Sangwoo Park1, Jeong Jae Lee1, Boung Mo Yang1, Jin Ho Cho2, Soyun Kim1, Joowon Kang1, Sejong Oh3, Dong-Jun Park4, Rider Perez-Maldonado5, Jee-Yeon Cho6, Il-Hun Park6, Hyeun Bum Kim7, Minho Song1. 1. Division of Animal and Dairy Science, Chungnam National University, Daejeon 34134, Korea. 2. Division of Food and Animal Science, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju 28644, Korea. 3. Department of Animal Science, Chonnam National University, Gwangju 61186, Korea. 4. Korea Food Research Institute, Wanju 55365, Korea. 5. DSM Nutritional Products Asia Pacific, Mapletree Business City 117440, Singapore. 6. DSM Nutrition Korea Ltd., Seoul 06675, Korea. 7. Department of Animal Resources Science, Dankook University, Cheonan 31116, Korea.
Soybean meal (SBM) is a major protein source in swine diets due to its excellent
balance of amino acid such as lysine, threonine, tryptophan, and others. [1]. In general, SBM is the by-product of whole
or dehulled soybeans after extraction of soy oil and contains approximately
44%–48% of crude protein (CP) [2,3]. However, SBM contains relatively high
contents of anti-nutritional factors (ANFs) including protease inhibitors,
allergens, lectins, phytoestrogens, oligosaccharedses, and phytin. [3-5]. Especially, the protease inhibitors reduce protein availability in the
gastrointestinal tract of pigs because they bind and inactivate trypsin and
chymotrypsin digestive enzymes [6]. These ANFs
also have negative effects on utilization of dietary proteins and the health of pigs
[7,8].Addition of exogenous enzymes in animal diets has being successfully used to improve
the availability of nutrients and to reduce feed costs in the animal industry [9]. Dietary protease (PR) is an exogenous enzyme
able to degrade proteins and has being widely used in swine diets as a part of
multi-enzyme products [10]. Several studies
have reported supplementation of enzyme cocktails with protease in swine diets
enhanced protein digestion and growth performacnce of weaning, growing, and
finishing pigs [11-13]. Recent studies also reported addition of
PR alone in swine diets impoved gut development and health of weaned pigs by
breaking down protein-bound complexes with other ANFs and affected positively
nutrient digestibility and growth performace of pigs [9,11-15]. However, there was limited information about effects of PR
when given alone in swine diets. Therefore, the main objectives of this study were
to investigate effects of PR on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and
intestinal morphology of weaned pigs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The protocol for this experiment was reviewed and approved by the Institutional
Animal Care and Use Committee of Chungnam National University, Daejeon, Korea. This
experiment was conducted at the Animal Research Center of Chungnam National
University.
Experimental design, animals, and diets
A total of 75 weaned pigs [Duroc × (Landrace × Yorkshire); 7.06
± 0.18 kg of initial body weight (BW); 28 day old] were randomly assigned
to 3 dietary treatments (5 pigs with 3 barrows and 2 gilts per pen and 5
replicated pens per treatment) in a randomized completely block design (block =
BW and sex). The dietary treatments were 1) a diet based on corn and SBM to meet
or exceed the requirement of CP as a positive control (PC; CP = 24.49%), 2) a
low protein diet as a negative control (NC; CP = 22.51%), and 3) NC + 0.02%
protease (PR) ([2]; Table 1). The PR used in this study was a commercial product
(Ronozyme® ProAct, DSM nutrition products, Kaiseraugst,
Switzerland) containing 75,000 protease units/g derived from
Nocardiopsis prasina produced in Bacillus
licheniformis. The dietary treatments did not include animal
plasma, antibiotics, or zinc oxide to avoid their antibacterial or physiological
effects. Pigs were fed respective dietary treatments for 6 weeks. All pigs were
housed in an environmentally controlled room with a slatted plastic floor and
allowed ad libitum access to diets and water throughout the
entire experiment period.
Table 1.
