The effects of fermentation and enzymatic treatment of pea on nutrient digestibility and growth performance of broilers

Abstract

The present study examined the impacts of native, fermented or enzymatically treated peas (Pisum sativum L.) inclusion in broiler diets, on growth performance and nutrient digestibility. For the fermentation process, Madonna pea was mixed with water (1/1) containing 2.57 × 10 8 Bacillus subtilis (GalliPro ® ) spores/kg pea and then, incubated for 48 h at 30°C. For the enzymatic treatment process, the used water for dough production contained three enzymes, AlphaGal TM (α-galactosidase), RONOZYME ® ProAct and VP (protease and pectinases respectively -DSM, Switzerland) and the pea dough incubated for 24 h at 30°C. Nine corn-wheatsoybean diets were formulated by supplying 10%, 20% and 30% of the required CP with either native, fermented or enzymatically treated peas. Performance was recorded weekly and at the end of the experiment (day 35), apparent ileal digestibility (AID) of CP, amino acids (AA), crude fat, starch, Ca, P and K were determined. Data were subjected to ANOVA using GLM procedure with a 3 × 3 factorial arrangement of treatments. Both processes reduced α-galactosides, phytate, trypsin inhibitor activity and resistant starch in peas. Increasing levels of pea products up to 300 g/kg diet, reduced BW gain and feed intake (P ⩽ 0.05). Broilers fed diets containing enzymatically treated pea had the best feed conversion ratio at day 35. Different types of pea product and their inclusion levels had no effect on AID of all nutrients. The interaction between type of the pea products and inclusion levels was significant for AID of starch. For native pea diets, 10% group showed similar AID of starch to 20% native pea but it had higher AID than 30% native pea. For fermented and enzymatically treated groups, all three levels displayed similar AID of starch. In conclusion, enzymatic treatment and fermentation could improve the nutritional quality of pea. Inclusion of enzymatically treated pea in broiler diets could improve broiler performance compared with other pea products while, it displayed neither positive nor negative impact on nutrient digestibility. The present findings indicate the feasibility of these processes, particularly enzymatic treatment, for improving the nutritional quality of pea as a protein source for broiler nutrition.Keywords: anti-nutritional factors, enzymatic treatment, legumes, solid state fermentation, α-galactosides ImplicationsThere is an urgent need for new plant proteins for poultry nutrition. As is, the majority of protein needs for poultry production are covered by the soybean products. The dependence of European feed production industry on soybean as well as the growing economic, environmental and ethical concerns on the loss of ecologically important rainforests have led to an increasing demand for homegrown and sustainable protein sources (e.g. European domestic grain legumes) for feeding livestock. The present study aimed to evaluate innovative and classic biotechnological approaches for production of high quality alternatives for soybean meal from domestic European peas. Intro...

Microbial Population Succession and Community Diversity and Its Correlation with Fermentation Quality in Soybean Meal Treated with Enterococcus faecalis during Fermentation and Aerobic Exposure

“…Protease and ZZUPF95 + Protease groups held the more significant effect on the degradation of large protein molecules compared with that of SBM, CK and ZZUPF95, and the degradation effect was more obvious in the aerobic exposure of ZZUPF95 + Protease group. The mixed group fermented SBM by LAB with complementary protease to synergistically degrade large molecule proteins in feed ingredients into small molecule peptides that can be easily absorbed by animals, thereby increasing the nutritional value and conversion rate of feed [ 39 ].…”

Synergism of microorganisms and enzymes in solid-state fermentation of animal feed. A review

“…Indeed, the effect of soyabean meal co-fermented by protease and probiotics was shown to be superior to single fermentation or enzymatic process in broilers (Cheng et al, 2019). It has also been reported that, from the perspective of nutrition, the proportion of nutrients, and especially amino acids proportion of some inexpensive and single protein feed materials, becomes balanced after the co-fermentation by B. subtilis, protease and pectinases (Goodarzi Boroojeni et al, 2017;.…”

“…xylanase (Chu et al, 2017) Palm kernel (Trachycarpus fortunei) cake Lactobacillus plantarum (Lee et al, 2019), Paenibacillus curdlanolyticus (Alshelmani et al, 2014) hemicellulase (xylanase, mannanase), cellulase, proteolytic (endoprotease) (Lee et al, 2019;Olukomaiya et al, 2019) Peas (Pisum sativum L.) Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus licheniformis (Goodarzi Boroojeni et al, 2017; α-glucosidase, protease, pectinase (Goodarzi Boroojeni et al, 2017; Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) Lactobacillus plantarum, Rhizopus oryzae (Wang et al, 2019), lacto-acid bacteria (Yasar and Tosun, 2018) glucoamylase (Wang et al, 2019), cellulose (Yasar and Tosun, 2018) Grain (Olyza sativa L.) by-product Pediococcus acidilactici (Bartkiene et al, 2018) xylanase, cellulase, β-glucanase (Bartkiene et al, 2018) Potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) Lactobacillus plantarum (Du et al, 2018) cellulose (Du et al, 2018) Maize (Zea mays L.) stalk Chaetomium, white-rot fungi, Lactobacillus plantarum (Atuhaire et al, 2016), Bacillus licheniformis (Alokika and Singh, 2019) cellulase, xylanase (Alokika and Singh, 2019) Maize (Zea mays L.) cob Bacillus subtilis (Jia et al, 2017), Bacillus licheniformis, Lactobacillus plantarum, Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Alokika and Singh, 2019) xylanase (Alokika and Singh, 2019), cellulase, hydrolysis enzyme (Jia et al, 2017) Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) Lactobacillus plantarum, Pediococcus pentosaceus (Chen et al, 2019), yeast, lacto-acid bacteria (Ding et al, 2013), Lactobacillus buchneri (Kung et al, 2003) cellulase, hemicellulose (Chen et al, 2019), viscozyme (Schmidt et al, 2001), plant enzyme (Ding et al, 2013), β-glucanase, α-amylase, xylanase, and galactomannase (Kung et al, 2003) Blood meal Bacillus subtilis…”

The Use of Biologically Converted Agricultural Byproducts in Chicken Nutrition

“…It has been reported that bacterial fermentation results in the production of a considerable amount of lactic acids, which would retard harmful bacterial multiplication in the gut, minimize nutrient and dry matter (D.M.) loss during storage, and boost the palatability of the diet to the animal [11,12].…”