| Literature DB >> 35707011 |
Xin Wang1, Si-Min Peng2, Yang Liu3, Shuang Liao1, Hao-Han Zhao1, Guang-Ying Duan1,3, Yong-Mei Wu2, Chun-Jie Liu1, Yan-Zhou Wang1, Tou-Ming Liu1, Ying-Hui Li3, Zhi-Yong Fan3, Si-Yuan Zhu1, Hua-Jiao Qiu1, Qian Lin1,2.
Abstract
Ramie (Boehmeria nivea), which is rich in protein, fatty acid, vitamins and minerals, has become a potential alternative feed resource for poultry, and has attracted more and more attentions in nutrition research. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of dietary ramie at different concentrations on the production performance of the hens, and the quality, nutrient composition, and antioxidation of the eggs. A total of 432 34-week-old Lohmann commercial laying hens were divided into four groups, that were fed with corn-soybean meal-based control diet, control mixed with ramie at concentrations of 3, 6, or 9% separately for 8 weeks. Results showed that dietary ramie did not affect production performance. And egg yolk color gradually deepened as the inclusion levels of ramie increased. Ramie at tested concentration could significantly reduce the content of malondialdehyde (MDA) (p = 0.002) and 3% ramie supplementation significantly increased total antioxidative capacity (T-AOC) concentrations in egg yolk compared to the control group (p = 0.033). In addition, dietary supplementation with 6% ramie significantly reduced total cholesterol (T-CHO) content (p < 0.05) compared with controls. For egg nutrient composition, compared with the control group, the addition of 6% ramie significantly increased (p < 0.05) total omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3PUFA) and phenylalanine (Phe) in yolk. In conclusion, dietary inclusion of 6% ramie was most effective in improving the color, antioxidative capability, and reducing T-CHO contents of the egg yolks without any negative impacts on the production performance of the hens.Entities:
Keywords: egg nutrients composition; egg quality; production performance; ramie; yolk antioxidation
Year: 2022 PMID: 35707011 PMCID: PMC9189287 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2022.854760
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.755
Diet formulation and calculated nutrients (air-dried basis, %).
| Items | Control | Ramie power supplementation concentration in diets | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3% | 6% | 9% | ||
| Ingredients, % | ||||
| 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 |
| Nutrient levels (%) | ||||
| 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 |
| Available phosphorus (%) | 0.32 | 0.32 | 0.32 | 0.32 |
| Lysine (%) | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.94 | 0.93 |
| Methionine (%) | 0.36 | 0.35 | 0.35 | 0.34 |
The premix provided the following (per kilogram of complete diet): vitamin A 6000 IU, vitamin D3 2,500 IU, vitamin E 25 mg, vitamin K3 2.25 mg, vitamin B1 1.8 mg, vitamin B2 7 mg, vitamin B6 4 mg, vitamin B12 0.2 mg, D-pantothenic acid 12 mg, nicotinic acid 35 mg, biotin 0.14 mg, folic acid 0.8 mg, Cu (as copper sulphate) 11 mg, Zn (as zinc sulphate) 70 mg, Fe (as ferrous sulphate) 60 mg, Mn (as manganese sulphate) 115 mg, Se (as sodium selenite) 0.30 mg and I (as potassium iodide) 0.4 mg.
bNutrient levels are calculated values.
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 |
| 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 |
a,bMeans in the same row with different superscript letters indicate differences (p < 0.05); The p values between 0.05 and 0.10 were considered as having trends in difference.
FCR, food conversion ratio; SEM, standard error of the mean.
Effects of dietary ramie supplementation on the egg quality of laying hens.