Composition of basal diet for weaned pigs (as-fed basis)
Items
PC
NC
Ingredients (%)
Corn
56.09
58.09
Soybean meal (44%)
26.00
24.00
Soy protein concentrate
12.00
12.00
Soybean oil
3.00
3.00
Limestone
1.30
1.30
Monocalcium phosphate
1.20
1.20
Vitamin-mineral
premix[1)]
0.04
0.04
L-Lysine-HCl
0.24
0.24
DL-Methionine
0.09
0.09
L-Threonine
0.04
0.04
Total
100
100
Calculated energy and nutrient
contents
Metabolizable energy
(Mcal/kg)
3.53
3.42
Crud protein (%)
24.49
22.51
Calcium (%)
0.81
0.73
Phosphorus (%)
0.69
0.63
Lysine (%)
1.54
1.41
The vitamin-mineral premix provided the following quantities of
vitamins per kilogram of diet: vitamin A, 12,000 IU; vitamin
D3, 2,500 IU; vitamin E, 30 IU; vitamin
K3, 3 mg; D-pantothenic acid, 15 mg; nicotinic acid, 40
mg; choline, 400 mg; and vitamin B12, 12 μg; Fe,
90 mg from iron sulfate; Cu, 8.8 mg from copper sulfate; Zn, 100 mg
from zinc oxide; Mn, 54 mg from manganese oxide; I, 0.35 mg from
potassium iodide; Se, 0.30 mg from sodium selenite.
PC, positive control; NC, negative control.
The vitamin-mineral premix provided the following quantities of
vitamins per kilogram of diet: vitamin A, 12,000 IU; vitamin
D3, 2,500 IU; vitamin E, 30 IU; vitamin
K3, 3 mg; D-pantothenic acid, 15 mg; nicotinic acid, 40
mg; choline, 400 mg; and vitamin B12, 12 μg; Fe,
90 mg from iron sulfate; Cu, 8.8 mg from copper sulfate; Zn, 100 mg
from zinc oxide; Mn, 54 mg from manganese oxide; I, 0.35 mg from
potassium iodide; Se, 0.30 mg from sodium selenite.PC, positive control; NC, negative control.
Data and sample collection
Individual pigs and amount of feed additions and refusals in each pen were
weighed and recorded to measure average daily gain (ADG), average daily feed
intake (ADFI), and ratio between ADG and ADFI (G:F) of pigs. Diarrhea of each
pig was checked and its visual score was recorded by 3 independent evaluators
with a score from 1 to 5 (1 = normal hard feces; 2 = slightly soft feces; 3 =
soft, partially formed feces; 4 = loose, semi-liquid feces; and 5 = watery,
mucous-like feces) each day for the first 2 weeks of this experiment [16]. Frequency of diarrhea was calculated
by counting pen days with average diarrhea score from individual pigs in each
pen of 4 or greater [17,18]. Whole blood samples were collected
from the jugular vein of randomly selected 2 pigs in each pen using EDTA tubes
(Becton Dickinson Vacutainer Systems, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) containing
anticoagulant on day 1, 3, 7, and 14 after weaning. For the last week of the
experiment period, pigs were fed respective dietary treatments containing 0.2%
chromic oxide as an indigestible marker. Fecal samples were collected from
randomly selected 2 pigs in each pen by rectal palpation daily for the last 3
days after the 4-d adjustment period. The collected fecal samples were pooled
and stored at −20°C until analysis. Diet samples were also
collected and stored at −20°C until analysis. Randomly selected 2
pigs in each pen were anesthetized by an intra-muscular injection of a 2-mL
suxamethonium chloride (Succicholine®, Ilsung Pharm. Co. Ltd.,
Seoul, Korea) at the end of this experiment. After anesthesia, pigs were
euthanized by CO2 gas [19].
Ileal digesta samples were collected from distal ileum before the ileocecal
junction [11]. The collected ileal
digesta samples were stored at −20°C until analysis. Sections of
ileum of 3 cm length were collected, washed gently with distilled water, and
fixed in 10% neutral buffered formalin for histological analysis [20,21].
