| Literature DB >> 35242047 |
Xin Wang1, Yang Liu2,3, Hao-Han Zhao1, Yong-Mei Wu2,3, Chun-Jie Liu1, Guang-Ying Duan1,3, Yan-Zhou Wang1, Tou-Ming Liu1, Peng Huang2, Ying-Hui Li2, Zhi-Yong Fan2, Hua-Jiao Qiu1, Si-Yuan Zhu1, Qian Lin1,3.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of ramie (0, 3, 6, and 9%) included in diets on production performance, antioxidative capacity, serum biochemical indices, and intestinal development of laying hens. A total of 432 Lohmann commercial laying hens were randomly allotted to one of four dietary treatments and fed for 6 weeks. The results showed that the inclusion of ramie had no negative effects on laying performance, and increased (quadratic, P < 0.05) the laying rate with the highest value in the 6% ramie group. However, ramie content in the diet up to 9% reduced the apparent metabolic energy, dry matter, and organic matter apparent digestibility of laying hens compared with those in the 3% ramie group. The content of high-density lipoprotein (HDL-C) in serum was increased (P < 0.05), but the activity of aspartate aminotransferase (AST) was decreased (P < 0.05) by dietary ramie supplementation. As the dietary ramie level increased, the activity of serum glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px) was increased quadratically (P < 0.05). Compared with control, 3% ramie group significantly increased (P < 0.01) liver total superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity. Meanwhile, the addition of 3∼6% ramie powder increased (P < 0.05) villus height of jejunum and villus height/crypt depth (V/C) of ileum, which reflected the intestinal promotional effect of ramie powder. In conclusion, ramie in a diet of less than 9% might protect the liver and improve the antioxidative capacity with no detrimental impacts on the laying hens. Moreover, it could promote the intestinal mucosal structure and have a positive impact on the intestine health of the laying hens.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidative capacity; intestinal development; laying production performance; ramie; serum biochemical indices
Year: 2022 PMID: 35242047 PMCID: PMC8887865 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2021.823734
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.566
Diet formulation and calculated nutrients (as fed basis).
| Items | Control | Ramie power supplementation concentration in diets | ||
| 3% | 6% | 9% | ||
|
| ||||
| Corn | 51.61 | 51.34 | 51.23 | 51.03 |
| Soybean meal | 30.78 | 29.76 | 28.66 | 27.59 |
| Rice husk | 3.31 | 2.21 | 1.09 | 0.00 |
| Ramie powder | 0.00 | 3.00 | 6.00 | 9.00 |
| Oil | 2.85 | 2.50 | 2.10 | 1.73 |
| Limestone | 8.45 | 8.19 | 7.92 | 7.65 |
| Premix | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 |
| Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
|
| ||||
| ME (Mcal/kg) | 2.75 | 2.75 | 2.75 | 2.75 |
| Crude protein (%) | 16.98 | 17.00 | 17.00 | 17.01 |
| Crude fiber | 4.44 | 4.44 | 4.44 | 4.45 |
| Calcium (%) | 3.50 | 3.50 | 3.50 | 3.50 |
| Total phosphorus (%) | 0.53 | 0.53 | 0.53 | 0.53 |
| Lysine (%) | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.94 | 0.93 |
| Methionine (%) | 0.36 | 0.35 | 0.35 | 0.34 |
Effects of dietary ramie supplementation on laying hen production performance.
| Items | Control | Ramie supplementation concentration in diets | SEM | |||||
| 3% | 6% | 9% | ANOVA | Linear | Quadratic | |||
| Egg laying rate (%) | 89.05 | 94.16 | 94.82 | 89.34 | 1.053 | 0.090 | 0.651 | 0.015 |
| FCR | 2.20 | 2.12 | 2.13 | 2.21 | 0.038 | 0.852 | 0.990 | 0.386 |
| Mean egg weight (g) | 56.51 | 56.59 | 56.91 | 56.91 | 0.139 | 0.640 | 0.225 | 0.913 |
| Daily feed intake (g) | 114.20 | 109.86 | 111.77 | 113.91 | 1.596 | 0.761 | 0.918 | 0.315 |
| Egg mass per day (g) | 51.97 | 51.94 | 52.41 | 51.48 | 0.585 | 0.979 | 0.828 | 0.803 |
FCR, food conversion ratio.
