Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-rnpqb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T06:13:57.001Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of particle size and microbial phytase on phytate degradation in incubated maize and soybean meal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2014

M. A. Ton Nu ,
K. Blaabjerg  and
H. D. Poulsen
M. A. Ton Nu
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, P.O. Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
K. Blaabjerg
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, P.O. Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
H. D. Poulsen*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, P.O. Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
*
†E-mail: hdp@agrsci.dk
Get access

Abstract

The objective of the study was to evaluate the effect of screen size (1, 2 and 3 mm) and microbial phytase (0 and 1000 FTU/kg as-fed) on phytate degradation in maize (100% maize), soybean meal (100% SBM) and maize–SBM (75% maize and 25% SBM) incubated in water for 0, 2, 4, 8 and 24 h at 38°C. Samples were analysed for pH, dry matter and phytate phosphorus (P). Particle size distribution (PSD) and average particle size (APS) of samples were measured by the Laser Diffraction and Bygholm method. PSD differed between the two methods, whereas APS was similar. Decreasing screen size from 3 to 1 mm reduced APS by 48% in maize, 30% in SBM and 26% in maize–SBM. No interaction between screen size and microbial phytase on phytate degradation was observed, but the interaction between microbial phytase and incubation time was significant (P<0.001). This was because microbial phytase reduced phytate P by 88% in maize, 84% in maize–SBM and 75% in SBM after 2 h of incubation (P<0.05), whereas the reduction of phytate P was limited (<50%) in the feeds, even after 24 h when no microbial phytase was added. The exponential decay model was fitted to the feeds with microbial phytase to analyse the effect of screen size and feed on microbial phytase efficacy on phytate degradation. The interaction between screen size and feed affected the relative phytate degradation rate (Rd) of microbial phytase as well as the time to decrease 50% of the phytate P (t $\scale70%{\vskip3pt{{\scale60%{\vskip-7pt1}{\hskip-3pt\vskip-5.6pt\rot160/}{\scale60%{\hskip-4pt\vskip0pt2}$ ) (P<0.001). Thus, changing from 3 to 1 mm screen size increased Rd by 22 and 10%/h and shortened t $\scale70%{\vskip3pt{{\scale60%{\vskip-7pt1}{\hskip-3pt\vskip-5.6pt\rot160/}{\scale60%{\hskip-4pt\vskip0pt2}$ by 0.4 and 0.2 h in maize and maize–SBM, respectively (P<0.05), but not in SBM. Moreover, the screen size effect was more pronounced in maize and maize–SBM compared with SBM as a higher phytate degradation rate constant (Kd) and Rd, and a shorter t $\scale70%{\vskip3pt{{\scale60%{\vskip-7pt1}{\hskip-3pt\vskip-5.6pt\rot160/}{\scale60%{\hskip-4pt\vskip0pt2}$ was observed in maize compared with SBM in all screen sizes (P<0.05). However, a higher amount of degraded phytate was achieved in SBM than in maize because of the higher initial phytate P content in SBM. In conclusion, reducing screen size from 3 to 1 mm increased Kd and Rd and decreased t $\scale70%{\vskip3pt{{\scale60%{\vskip-7pt1}{\hskip-3pt\vskip-5.6pt\rot160/}{\scale60%{\hskip-4pt\vskip0pt2}$ in maize and maize–SBM with microbial phytase. The positive effect of grinding on improving microbial phytase efficacy, which was expressed as Kd, Rd and t $\scale70%{\vskip3pt{{\scale60%{\vskip-7pt1}{\hskip-3pt\vskip-5.6pt\rot160/}{\scale60%{\hskip-4pt\vskip0pt2}$ , was greater in maize than in SBM.