Sample analyses and measurements
Whole blood samples were analyzed to measure packed cell volume (PCV) using a
multi-parameter, automated hematology analyzer calibrated for porcine blood
(scil Vet abc hematology analyzer, scil animal care company, F-67120 Altorf,
France). Frozen ileal digesta and fecal samples were freeze-dried and finely
ground through a cyclone mill (Foss Tecator Sycltec 1093, Hillerød,
Denmark) before chemical analysis. Diets, fecal samples, and ileal samples were
analyzed for dry matter (DM; method 930.15), nitrogen (method 999.03) [22], gross energy using a bomb calorimeter
(Parr 1281 Bomb Calorimeter, Parr Instrument Co., Moline, IL, USA), and chromium
content using an absorption spectrophotometer (Hitachi Z-5000 Absorption
Spectrophotometer, Hitachi High-Technologies Co., Tokyo, Japan) based on the
report by Williams et al. [23]. The
apparent ileal digestibility (AID) and apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD)
of DM, CP, and energy were calculated for each diet according to Stein et al.
[24]. The procedures for the
measurement of intestinal morphology were based on the report by Liu et al.
[20]. The fixed intestinal tissue
samples were placed in paraffin, sliced at 5 μm, and stained with
hematoxylin and eosin. The stained slides were scanned by fluorescence
microscopy (TE2000, Nikon, Tokyo, Japan) with a charge-coupled device (CCD)
camera (DS-Fi1; Nikon, Tokyo, Japan) to measure intestinal morphology such as
villus height, width, and area, crypt depth, ratio between villus height and
crypt depth (VH:CD), and number of goblet cells by selecting ten straight and
integrated villi and their associated crypts and goblet cells. The fluorescent
images were processed with NIS-Elements BR software 3.00 (Nikon, Japan).
Statistical analyses
Data were analyzed using the PROC GLM procedure of SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC,
USA) in randomized complete block design. The experimental unit was the pen and
blocks were BW and sex. The statistical model for growth performance, PCV, AID
and ATTD, and number of goblet cells included effects of dietary treatments as a
fixed effect and BW and sex as covariates. In addition, pair-wise comparisons
were performed among dietary treatments when a main effect of diet was found.
The chi-squared test was used for the frequency of diarrhea. Results are given
as mean ± SEM. Statistical significance and tendency were considered at
p < 0.05 and 0.05 ≤ p
< 0.10, respectively.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Present study showed there were differences (p < 0.05) on ADG
and G:F of weaned pigs during overall experimental period between PC and NC (Table 2). In addition, weaned pigs fed PR had
higher ADG and G:F from d 1 to 7 (p < 0.05) and during
overall experimental period (p < 0.05) than those fed NC
(Table 2). However, no difference was
found on growth performance of weaned pigs during overall experimental period
between PC and PR (Table 2). These results
are similar to the results from previous studies for weaned pigs [10,11,21] and for growing pigs
[14,25]. The reason for these observations may be related to the improved
nutrient utilization efficiency by addition of PR [25]. However, some studies reported that no positive effects were found
on growth performance of growing-finishing pigs by addition of PR [13,26],
maybe because of different growth stages of the pigs with different digestive
systems [10].
Table 2.
Effects of dietary protease on growth performance of weaned
pigs[1)]
Item
Dietary treatments
SEM
p-value[2)]
PC
NC
PR
Diet
PC vs. NC
PC vs. PR
NC vs. PR
Day 1 to 7
Initial BW (kg)
7.01
7.03
7.13
0.09
0.597
0.892
0.356
0.428
Final BW (kg)
7.85
7.47
8.30
0.17
0.018
0.145
0.093
0.005
ADG (g/d)
120.11
63.51
167.20
22.87
0.024
0.100
0.171
0.008
ADFI (g/d)
334.80
321.27
339.14
25.69
0.878
0.716
0.907
0.632
G:F (g/g)
0.359
0.198
0.493
0.08
0.100
0.279
0.242
0.036
Day 8 to 14
Initial BW (kg)
7.85
7.47
8.30
0.17
0.018
0.145
0.093
0.005
Final BW (kg)