| Items | Control | Ramie supplementation concentration in diets | SEM |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3% | 6% | 9% | ANOVA | Linear | Quadratic | |||
| Egg weight (g per egg) | 58.04 | 59.39 | 59.69 | 59.62 | 0.548 | 0.797 | 0.422 | 0.582 |
| Eggshell strength (kgf) | 4.58 | 4.62 | 4.61 | 4.56 | 0.049 | 0.976 | 0.936 | 0.665 |
| Eggshell thickness (mm) | 0.38 | 0.40 | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.002 | 0.467 | 0.964 | 0.154 |
| Haugh unit | 75.83 | 76.18 | 76.84 | 77.57 | 0.587 | 0.767 | 0.303 | 0.882 |
| Egg shape index | 1.34 | 1.33 | 1.34 | 1.33 | 0.005 | 0.907 | 0.561 | 1.000 |
| Yolk Index | 0.36b | 0.36b | 0.37ab | 0.39a | 0.005 | 0.034 | 0.009 | 0.172 |
| Yolk color | 4.20b | 4.47b | 5.30a | 5.63a | 0.152 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.883 |
| shell weight (g per egg) | 5.75 | 5.68 | 5.72 | 5.80 | 0.084 | 0.970 | 0.810 | 0.683 |
| yolk weight (g per egg) | 15.84 | 16.17 | 16.54 | 16.33 | 0.196 | 0.681 | 0.332 | 0.522 |
| Protein weight (g per egg) | 36.71 | 36.97 | 38.41 | 37.49 | 0.463 | 0.638 | 0.493 | 0.438 |
a,bMeans in the same row with different superscript letters indicate differences (p < 0.05).
SEM, standard error of the mean.
FIGURE 1Effect of diet on egg yolk color of laying hens (40 weeks of age). From left to right: control, 3, 6, 9% ramie supplementation diets in turn.
Effects of dietary ramie supplementation on Yolk Antioxidation Indices.
| Items | Control | Ramie supplementation concentration in diets | SEM |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3% | 6% | 9% | ANOVA | Linear | Quadratic | |||
| T-AOC (U/ml) | 12.11b | 15.98a | 13.85ab | 13.56ab | 0.490 | 0.033 | 0.565 | 0.024 |
| T-SOD (U/g) | 229.76 | 273.19 | 248.68 | 266.94 | 14.443 | 0.737 | 0.524 | 0.680 |
| GSH-Px (U/g) | 306.05 | 333.74 | 342.08 | 360.77 | 15.134 | 0.654 | 0.223 | 0.877 |
| CAT (U/g) | 30.43 | 31.86 | 36.76 | 35.95 | 1.273 | 0.227 | 0.065 | 0.655 |
| MDA (nmol/g) | 77.68a | 62.20b | 66.05b | 66.74b | 1.660 | 0.002 | 0.016 | 0.004 |
a,bMeans in the same row with different superscript letters indicate differences (p < 0.05).
T-AOC, total antioxidative capacity; T-SOD, total Superoxide dismutase; GSH-Px, glutathione peroxidase; CAT, catalase; MDA, malondialdehyde; SEM, standard error of the mean.
Effects of dietary ramie supplementation on Nutritional Composition of Whole Egg and Total Cholesterol Content in Egg Yolk.
| Items | Control | Ramie supplementation concentration in diets | SEM |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3% | 6% | 9% | ANOVA | Linear | Quadratic | |||
| Moisture (%) | 75.73 | 75.10 | 75.54 | 75.12 | 0.201 | 0.635 | 0.468 | 0.740 |
| CP (%) | 12.22 | 12.89 | 12.49 | 12.35 | 0.128 | 0.181 | 0.685 | 0.070 |
| EE (%) | 7.19 | 8.38 | 8.07 | 7.70 | 0.189 | 0.159 | 0.517 | 0.052 |
| Ash (%) | 0.78 | 0.73 | 0.74 | 0.77 | 0.009 | 0.290 | 0.965 | 0.091 |
| T-CHO (mmol/gyolk) | 5.95a | 5.22b | 5.01b | 5.36ab | 0.110 | 0.043 | 0.040 | 0.013 |
a,bMeans within a row with no common superscripts differ significantly (p < 0.05).
CP, crude protein; EE, ether extract; Ash, ash content; T-CHO, total cholesterol; SEM, standard error of the mean.