Effects of dietary ramie power supplementation on nutrient apparent metabolic rate of laying hens.
| Items | Control | Ramie power supplementation concentration in diets | SEM | |||||
| 3% | 6% | 9% | ANOVA | Linear | Quadratic | |||
| AMEn (MJ/kg) | 12.04 | 12.77 | 12.65 | 11.86 | 0.143 | 0.035 | 0.310 | 0.007 |
| DM (%) | 69.80 | 72.02 | 70.64 | 67.15 | 0.649 | 0.037 | 0.062 | 0.021 |
| Ash (%) | 48.51 | 52.07 | 52.90 | 49.64 | 1.749 | 0.796 | 0.584 | 0.419 |
| OM (%) | 73.01 | 75.79 | 74.54 | 70.08 | 0.685 | 0.008 | 0.038 | 0.004 |
| EE (%) | 59.48 | 66.47 | 66.22 | 61.18 | 2.248 | 0.610 | 0.610 | 0.229 |
| CF (%) | 31.59 | 35.41 | 36.19 | 31.77 | 1.574 | 0.672 | 0.998 | 0.236 |
| CP (%) | 44.34 | 52.07 | 50.76 | 49.53 | 1.294 | 0.135 | 0.196 | 0.065 |
| Ca (%) | 65.55 | 66.79 | 69.22 | 65.61 | 0.703 | 0.332 | 0.617 | 0.139 |
| P (%) | 31.62 | 42.18 | 40.68 | 35.54 | 1.795 | 0.219 | 0.987 | 0.051 |
AMEn, nitrogen corrected apparent metabolizable energy; DM, dry matter; Ash, ash content; OM, organic compound; EE, ether extract; CF, crude fiber; CP, crude protein.
Effects of dietary ramie power supplementation on organ indices of laying hens.
| Items | Control | Ramie power supplementation concentration in diets | SEM | |||||
| 3% | 6% | 9% | ANOVA | Linear | Quadratic | |||
| Heart index (g/kg) | 0.40 | 0.43 | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.013 | 0.777 | 0.818 | 0.455 |
| Liver index (g/kg) | 2.21 | 2.25 | 2.39 | 2.18 | 0.069 | 0.736 | 0.939 | 0.389 |
| Spleen index (g/kg) | 0.09 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.007 | 0.124 | 0.067 | 0.138 |
| Small intestine index (g/kg) | 4.12 | 4.38 | 4.22 | 4.17 | 0.106 | 0.925 | 0.964 | 0.571 |
| Gizzard index (g/kg) | 1.90 | 2.17 | 2.10 | 2.23 | 0.070 | 0.382 | 0.146 | 0.628 |
| Proventriculus index (g/kg) | 0.41 | 0.48 | 0.44 | 0.50 | 0.014 | 0.101 | 0.063 | 0.078 |
Effects of dietary ramie power supplementation on serum biochemical indices of laying hens.
| Items | Control | Ramie power supplementation concentration in diets | SEM | |||||
| 3% | 6% | 9% | ANOVA | Linear | Quadratic | |||
| ALT (U/l) | 7.91 | 3.27 | 4.59 | 5.48 | 0.731 | 0.095 | 0.229 | 0.042 |
| AST (U/l) | 321.13 | 249.72 | 258.44 | 275.71 | 10.413 | 0.018 | 0.030 | 0.014 |
| T-CHO (mmol/l) | 2.82 | 2.49 | 2.65 | 2.76 | 0.110 | 0.731 | 0.823 | 0.324 |
| LDL-C (mmol/l) | 3.40 | 2.51 | 3.23 | 3.14 | 0.205 | 0.464 | 0.744 | 0.272 |
| HDL-C (mmol/l) | 0.46 | 0.73 | 0.66 | 0.64 | 0.038 | 0.025 | 0.017 | 0.060 |
| TG (mmol/l) | 17.75 | 12.25 | 17.71 | 16.51 | 1.218 | 0.354 | 0.750 | 0.217 |
| GLU (mmol/l) | 10.19 | 11.05 | 11.46 | 10.75 | 3.08 | 0.955 | 0.706 | 0.693 |
| TP (g/l) | 74.72 | 76.52 | 81.68 | 74.15 | 6.66 | 0.449 | 0.581 | 0.258 |
| ALB (g/l) | 23.01 | 23.02 | 25.66 | 22.41 | 1.87 | 0.112 | 0.598 | 0.186 |
| GLB (g/l) | 51.71 | 53.51 | 56.03 | 51.75 | 5.72 | 0.714 | 0.638 | 0.371 |
| UA (μmol/l) | 85.42 | 70.84 | 59.71 | 84.56 | 22.55 | 0.412 | 0.520 | 0.147 |
ALT, glutamic-pyruvic transaminase; AST, glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase; T-CHO, total cholesterol; HDL-C, high-density lipoprotein; LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein; TG, triglyceride; GLU, glucose; TP, total protein; ALB, albumin; GLB, globulin; UA, uric acid.