9.82
9.29
10.12
0.31
0.207
0.254
0.512
0.086
ADG (g/d)
281.27
259.18
260.63
35.21
0.885
0.665
0.686
0.977
ADFI (g/d)
502.29
433.79
481.31
32.47
0.344
0.162
0.656
0.321
G:F (g/g)
0.560
0.597
0.541
0.06
0.862
0.714
0.875
0.602
Day 1 to 14
Initial BW (kg)
7.01
7.03
7.13
0.09
0.597
0.892
0.356
0.428
Final BW (kg)
9.82
9.29
10.12
0.31
0.207
0.254
0.512
0.086
ADG (g/d)
200.69
161.35
213.91
21.80
0.247
0.226
0.676
0.114
ADFI (g/d)
418.54
377.53
410.23
25.18
0.497
0.272
0.819
0.377
G:F (g/g)
0.480
0.427
0.521
0.05
0.617
0.577
0.677
0.337
Day 15 to 21
Initial BW (kg)
9.82
9.29
10.12
0.31
0.207
0.254
0.512
0.086
Final BW (kg)
12.63
11.23
12.66
0.44
0.071
0.048
0.957
0.043
ADG (g/d)
400.79
277.82
362.74
26.42
0.018
0.007
0.329
0.042
ADFI (g/d)
763.67
804.40
693.09
93.79
0.705
0.764
0.604
0.418
G:F (g/g)
0.525
0.345
0.523
0.04
0.049
0.035
0.916
0.043
Day 1 to 21
Initial BW (kg)
7.01
7.03
7.13
0.09
0.597
0.892
0.356
0.428
Final BW (kg)
12.63
11.23
12.66
0.44
0.071
0.048
0.957
0.043
ADG (g/d)
267.39
200.17
263.52
20.33
0.066
0.038
0.895
0.048
ADFI (g/d)
533.59
519.82
504.51
38.57
0.869
0.805
0.604
0.784
G:F (g/g)
0.501
0.385
0.522
0.04
0.204
0.086
0.837
0.046
Day 22 to 42
Initial BW (kg)
12.63
11.23
12.66
0.44
0.071
0.048
0.957
0.043
Final BW (kg)
20.56
16.26
20.69
0.85
0.005
0.004
0.916
0.003
ADG (g/d)
377.51
239.33
382.05
23.46
0.001
0.001
0.894
0.001
ADFI (g/d)
963.40
924.57
912.60
107.34
0.941
0.802
0.744
0.939
G:F (g/g)
0.392
0.259
0.419
0.04
0.027
0.038
0.986
0.019
Day 1 to 42
Initial BW (kg)
7.01
7.03
7.13
0.09
0.597
0.892
0.356
0.428
Final BW (kg)
20.56
16.26
20.69
0.85
0.005
0.004
0.916
0.003
ADG (g/d)
322.45
219.75
322.79
20.16
0.005
0.004
0.991
0.004
ADFI (g/d)
748.49
722.19
708.56
60.42
0.894
0.764
0.649
0.876
G:F (g/g)
0.431
0.304
0.456
0.03
0.020
0.018
0.810
0.011
Each value is the mean of 5 replicates (5 pigs/pen).
Diet, main diet effect; PC vs. NC, effect between positive and negative
controls; PC vs. PR, effect between positive control and negative
control + 0.02% dietary protease; NC vs. PR, effect between negative
control and negative control + 0.02% dietary protease.
PC, positive control with required level of protein; NC, negative control
with low level of protein; PR, negative control + 0.02% dietary
protease; BW, body weight; ADG, average daily gain; ADFI, average daily
feed intake; G:F, gain to feed ratio; SEM, standard error of means.
Each value is the mean of 5 replicates (5 pigs/pen).Diet, main diet effect; PC vs. NC, effect between positive and negative
controls; PC vs. PR, effect between positive control and negative
control + 0.02% dietary protease; NC vs. PR, effect between negative
control and negative control + 0.02% dietary protease.PC, positive control with required level of protein; NC, negative control
with low level of protein; PR, negative control + 0.02% dietary
protease; BW, body weight; ADG, average daily gain; ADFI, average daily
feed intake; G:F, gain to feed ratio; SEM, standard error of means.In the present study, there were differences (p < 0.05) on
AID of DM, CP, and energy of weaned pigs between PC and NC (Fig. 1). However, no differences were found on nutrient AID of
weaned pigs between PC and PR (Fig. 1). Similar
patterns were found (p < 0.05) on ATTD for DM and CP, but
not for energy, compared with the results of nutrient AID (Fig. 2). The improved nutrient digestibility in this study was
similar to results reported by previous studies [11,27,28]. Addition of exogenous enzymes in non-ruminant diets has
been using for several benefits including, minimization of anti-nutritional effects
and maximization of nutrient utilization, to improve nutrient utilization and growth
performance of non-ruminants [29] because the
digestive system and the secretion and activity of digestive enzymes of young
non-ruminants are immature and insufficient to fully utilize nutrients efficiently
[29,30]. Similarly, the addition of protease in weaned pig diets may improve
their growth performance by increasing nutrient utilization [10,25].