Effects of dietary ramie supplementation on fatty acid composition in egg yolk (g/100 g FA).
| Items | Control | Ramie supplementation concentration in diets | SEM |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3% | 6% | 9% | ANOVA | Linear | Quadratic | |||
| C12:0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.004 | 0.452 | 0.157 | 0.974 |
| C14:0 | 0.33 | 0.34 | 0.33 | 0.35 | 0.009 | 0.867 | 0.652 | 0.733 |
| C15:0 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.003 | 0.242 | 0.482 | 0.595 |
| C16:0 | 25.38 | 24.77 | 24.40 | 25.09 | 0.331 | 0.781 | 0.612 | 0.404 |
| C17:0 | 0.13 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.005 | 0.562 | 0.302 | 0.365 |
| C18:0 | 8.68 | 8.29 | 9.02 | 8.79 | 0.171 | 0.609 | 0.579 | 0.782 |
| C20:0 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.004 | 0.079 | 0.076 | 0.285 |
| C22:0 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.007 | 0.291 | 0.075 | 0.919 |
| C14:1 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.007 | 0.884 | 0.500 | 0.712 |
| C16:1 | 3.54 | 3.26 | 2.72 | 3.12 | 0.287 | 0.812 | 0.484 | 0.616 |
| C20:1 | 0.23 | 0.20 | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.005 | 0.395 | 0.210 | 0.371 |
| C18:1n-9t | 0.14 | 0.12 | 0.14 | 0.13 | 0.004 | 0.414 | 0.640 | 0.976 |
| C18:1n-9c (oleinic acid) | 39.90 | 38.70 | 37.51 | 38.65 | 0.447 | 0.418 | 0.332 | 0.224 |
| C20:2 (eicosadienoic acid) | 0.16b | 0.17b | 0.22a | 0.18ab | 0.008 | 0.040 | 0.046 | 0.081 |
| C22:6n-3 (DHA) | 1.18 | 1.28 | 1.40 | 1.19 | 0.051 | 0.435 | 0.636 | 0.172 |
| C18:3n-3 (ALA) | 0.58b | 0.66b | 0.87a | 0.64b | 0.041 | 0.033 | 0.108 | 0.033 |
| C18:3n-6 (GLA) | 0.13 | 0.15 | 0.13 | 0.17 | 0.008 | 0.350 | 0.216 | 0.506 |
| C18:2n-6c (LA) | 13.57c | 19.24b | 22.17a | 18.44b | 1.196 | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| C20:3n-6 (eicosatrienoic acid) | 0.30 | 0.25 | 0.26 | 0.28 | 0.013 | 0.532 | 0.577 | 0.210 |
| C20:4n-6 (AA) | 2.75 | 3.02 | 2.80 | 3.00 | 0.060 | 0.322 | 0.371 | 0.657 |
| SFA | 34.64 | 33.63 | 33.99 | 34.45 | 0.278 | 0.612 | 0.754 | 0.238 |
| MUFA | 43.37 | 42.83 | 41.75 | 43.16 | 0.720 | 0.919 | 0.842 | 0.619 |
| PUFA | 18.75c | 24.78b | 28.10a | 24.03b | 1.286 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| UFA | 64.55 | 66.43 | 66.61 | 66.44 | 0.382 | 0.148 | 0.076 | 0.135 |
| n-6 PUFA | 20.65 | 21.41 | 21.64 | 20.52 | 0.745 | 0.965 | 0.986 | 0.648 |
| n-3 PUFA | 1.58b | 1.94b | 2.57a | 1.82b | 0.117 | 0.003 | 0.078 | 0.002 |
| n-6/n-3 PUFA | 11.69 | 10.73 | 9.87 | 11.35 | 0.362 | 0.354 | 0.558 | 0.140 |
| EFA | 14.21c | 20.04b | 23.24a | 19.25b | 1.253 | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
a–cMeans in the same row with different superscript letters indicate differences (p < 0.05).
SEM, standard error of the mean; LA, linoleic acid; AA, arachidonic acid; ALA, α-linolenic acid; DHA, docosahexaenoic acid; SFA, saturated fatty acid; MUFA, monounsaturated fatty acid; PUFA, polyunsaturated fatty acid; EFA, essential fatty acid.
SFA level were calculated as C15:0 + C16:0 + C17:0 + C18:0.
MUFA levels were calculated as C16:1 + C17:1 + C18:1n-9 + C20:1n-9 + C22:1n-9 + C24:1n-9.
