(Coturnix coturnix japonica) during rearing and laying periods - IBNA

76
M. M. Nagharchi et al.
The effects of fermented and dried whey powder on
performance and nutrient digestibility in broilers
M. M. Nagharchi 1† , M. G. Jouybari 1 , V. Rezaeipour 1 , N. Dehpanah 2
1 Department of Animal Science, Islamic Azad University Ghaemshahr Branch.Iran
2 Department of Animal Science, Agricultural University of Sari. Iran
SUMMARY
In this experiment, effects of fermented and dried whey powder on
performance, protein and fat digestibility were investigated. The experiment
included 280 Ross broilers from 1 to 42 days of age. Birds were randomly
allocated to 7 treatments, with 4 replicates of 10 birds in each. Treatments
include T1.Negative Control (basal diet, with no added whey); T2 – Negative
Control + 1/5% dried whey powder, T3 – Negative Control + 3% dried whey
powder, T4 – Negative Control + 4/5% dried whey powder, T5- Negative
control + 1/5% fermented whey, T6- Negative control + 3% fermented whey
and T7- Negative control + 4/5% fermented whey. All treatments received
whey during whole period of rearing. The results obtained in this experiment
showed that the both kinds of whey significantly increased body weight gain
(P

Analele IBNA vol. 26, 2010 77
particular is improved. However the use of growth-promoting antibiotics is
being placed under more and more Pressure as consumers increasingly fear that
their use in feed rations of productive live stocks leads to the formation of
resistance against bacteria which are pathogenic to humans (Langhout, 2000).
Some prebiotics are an alternative to antibiotic to be used exclusively as a
growth stimulant and for improvement of the feed conversion rate in farm
animals (Esteive et al., 1997).A prebiotic compound was defined by Gibson and
Roberfroid(1995) as " a nondigestible feed ingredient that beneficially affect the
host by selectively stimulating the grows and/or activity one or a limited
number of bacteria in the colon and then improves got health. Whey can be used
as a prebiotic. Lactose that is a major compound of whey, is a prebiotic but
since poultry are lacking lactase (harms et al., 1997), lactose can not be digested
or absorbed efficiently and almost reaches to ceca and large intestine intact
(Langhout, 1989). In ceca, the population of useful bacteria likes lactobacillus
and bifidobacteria (Zigger, 2000) increases and the pH of the GIT, due to
increasing production of volatile fatty acids (VFAs), decreases. Therefore the
environment of GIT becomes unsuitable for the activity and proliferation of
pathogens like salmonella. On the other hand, a small decreasing in intestinal
pH can improve nutrient digestibility. Studies with broiler chicks were indicated
a positive response to dietary supplementation of prebiotic on nutrient
digestibility (Biggs and parsons, 2007; Biggs, Parsons and Fahey, 2007).
Kermanshahi and Rostami observed significant improvements in positive
bacteria population for broiler chicks fed dried whey powder as a prebiotic. The
review of literature showed that, fermentation of dried whey powder in the GIT
produce CO2 that can be harmful for broiler. Fermented whey is a kind of whey
that is fermented during producing process and can decrease the gas production
in the intestine. Because of this, in the present study, we used two kinds of
whey (fermented and dried whey powder) as new prebiotic on performance and
nutrient digestibility.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
In this study, totally 280, day-old Ross 308 chicks were used. The chicks
were divided into 7 groups, 6 treatment groups and a control group, with 10
chicks in each. Each group was housed separately in individual. Forty two
stainless steel cages 40 × 65 × 98 cm were used to accommodate 10 chicks per
m 2 . Plastic holed flooring was used as bedding. The chicks were fed standard
starter (from 1 to 21 d), and grower (from 22 to 42 d) diets according to NRC
(1994) (Table 1 and 2). Groups were randomly assigned to following treatment
groups, (1) Basal diet-no additives (control), (2) Basal diet + 1.5 % dried whey
powder, (3) Basal diet + 3 % dried whey powder, (4) Basal diet + 4.5 % dried
whey powder, (5) Basal diet + 1.5% fermented whey, (6) Basal diet + 3%
fermented whey and (7) Basal diet + 4.5% fermented diet. Each experimental
group was fed ad libitum with its own diet for 42 d. The temperature of the