Keywords

phosphorusenzyme efficacyfeed processingsoakingscreen size
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , April 2014 , pp. 534 - 541
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adeola, O, Sands, JS, Simmins, PH and Schulze, H 2004. The efficacy of an Escherichia coli-derived phytase preparation. Journal of Animal Science 82, 2657–2666.Google Scholar
Amerah, AM and Ravindran, V 2009. Influence of particle size and microbial phytase supplementation on the performance, nutrient utilisation and digestive tract parameters of broiler starters. Animal Production Science 49, 704–710.Google Scholar
Amerah, AM, Gilbert, C, Simmins, PH and Ravindran, V 2011. Influence of feed processing on the efficacy of exogenous enzymes in broiler diets. Worlds Poultry Science Journal 67, 29–46.Google Scholar
Benz, CK, Tokach, MD, Groesbeck, CN, Dritz, SS, Nelssen, JL and DeRouchey, JM 2005. A comparison of Bygholm feed sieve to standard particle-size analysis techniques. In Kansas State University Swine Research 2005, Report of Progress 964 (ed. B Goodband, M Tokach, S Dritz and J DeRouchey), pp. 184–189. Kansas State University. Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, Manhattan, KS, USA.Google Scholar
Blaabjerg, K and Poulsen, HD 2010. Microbial phytase and liquid feeding increase phytate degradation in the gastrointestinal tract of growing pigs. Livestock Science 134, 88–90.Google Scholar
Blaabjerg, K, Carlsson, NG, Hansen-Møller, J and Poulsen, HD 2010a. Effect of heat-treatment, phytase, xylanase and soaking time on inositol phosphate degradation in vitro in wheat, soybean meal and rapeseed cake. Animal Feed Science and Technology 162, 123–134.Google Scholar
Blaabjerg, K, Jorgensen, H, Tauson, AH and Poulsen, HD 2010b. Heat-treatment, phytase and fermented liquid feeding affect the presence of inositol phosphates in ileal digesta and phosphorus digestibility in pigs fed a wheat and barley diet. Animal 4, 876–885.Google Scholar
Blaabjerg, K, Strathe, AB and Poulsen, HD 2012. Modelling phytate degradation kinetics in soaked wheat and barley. Animal Feed Science and Technology 175, 48–56.Google Scholar
Brana, DV, Ellis, M, Castaneda, EO, Sands, JS and Baker, DH 2006. Effect of a novel phytase on growth performance, bone ash, and mineral digestibility in nursery and grower-finisher pigs. Journal of Animal Science 84, 1839–1849.Google Scholar
Carlson, D and Poulsen, HD 2003. Phytate degradation in soaked and fermented liquid feed – effect of diet, time of soaking, heat treatment, phytase activity, pH and temperature. Animal Feed Science and Technology 103, 141–154.Google Scholar
Columbus, D, Niven, SJ, Zhu, CL and de Lange, CFM 2010. Phosphorus utilization in starter pigs fed high-moisture corn-based liquid diets steeped with phytase Journal of Animal Science 88, 3964–3976.Google Scholar
Emiola, A, Akinremi, O, Slominski, B and Nyachoti, CM 2009. Nutrient utilization and manure P excretion in growing pigs fed corn-barley-soybean based diets supplemented with microbial phytase. Animal Science Journal 80, 19–26.Google Scholar
Engelen, AJ, Vanderheeft, FC, Randsdorp, PHG and Smit, ELC 1994. Simple and rapid-determination of phytase activity. Journal of AOAC International 77, 760–764.Google Scholar
Goodband, RD, Tokach, MD and Nelssen, JL 2002. The effects of diet particle size on animal performance. Retrieved December 10, 2013, from http://www.ksre.ksu.edu/bookstore/pubs/MF2050.pdf Google Scholar
Haug, W and Lantzsch, HJ 1983. Sensitive method for the rapid-determination of phytate in cereals and cereal products. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 34, 1423–1426.Google Scholar
Kasim, AB and Edwards, HM 2000. Effect of sources of maize and maize particle sizes on the utilization of phytate phosphorus in broiler chicks. Animal Feed Science and Technology 86, 15–26.Google Scholar
Kerr, BJ, Weber, TE, Miller, PS and Southern, LL 2010. Effect of phytase on apparent total tract digestibility of phosphorus in corn-soybean meal diets fed to finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 88, 238–247.Google Scholar
Koch, K 2002. Hammer mills and roller mills. Retrieved December 10, 2013, from http://www.ksre.ksu.edu/bookstore/pubs/mf2048.pdf Google Scholar
Liu, J, Bollinger, DW, Ledoux, DR, Ellersieck, MR and Veum, TL 1997. Soaking increases the efficacy of supplemental microbial phytase in a low-phosphorus corn-soybean meal diet for growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 75, 1292–1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyberg, K, Lundh, T, Pedersen, C and Lindberg, JE 2006. Influence of soaking, fermentation and phytase supplementation on nutrient digestibility in pigs offered a grower diet based on wheat and barley. Animal Science 82, 853–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansfield, SD, Mooney, C and Saddler, JN 1999. Substrate and enzyme characteristics that limit cellulose hydrolysis. Biotechnology Progress 15, 804–816.Google Scholar
Mavromichalis, I, Hancock, JD, Senne, BW, Gugle, TL, Kennedy, GA, Hines, RH and Wyatt, CL 2000. Enzyme supplementation and particle size of wheat in diets for nursery and finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 78, 3086–3095.Google Scholar
Murphy, A, Conllins, C, Philpotts, A, Bunyan, A and Henman, D 2009. Influence of hammer mill screen size and grain source (wheat or sorghum) on the growth performance of male grower pigs. Retrieved December 10, 2013, from http://www.apri.com.au/html/research_reports.html Google Scholar
Nathier-Dufour, N, Bougeard, L, Devaux, M-F, Bertrand, D and Le Deschault de Monredon, F 1993. Comparison of sieving and laser diffraction for the particle size measurements of raw materials used in foodstuff. Powder Technology 76, 191–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oryschak, MA, Simmins, PH and Zijlstra, RT 2002. Effect of dietary particle size and carbohydrase and/or phytase supplementation on nitrogen and phosphorus excretion of grower pigs. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 82, 533–540.Google Scholar
Pedersen, C and Stein, HH 2010. Effects of liquid and fermented liquid feeding on energy, dry matter, protein and phosphorus digestibility by growing pigs. Livestock Science 134, 59–61.Google Scholar
Sangseethong, K, Meunier-Goddik, L, Tantasucharit, U, Liaw, ET and Penner, MH 1998. Rationale for particle size effect on rates of enzymatic saccharification of microcrystalline cellulose. Journal of Food Biochemistry 22, 321–330.Google Scholar
Silva, GG, Couturier, M, Berrin, J, Buléon, A and Rouau, X 2012. Effects of grinding processes on enzymatic degradation of wheat straw. Bioresource Technology 103, 192–200.Google Scholar
Stuffins, CB 1967. The determination of phosphate and calcium in feeding stuffs. Analyst 92, 107–111.Google Scholar
Summers, JD 2001. Maize: factors affecting its digestibility and variability in its feeding value. In Enzymes in farm animal nutrition (ed. MR Bedford and GG Patridge), pp 109–124. CABI Publishing, Oxon, UK.Google Scholar
Vidal, BC, Dien, BS, Ting, KC and Singh, V 2011. Influence of feedstock particle size on lignocellulose conversion-A review. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 164, 1405–1421.Google Scholar
Walker, T 1999. Physical aspects of grain and effect of feed texture on physical performance. ASA Technical Bulletin AN22-1999. Retrieved December 10, 2013, from http://www.asaimsea.com/index.php?language=en&screenname=__docs_Technical%20Bulletins|Animal%20Nutrition Google Scholar