Fig. 1.
Effects of dietary protease on apparent ileal digestibility of weaned
pigs.
Each value is the mean of 5 replicates. a,bMeans with different
letters within each variable differ (p < 0.05). PC,
positive control with required level of protein; NC, negative control with
low level of protein; PR, negative control + 0.02% dietary protease.
Fig. 2.
Effects of dietary protease on apparent total tract digestibility of
weaned pigs.
Each value is the mean of 5 replicates. a,bMeans with different
letters within each variable differ (p < 0.05). PC,
positive control with required level of protein; NC, negative control with
low level of protein; PR, negative control + 0.02% dietary protease.
Effects of dietary protease on apparent ileal digestibility of weaned
pigs.
Each value is the mean of 5 replicates. a,bMeans with different
letters within each variable differ (p < 0.05). PC,
positive control with required level of protein; NC, negative control with
low level of protein; PR, negative control + 0.02% dietary protease.
Effects of dietary protease on apparent total tract digestibility of
weaned pigs.
Each value is the mean of 5 replicates. a,bMeans with different
letters within each variable differ (p < 0.05). PC,
positive control with required level of protein; NC, negative control with
low level of protein; PR, negative control + 0.02% dietary protease.The VH:CD can be an indicator to evaluate nutrient digestion and absorption capacity
of the small intestine [31]. The reduction of
villus height could induce decreased absorption of nutrients, which may be
responsible for the reduced growth performance. The present study showed weaned pigs
fed PR had higher VH:CD (p < 0.05) in ileum than those fed
NC (Table 3). This result is similar to the
result reported by previous studies [12,32]. It may be possible the addition of PR may
reduce allergenic reactions that are derived from feeding SBM and that can cause
intestinal damage [32,33].
Table 3.
Effects of dietary protease on ileal morphology of weaned pigs[1)]
Item
Dietary treatments
SEM
p-value[2)]
PC
NC
PR
Diet
PC vs. NC
PC vs. PR
NC vs. PR
Villus height (μm)
312.52
282.70
318.23
11.69
0.110
0.097
0.736
0.053
Crypt depth (μm)
102.32
99.15
88.48
5.37
0.204
0.684
0.094
0.186
VH : CD
3.11
2.87
3.67
0.24
0.099
0.507
0.130
0.040
Villus width (μm)
101.72
93.59
98.82
4.23
0.414
0.200
0.649
0.391
Villus area (μm2)
24,938
23,536
23,815
2,064
0.880
0.640
0.707
0.925
Each value is the mean of 5 replicates (5 pigs/pen).
Diet, main diet effect; PC vs. NC, effect between positive and negative
controls; PC vs. PR, effect between positive control and negative
control + 0.02% dietary protease; NC vs. PR, effect between negative
control and negative control + 0.02% dietary protease.
PC, positive control with required level of protein; NC, negative control
with low level of protein; PR, negative control + 0.02% dietary
protease; VH, villus height; CD, crypt depth; SEM, standard error of
means.
Each value is the mean of 5 replicates (5 pigs/pen).Diet, main diet effect; PC vs. NC, effect between positive and negative
controls; PC vs. PR, effect between positive control and negative
control + 0.02% dietary protease; NC vs. PR, effect between negative
control and negative control + 0.02% dietary protease.PC, positive control with required level of protein; NC, negative control
with low level of protein; PR, negative control + 0.02% dietary
protease; VH, villus height; CD, crypt depth; SEM, standard error of
means.Diarrhea and infectious disease are serious problems around weaning and usually lead
to an impaired growth performance and increased mortality of weaning pigs [34]. However during this study PR treatment
showed a reduced (p < 0.05) frequency of diarrhea for the
first 2 weeks after weaning (Fig. 3) and PCV on
d 14 (Fig. 4) with an increased
(p < 0.05) number of goblet cells (Fig. 5) compared with the NC and/or PC. Previous studies have
also reported that supplementation of dietary enzymes can reduce diarrhea of pigs.