78
M. M. Nagharchi et al.
room with continuous lighting was maintained at 33˚ C initially, and reduced by
3˚ C/wk until reached 21˚ C, at which the room temperature was maintained for
the end of experiment. Light was provided 24 h a day. Body weight gain, feed
consumption and feed efficiency (feed: gain) were checked weekly. At the end
of the study period (day 42), one bird was randomly selected from each
replicate of each treatment group and moved to metabolic cage and reared for 7
days. During this period, chicks were fed by their diet with 0/3% chromic oxide.
3 days of the beginning of this period was as adaptation period and after than
fecal samples were collected daily. At the end of this period (7 days), all chicks
were slaughtered and ileum (from Meckel’s diverticulum to 1 cm above
ileocaecal junction) samples were collected. All of the samples weighted in
aluminum foil and were dried in an oven at 60˚ C. After 48 hours, they ground
in a mixer and heated in an oven at 600˚ C to remove organic matter. The
grounded samples were used to measurement quantities of protein, fat and dry
matter. The protein content (N×6.25) of diet and individual samples of excreta
was determined by the Kjeldahl method after acid digestion. Ileum and fecal
chromium (Cr) were analyzed by the procedure described by Fenton and Fenton
(1979), using spectrophotometry. Fat and protein digestibility were calculated
using the following formula:
100% - [100% × (Cr concentration in feed ÷Cr concentration in excreta) ×
(fat or protein concentration in excreta ÷ fat or protein concentration in feed)]
Table 1: Starter diet composition
Ingredients Diet Diet with
(%) without 1.5%
whey dried
whey
Corn 58.0
Soybean 37.9
Fat 0
DCP 1.65
CaCO3 1.31
Salt 0.2
Methionine 0.2
Lysine 0.04
Additive 0.55
Sodium bi 0.1
carbonate
Whey 0
Calculated analysis
ME kcal/kg) 2879
CP %
CA %
AP%
MET %
LYZ %
21.81
0.95
0.47
0.55
1.3
57.1
37.4
0
1.61
1.3
0.2
0.2
0.04
0.55
0.1
1.5 %
2864
21.69
0.95
0.47
0.55
1.3
Diet with
3% dried
whey
56.1
37.0
0
1.56
1.3
0.2
0.2
0.04
0.55
0.1
3%
2850
21.59
0.95
0.47
0.55
1.3
Diet with
4.5% dried
whey
54.9
36.6
0
1.52
1.3
0.2
0.2
0.04
0.55
0.1
4.5%
2840
21.51
0.95
0.47
0.55
1.3
Diet with
1.5%
fermented
whey
56.9
37.6
0
1.63
1.29
0.2
0.2
0.04
0.55
0.1
1.5%
2855
21.63
0.95
0.47
0.55
1.3
Diet with
3%
fermented
whey
55.8
37.2
0
1.6
1.28
0.2
0.2
0.04
0.55
0.1
3%
2831
21.45
0.95
0.47
0.55
1.3
Diet with
4.5%
fermented
whey
53.6
37.5
0
1.58
1.26
0.2
0.2
0.04
0.55
0.1
4.5%
2830
21.43
0.95
0.47
0.55
1.3

Table 2: Grower Diet composition
Ingredients Diet Diet with Diet with
(%) without 1.5% 3% dried
whey dried whey
whey
Corn 65/2 63/6 62/6
Soybean 30/1 30/1 29/8
Fat 0/29 0/6 0/6
DCP 1/58 1/81 1/76
CaCO3 1/38 1/38 1/38
Salt 0/24 1/9 0/1
Methionine 0/23 0/23 0/23
Lysine 0/08 0/06 0
Additive 0/55 0/55 0/55
Sodium bi 0 0/06 0/29
carbonate
Whey 0 1.5 % 3%
Calculated analysis
ME kcal/kg) 2950 2950 2940
CP %
CA %
AP%
MET %
LYZ %
19.03
1.1
0.85
0.55
1.1
19.03
1.1
0.85
0.55
1.1
Analele IBNA vol. 26, 2010 79
18.96
1.1
0.5
0.55
1.05
Diet with
4.5% dried
whey
61/5
24/9
0/6
1/72
1/37
0/14
0/23
0
0/55
0/09
4.5%
2920
18.83
1.1
0.5
0.55
1.05
Diet with
1.5%
fermented
whey
62/9
30/5
0/82
1/81
1/38
0/23
0/23
0/05
0/55
0
1.5%
2950
19.03
1.1
0.85
0.55
1.1
Diet with
3%
fermented
whey
61/2
30/5
1/08
1/76
1/38
0/16
0/23
0/0
0/55
0/08
3%
2940
18.96
1.1
0.5
0.55
1.07
Diet with
4.5%
fermented
whey
58/9
30/9
1/62
1/71
1/37
0/16
0/23
0
0/55
0/06
4.5%
2940
18.96
1.1
0.5
0.55
1.09
Statistical analysis
The data obtained were analyzed by SAS (1990) with a General Linear
Models procedure for ANOVA, for each experiment. Differences between
means were analyzed with Duncan’s multiple gaps test. The significant
difference statements were based on the possibility p0.05), but there were significantly differences between treatments
about weight gain during starter (P>0.05). As a result, the best feed conversion
ratios were found for the groups in which the broilers were fed the diet
containing both kinds of whey in starter and grower. From 1 to 42 days of age,
feed intake was higher in broilers fed the basal diet (negative control) as
compared with those fed the diet with prebiotic (Table2). Also in this period,
treatments affected weight gain, and treatments that consumed the feed
containing prebiotic in total period and in starter and grower presented better
feed conversion ratios as compared to basal diet. When the entire rearing period
was evaluated, feed intake of broilers fed prebiotic was significantly lower than
in the basal diet except T4 (4.5% dried whey powder) and T5 (1.5% fermented