Effects of dietary ramie power supplementation on serum antioxidant indices of laying hens.
| Items | Control | Ramie power supplementation concentration in diets | SEM | |||||
| 3% | 6% | 9% | ANOVA | Linear | Quadratic | |||
| T-AOC (U/ml) | 0.35 | 0.38 | 0.39 | 0.37 | 0.020 | 0.921 | 0.728 | 0.585 |
| T-SOD (U/ml) | 29.69 | 49.54 | 49.36 | 34.81 | 6.128 | 0.682 | 0.923 | 0.266 |
| GSH-Px (U/ml) | 294.36 | 531.43 | 405.44 | 362.26 | 35.763 | 0.026 | 0.924 | 0.011 |
| CAT (U/ml) | 10.43 | 16.64 | 11.78 | 11.77 | 1.258 | 0.374 | 0.939 | 0.254 |
| MDA (nmol/ml) | 2.03 | 0.97 | 1.56 | 1.20 | 0.177 | 0.183 | 0.199 | 0.306 |
T-AOC, total antioxidative capacity; T-SOD, total superoxide dismutase; GSH-Px, glutathione peroxidase; CAT, catalase; MAD, malondialdehyde.
Effects of dietary ramie power supplementation on liver antioxidant of laying hens.
| Items | Control | Ramie power supplementation concentration in diets | SEM | |||||
| 3% | 6% | 9% | ANOVA | Linear | Quadratic | |||
| T-AOC (U/g) | 0.51 | 0.60 | 0.64 | 0.55 | 0.035 | 0.729 | 0.830 | 0.299 |
| T-SOD (U/g) | 161.17 | 204.67 | 296.66 | 201.39 | 17.245 | 0.003 | 0.024 | 0.002 |
| GSH-Px (U/g) | 12.61 | 14.50 | 15.54 | 12.60 | 0.601 | 0.182 | 0.716 | 0.051 |
| CAT (U/g) | 31.62 | 32.54 | 34.04 | 32.50 | 0.944 | 0.916 | 0.784 | 0.601 |
| MDA (nmol/g) | 31.56 | 31.55 | 23.25 | 30.81 | 3.053 | 0.830 | 0.827 | 0.605 |
Effects of dietary ramie power supplementation on morphological structure of intestinal mucosa of laying hens.
| Items | Control | Ramie power supplementation concentration in diets | SEM | ||||||
| 3% | 6% | 9% | ANOVA | Linear | Quadratic | ||||
| Duodenum | Villus height (μm) | 581.79 | 635.02 | 595.56 | 612.77 | 22.504 | 0.900 | 0.771 | 0.739 |
| Crypt depth (μm) | 75.44 | 75.71 | 75.58 | 78.82 | 2.710 | 0.976 | 0.730 | 0.819 | |
| V/C | 7.52 | 8.31 | 7.68 | 7.71 | 0.300 | 0.814 | 0.983 | 0.517 | |
| Jejunum | Villus height (μm) | 416.59 | 532.25 | 530.56 | 496.66 | 20.653 | 0.048 | 0.037 | 0.038 |
| Crypt depth (μm) | 72.75 | 65.27 | 67.06 | 72.63 | 2.027 | 0.520 | 0.867 | 0.169 | |
| V/C | 5.42 | 8.38 | 7.49 | 6.84 | 0.467 | 0.096 | 0.277 | 0.040 | |
| Ileum | Villus height (μm) | 274.78 | 309.33 | 452.70 | 336.33 | 29.520 | 0.122 | 0.144 | 0.135 |
| Crypt depth (μm) | 53.75 | 44.91 | 57.40 | 50.41 | 2.086 | 0.213 | 0.983 | 0.576 | |
| V/C | 5.06 | 6.68 | 7.62 | 6.48 | 0.332 | 0.018 | 0.033 | 0.010 | |
V/C, villus height/crypt depth.