 3.4ab 3.2ab 3.0b 3.9a 3.5 3.2 3.5 0.099 0.010 0.341 0.645

Clostridial cluster I I 8.3ab 8.5ab 8.1b 8.5a 8.3 8.2 8.5 0.055 0.044 0.108 0.090

Clostridial cluster IV 7.5 7.7 7.6 7.5 7.7 7.4 7.6 0.077 0.697 0.232 0.964

Clostridial cluster XIVa 8.4 8.5 8.5 8.4 8.5 8.3 8.5 0.055 0.678 0.175 0.876

Caecu

m

Lactobacillus spp. 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.4 0.054 0.411 0.329 0.092

E.coli/Hafnia/Shigella 9.1ab 8.7b 8.6b 9.3a 8.9 8.8 9.1 0.112 0.008 0.456 0.000

Bifidobacterium spp. 5.0 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.1 0.080 0.406 0.757 0.047

Clostridial cluster I I 6.3 6.4 6.3 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.4 0.024 0.508 0.115 0.819

Clostridial cluster IV 9.9a 9.8ab 9.7b 9.9a 9.8 9.9 9.9 0.020 0.001 0.189 0.000

Clostridial cluster XIVa 11.0ab 11.1a 10.9b 11.8a 10.9b 11.1a 11.0ab 0.024 0.000 0.037 0.003

1 Data are means of 6 replicate pens. 1 bird per pen.

a,b Means with different superscripts in a row differ significantly (P ≤ 0.05).

2Pooled standard error of mean.

18

Conclusion

Applied treatments → No interaction effect

Long-term conditioning → Ileal digestibility↓

Applied treatments→ No negative impact on performance

→

High potential of short-term thermal treatment and organic

acids inclusion for feed hygienization

19

Acknowledgement

This work has been funded by the BMBF.

The SiLeBAT project coordinated by Federal Institute for Risk

Assessment.

Diets were provided by the Research Institute of Feed Technology

(Braunschweig-Thune, Germany).

Deep appreciation to A. Kriesten, K. Topp, L. Rode, I. Bebert and M.

Eitinger for scientific and technical support during the animal

experiment and laboratory analysis.