Bioavailability of liquid methionine hydroxy analogue-free acid relative to DL-methionine in broilers

Abstract

ZELENKA JIŘÍ, HEGER JAROSLAV, MACHANDER VLASTISLAV, WILTAFSKY MARKUS, LEŠTÁK MARTIN: Bioavailability of liquid methionine hydroxy analogue-free acid relative to DL-methionine in broilers.Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 2013, LXI, No. 5, pp. 1513-1520 An experiment with broiler chickens was conducted to compare the relative bioavailability of liquid methionine hydroxy analogue free acid (MHA-FA) with that of DL-methionine (DLM) during fattening to 35 days of age. Ross 308 male chicks were allotted to 9 treatments, each consisting of six replicates of 140 birds/pen. Four graded levels (0.04, 0.08, 0.16, and 0.28 %) of MHA-FA or DLM products (weight/ weight comparison) were added to a maize-wheat-soyabean meal basal diet defi cient in sulphur amino acids. The criteria of response were body weight, feed conversion ratio, carcass yield and breast meat yield. Signifi cant responses to graded levels of both methionine sources were observed in all response criteria. Using a multi-exponential model describing the dose-response relationships, the bioavailability estimates of MHA-FA relative to DLM on a weight-to-weight basis were 68, 70, 54 and 59 % for body weight, feed conversion, carcass yield and breast meat yield, respectively. If MHA-FA was compared with DLM on equimolar basis its bioavailability was 77.7, 79.0, 59.3 and 64.6 for body weight, feed conversion, carcass yield and breast meat yield, respectively. The bioavailability of MHA-FA for carcass yield and breast meat yield was signifi cantly (P < 0.05) lower than that of DLM on a weight-to-weight and on equimolar basis.

Effect of 2-hydroxy-4-methylthio-butanoic acid on ruminal fermentation, bacterial distribution, digestibility, and performance of lactating dairy cows

“…Reportedly, HMTBa is rapidly absorbed and efficiently converted to l-Met in the tissue of nonruminant species (Knight and Dibner, 1984;Dibner, 2003;Jendza et al, 2011) and ruminants (McCollum et al, 2000;Lobley et al, 2006) and serves as a source of methyl groups or Cys synthesis. The bioavailability of HMTBa relative to that of dl-Met has been extensively studied with reports in the literature of 60 to 80% (depending on the function: BW gain, feed conversion, breast meat yield) in broiler chicken (Zelenka et al, 2013) and several meta-analyses have reported bioavailability of 81 to 100% in poultry (Vazquez-Añon et al, 2006;Vedenov and Pesti, 2010). A recent study with 13 C-labeled HMTBa infused intravenously demonstrated that the compound can serve as a source of Met and also has a Met-sparing effect in dairy cows, with 15% of the milk protein Met originating from direct conversion of HMTBa to Met (Lapierre et al, 2011).…”

New statistical approach shows that hydroxy-methionine is noninferior to DL-Methionine in 35-day-old broiler chickens

“… Body weight, g Average daily feed intake, g/d Average daily gain, g Feed conversion ratio Basal diet + DL-Methionine 1 2,741 107.2 77.17 1.385 Basal diet + OH-Methionine 1 2,718 107.1 76.51 1.395 Difference (OH-Methionine - DL-Methionine) −23.2 −0.09 −0.66 0.010 95% Confidence Interval of the difference between OH-Methionine and DL-Methionine [-50.8, 4.46] [-1.03, 0.85] [-1.45, 0.13] [0.0014, 0.0194] Non-inferiority limit (-δL) 2 −190.1 −7.906 −5.334 0.096 P -value noninferiority 3 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 Conclusion Noninferior Noninferior Noninferior Noninferior 1 DL-Methionine and OH-Methionine were supplemented on equimolar basis to a basal diet to reach total sulfur amino acids requirements. 2 The noninferiority margins have been determined using literature ( Vazquez-Anon et al, 2006a ; Zelenka et al, 2013 ; Drażbo et al, 2015 ; Zeitz et al, 2018 ) and three historical datasets from the company. The margins are calculated as the difference between the mean and the confidence interval for each meta-mean presented Table 1 .…”

“… 2 The noninferiority margins have been determined using literature ( Vazquez-Anon et al, 2006a ; Zelenka et al, 2013 ; Drażbo et al, 2015 ; Zeitz et al, 2018 ) and three historical datasets from the company. The margins are calculated as the difference between the mean and the confidence interval for each meta-mean presented Table 1 .…”

“…The first step consisted of estimating with data from previous studies the difference between DL-Met (the reference treatment) and a basal diet (not supplemented in methionine). We considered 7 datasets from trials performed from 0 to 35 d. Four of these datasets were selected from the literature ( Vazquez-Anon et al, 2006a ; Zelenka et al, 2013 ; Drażbo et al, 2015 ; Zeitz et al, 2018 ) and three datasets were historical data of the company. Table 1 summarizes the difference between the control treatment ( DL-Met ) and the basal diet, calculated for the body weight ( BW ), the average daily feed intake ( ADFI ), the average daily gain ( ADG ), and the feed conversion ratio ( FCR ).…”

Safety and efficacy of hydroxy analogue of methionine and its calcium salt (ADRY+®) for all animal species

“…Although some more recent papers (Zou et al., ; Agostini et al., ; Kluge et al., ; Vazquez‐Añon et al., ) appeared to demonstrate bioequivalence between HMTBa and dl ‐methionine in poultry, the FEEDAP Panel concludes on the weight of evidence that HMTBa is likely to be less efficacious than dl ‐methionine in all non‐ruminant species. The main reasons for this lower bioefficacy are (i) the fact that the gut microbiota of the small intestine compete with the host more for HMTBa than for dl ‐methionine (Drew et al., ; Malik et al., ), (ii) commercial HMTBa and its salts may contain besides the free acid/salt, significant amounts of dimers, trimers and oligomers, known to have a lower bioefficacy depending on the manufacturing process (Boebel and Baker, ; Saunderson, ; Van Weerden et al., ; Liu et al., ; Hoehler et al., ; Zimmerman et al., ; Dilger and Baker, ; Elwert et al., ; Shoveller et al., ; Opapeju et al., ; Zelenka et al., ; Sangali et al., ) (see Appendix A).…”