Effect of phytase on phytate P utilization by turkeys
No Thumbnail Available
Meeting name
Sponsors
Date
Journal Title
Format
Technical Report
Abstract
An in vitro method was developed for poultry to predict inorganic phosphorus release from maize-soya bean feeds containing supplemental phytase (E.C. 3.1.3.8), and to quantify the effect of acid phosphatase (E.C. 3.1,3.2.), fungal protease (E.C. 3.4.23.6) and Aspergillus niger cellulase (E.C. 3.2.1.4.) on phytate dephosphorylation. Pepsin and pancreatin digestion periods were preceded by a 30 min preincubation at pH 5.25 to simulate digestion in the crop of poultry. Pancreatin digestion was carried out in dialysis tubings, with a ratio of about 1:25 (v/v) between the digesta and dialyzing medium, to simulate gradient absorption from the duodenum. The feed/water ratio was kept within physiological limits and a constant feed weight to digestive enzymes was maintained. There was a linear response to increasing dosages of phytase up to 1000 FTU/kg feed, and to increasing phosphate concentration in feeds. In vivo validation was performed with growing turkeys (1-3 wk) fed diets containing 12 g/kg of calcium; 0, 500, 1000 FTU/kg of phytase in a factorial arrangement with 0, 1, 2, 3 g/kg of supplemental phosphate (from KH2PO4). After a simple transformation (variable/in vitro phosphorus = f (in vitro phosphorus)) amounts of phosphorus hydrolyzed from feed samples by in vitro digestions correlated with the 3 week body weight gains (R= 0.986 P [less than] 0.0001), toe ash (R=0.952 P [less than] 0.0001), feed intake (R=0.994 P [less than] 0.0001) and feed efficiency (R=0.992 P [less than] 0.0001). The dephosphorylating ability of phytase in vitro was significantly enhanced (P [less than] 0.05) by the addition of acid phosphatase. Fungal acid protease and Aspergillus niger cellulase also enhanced the dephosphorylation process in vitro.
This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Missouri Water Center under the Grant/Cooperative Agreement.
The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S. Geological Survey or Missouri Water Center. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey or Missouri Water Center.
This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Missouri Water Center under the Grant/Cooperative Agreement.
The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S. Geological Survey or Missouri Water Center. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey or Missouri Water Center.