80
M. M. Nagharchi et al.
whey). It is also evidenced that the best feed conversion ratio in this period was
presented by the broilers fed the diet with prebiotic. At the end of experiment,
results about nutrient digestibility shown that treatments significantly affected
on protein and fat digestibility (P>0.05). Significantly differences were
observed in treatment that consumed the feed containing prebiotic (P>0.05),
specially about T6 (3% fermented whey) that have had highest digestibility for
both fat and protein in faecal and ileum. In all treatment that was fed with whey,
nutrient digestibility in faecal was higher than basal diet (P>0.05).
DISCUSSIONS
The addition of whey as a prebiotic to diets may influence broiler weight
gain (Jones & Ricke, 2005). However, the main objective of using these
compounds in broiler diets is to improve their feed conversion ratio (Dibner &
Richards, 2005), as was observed in this study. The mechanism that explains the
action of prebiotics is focused on gastrointestinal tract, as most of these
products are not absorbed, and are not efficient as growth promoters in germfree
animals (Coates et al., 1955; Coates et al., 1963). Therefore, it maybe
speculated that there is a strong interaction between prebiotics and the intestinal
micro flora. The improvement in performance (feed conversion ratio) of birds
fed with diets containing the tested prebiotic shows that the use of these
products is a feasible alternative to antibiotics used as growth promoters.
Similar results were also found by Maiorka et al. (2001), Pelicano et al. (2004),
and Pelícia et al. (2004). Wolf et al (1998) hypothesized that when a
fermentable carbohydrate reached the hind gut, the bacterial mass in the hind
gut increased due to increased energy (the prebiotic ) reaching the hind gut.
When carbohydrate are limited in the hind gut, bacteria increase fermentation of
amino acids to short-chain fatty acids and ammonia to obtain energy (Russell et
al., 1991); however, when energy is sufficient, the luminal concentration of
nitrogenous compounds decreases and the concentration of fecal nitrogen
(bacterial mass) increases (Cummings et al 1987). The latter caused a decrease
in amino acid digestibility, particularly when high levels of an oligosaccharide
were fed. On the other hand, Xu et al (2003), evaluated the effect of a prebiotic
in the name of fructooligosaccharids (FOS), on small intestinal digestive
enzyme activity of total protease, amylase, and lipase in 49-d-old broilers and
fund that these enzymes activity were improved by 27, 75 and 32%
respectively, compared with unsupplemented broilers when FOS was
supplemented at 4 g/kg. thus, the improvement in protein and fat digestibility in
current study may have been due to increase in proteolytic and lipase activity in
the small intestine. Positive effects of oligosaccharides (prebiotic) on nutrient
digestibility were observed by Wu et al. (1999) and Batal & Parsons, (2002).
There are some hypothetical mechanisms that can explain the improved nutrient
digestibility in fermented whey fed chickens. One of these mechanisms is the
acidifying effect of the fermented whey in the interior part of the