This beneficial effect, maybe attributed to the development of the digestive tract,
the increase of enzyme activity in the digestive system, and the improvement of
nutrient digestibility [10, 35].
Fig. 3.
Effects of dietary protease on frequency of diarrhea of weaned pigs for
the first 2 weeks after weaning.
Number of diarrhea out of number of pen days is presented in each bar.
Frequency of diarrhea (%) = (number of diarrhea / number of pen days)
× 100. Data was analyzed by the χ2
test. Three, four, and one pigs were removed from PC, NC, and PR,
respectively (there were no differences among dietary treatments). PC,
positive control with required level of protein; NC, negative control with
low level of protein; PR, negative control + 0.02% dietary protease.
Fig. 4.
Effect of dietary protease on packed cell volume of weaned pigs.
Each value is the mean of 5 replicates. **Different between PC, NC, and PR
(p < 0.05). PC, positive control with required
level of protein; NC, negative control with low level of protein; PR,
negative control + 0.02% dietary protease.
Fig. 5.
Effect of dietary protease on number of goblet cells of weaned
pigs.
Each value is the mean of 5 replicates. a,bMeans with different
letters within each variable differ (p < 0.05). PC,
positive control with required level of protein; NC, negative control with
low level of protein; PR, negative control + 0.02% dietary protease.
Effects of dietary protease on frequency of diarrhea of weaned pigs for
the first 2 weeks after weaning.
Number of diarrhea out of number of pen days is presented in each bar.
Frequency of diarrhea (%) = (number of diarrhea / number of pen days)
× 100. Data was analyzed by the χ2
test. Three, four, and one pigs were removed from PC, NC, and PR,
respectively (there were no differences among dietary treatments). PC,
positive control with required level of protein; NC, negative control with
low level of protein; PR, negative control + 0.02% dietary protease.
Effect of dietary protease on packed cell volume of weaned pigs.
Each value is the mean of 5 replicates. **Different between PC, NC, and PR
(p < 0.05). PC, positive control with required
level of protein; NC, negative control with low level of protein; PR,
negative control + 0.02% dietary protease.
Effect of dietary protease on number of goblet cells of weaned
pigs.
Each value is the mean of 5 replicates. a,bMeans with different
letters within each variable differ (p < 0.05). PC,
positive control with required level of protein; NC, negative control with
low level of protein; PR, negative control + 0.02% dietary protease.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, addition of PR in nursery diets with a low protein level improved
growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and intestinal morphology of weaned
pigs.
Authors: J M Heo; F O Opapeju; J R Pluske; J C Kim; D J Hampson; C M Nyachoti Journal: J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl) Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 2.130
Authors: Olena Prykhodko; Stefan G Pierzynowski; Elham Nikpey; Ester Arevalo Sureda; Olexandr Fedkiv; Björn R Weström Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-02-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: L Pan; P F Zhao; Z Y Yang; S F Long; H L Wang; Q Y Tian; Y T Xu; X Xu; Z H Zhang; X S Piao Journal: Asian-Australas J Anim Sci Date: 2016-03-22 Impact factor: 2.509
Authors: Han Jin Oh; Myung Hoo Kim; Ji Hwan Lee; Yong Ju Kim; Jae Woo An; Se Yeon Chang; Young Bin Go; Dong Cheol Song; Hyun Ah Cho; Min Seok Jo; Dae Young Kim; Min Ji Kim; Sung Bo Cho; Hyeun Bum Kim; Jin Ho Cho Journal: J Anim Sci Technol Date: 2022-01-31
Authors: Yong Ju Kim; Ji Hwan Lee; Tae Heon Kim; Min Ho Song; Won Yun; Han Jin Oh; Jun Soeng Lee; Hyeun Bum Kim; Jin Ho Cho Journal: J Anim Sci Technol Date: 2021-05-31