Analele IBNA vol. 26, 2010 81
gastrointestinal tract. Because the pH of the fermented whey is lower than the
pH generally observed in the small intestine (Heres et al, 2003), the fermented
whey lowers the small intestine pH. It was shown that a normal decrease in
small intestine pH can improve nutrient digestibility as was shown in current
study.
Table 2 - Feed intake (FI), weight gain (WG), feed conversion ratio (FCR), faecal and
illeal protein and fat digestibility of broilers fed prebiotic from 1 to 42 days of age.
Treatments/factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SEM
Starter 928 931 916 931 933 911 932 8.46
FI Grower 3189 3172 3097 3192 3189 3047 3128 30.62
Total 4114 4068 4014 4123 4123 3959 4061 103.3
Starter 671 b 715 ab 706 ab 735 a 724 ab 688 ab 719 ab 8.46
WG Grower 1797 1804 1753 1890 1890 1779 1847 34.8
Total 2468 2519 2459 2625 2611 2467 2566 55.5
Starter 1.38 a 1.30 b 1.30 b 1.26 b 1.28 b 1.32 b 1.29 b 0.03
FCR Grower 1.77 1.74 1.76 1.69 1.68 1.71 1.69 0.03
Total 1.66 1.61 1.63 1.57 1.57 1.60 1.58 0.03
Fecal protein 71.55 c 76.95 a 76.36 a 78.33 a 77.99 a 84.49 a 78.21 b 0.7
digestibility %
Fecal fat
73.36 d 81.82 c 83.06 bc 84.02 b 82.97 bc 87.36 a 86.52 a 0.62
digestibility%
Ileal protein 67.55 d 72.48 bcd 73.38 bc 70.99 cd 72.51 bcd 79.78 a 71.71 ab 0.87
digestibility %
Ileal fat
67.05 d 73.98 c 75.14 c 79.41 ab 76.65 bc 83.42 c 82.78 ab 0.99
digestibility%
Means without a common superscripts in per row are significantly different (P

82
M. M. Nagharchi et al.
Dibner JJ, Richards JD. 2005. Antibiotic growth promoters in agriculture:
History and mode action. Poultry Science; 84:634-643.
Esteive, G. E., J. Brufau and V. A. M. A. K. Perez, 1997. Bioefficacy of enzyme
preparations containing betaglucanese and xylanase activities in broiler diets
based on barley or heat, in combination with flavomycin. Poultry Science.
76: 1728-1737.
Fenton, T.W. and M. Fenton, 1979. Determination of chromic oxide in feed and
feces. Canadian Journal of Animal Science.58: 631-634.
Gibson, G. R, and M. B. Roberfroid. 1995. Dietary modulation of the human
colonic microbiota-introduccing the concept of prebiotics. Journal of
Nutrition.125:1401-1412
Harms, R. H, B. L. Damron and C. F. Simpson. 1997. Effect of wet litter and
supplemental biotin and/or whey on the production of feet pad dermatitis in
broilers. Poultry science. 56:291-299
Kermanshahi H, and H. Rostami. 2006. Influence of supplemental dried whey
on broiler performance and cecal frola. International journal of poultry
science. 5(6):538-543
Langhout, P., 2000. New additives for broiler chickens. Feed Mix. 24-27.
Maiorka A, Santin E, Sugeta S, Almeida JG, Macari M. 2001. Utilização de
prebióticos, probióticos ou simbióticos em dietas para frangos. Revista
Brasileira de Ciência Avícola; 3:75-82.
Pelicano ERL, Souza PA, Souza HBA, Leonel FR, Zeola NMBL, Boiago MM.
2004. Productive traits of broiler chickens fed diets containing different
growth promoters. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science; 6:177-182.
Pelícia K, Mendes AA, Saldanha ESPB, Pizzolante CC, Takahashi SE, Moreira
J, Garcia RG, Quinteiro RR, Paz ICLA, Komiyama CM. 2004. Use of
prebiotics and probiotics of bacterial and yeast origin for freerange broiler
chickens. British Journal of Poultry Science; 6:163-169.
Russell, J. B, R. Onodera, and T. Hino. 1991. Ruminal protein fermentation:new
perspectives on previous contradictions. Academic pres, New York, NY.
681-697
Wolf, B. W, J. L. Firkins and X. Zhang. 1998. Varying dietary concentrations of
fructooligosaccharide affect apparent absorption and balance of minerals in
growing rats. Nutriton Resource. 17:1791-1806
Wu, T. X,. X. Y. Dai and L. Y. Wu. 1999. effects of fructooligosaccharide on
the broiler production. Acta agric. Zhejiangensis 11:85-87
Xu, Z. R, C. H. Hu, M. S. Xia, X. A. Zhan, and M. Q. Wang. 2003. Effects of
dietary fructooligosaccharide on digestive enzyme activities, intestinal
microflora and morphology of male broilers. Poultry Science. 82:1030-1036
Ziggers, D. 2000. A new prebiotic derived from whey. Feed tec. 5:34-36