PUFA levels were calculated as C18:2n-6 + C18:3n-6 + C18:3n-3 + C20:2 + C20:3n-6 + C20:3n-3 + C20:4n-6 + C20:5n-3 + C22:6n-3.
n-6 was calculated as C18:2n-6 + C18:3n-6 + C20:3n-6 + C20:4n-6.
n-3 was calculated as C18:3n-3 + C20:3n-3 + C20:5n-3 + C22:6n-3.
EFA was calculated as ALA + LA.
Effects of dietary ramie supplementation on Amino Acid Content in Whole Egg (g/100 g DW).
| Items | Ingredient | Control | Ramie supplementation concentration in diets | SEM |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3% | 6% | 9% | ANOVA | Linear | Quadratic | ||||
| nonessential amino acid | Asp | 1.04 | 1.06 | 1.07 | 1.05 | 0.008 | 0.508 | 0.541 | 0.189 |
| Tyr | 0.38 | 0.40 | 0.41 | 0.40 | 0.006 | 0.647 | 0.402 | 0.347 | |
| Ser | 0.52 | 0.54 | 0.55 | 0.52 | 0.006 | 0.179 | 0.652 | 0.040 | |
| Glu | 0.94 | 0.94 | 0.98 | 0.95 | 0.008 | 0.262 | 0.299 | 0.425 | |
| Gly | 0.42 | 0.41 | 0.43 | 0.42 | 0.005 | 0.629 | 0.758 | 0.930 | |
| Ala | 0.65 | 0.65 | 0.67 | 0.65 | 0.007 | 0.463 | 0.535 | 0.574 | |
| Cys | 0.44 | 0.47 | 0.46 | 0.45 | 0.006 | 0.397 | 0.513 | 0.193 | |
| Arg | 1.25 | 1.21 | 1.14 | 1.17 | 0.026 | 0.404 | 0.151 | 0.524 | |
| Pro | 0.53 | 0.56 | 0.59 | 0.49 | 0.018 | 0.302 | 0.632 | 0.094 | |
| His | 0.47 | 0.49 | 0.47 | 0.45 | 0.007 | 0.263 | 0.171 | 0.205 | |
| essential amino acid | Met | 0.24 | 0.29 | 0.27 | 0.28 | 0.009 | 0.406 | 0.293 | 0.292 |
| Val | 0.47 | 0.50 | 0.49 | 0.49 | 0.008 | 0.409 | 0.287 | 0.256 | |
| Lys | 0.78 | 0.82 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.009 | 0.449 | 0.605 | 0.249 | |
| Ile | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.39 | 0.40 | 0.007 | 0.981 | 0.993 | 0.965 | |
| Phe | 0.34b | 0.36ab | 0.37a | 0.36ab | 0.005 | 0.026 | 0.019 | 0.050 | |
| Leu | 0.67 | 0.69 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.008 | 0.648 | 0.256 | 0.632 | |
| Trp | 0.20 | 0.23 | 0.23 | 0.24 | 0.009 | 0.569 | 0.193 | 0.722 | |
| Thr | 0.43 | 0.45 | 0.45 | 0.43 | 0.005 | 0.210 | 0.394 | 0.056 | |
| EAA | 3.42 | 3.72 | 3.68 | 3.60 | 0.045 | 0.055 | 0.152 | 0.023 | |
| NEAA | 6.64 | 6.72 | 6.75 | 6.55 | 0.048 | 0.507 | 0.719 | 0.166 | |
| FAA | 4.27 | 4.27 | 4.29 | 4.28 | 0.150 | 0.993 | 0.831 | 0.946 | |
| TAA | 10.05 | 10.44 | 10.43 | 10.15 | 0.082 | 0.223 | 0.608 | 0.047 | |
| EAA/NEAA | 0.51b | 0.56a | 0.54a | 0.55a | 0.006 | 0.037 | 0.061 | 0.061 | |
| EAA/TAA | 33.97b | 35.66a | 35.26a | 35.41a | 0.234 | 0.031 | 0.038 | 0.066 | |
| FAA/TAA | 41.56 | 41.78 | 41.52 | 41.75 | 0.716 | 0.968 | 0.864 | 0.954 | |
a,bMeans within a row with no common superscripts differ significantly (p < 0.05).
Asp, aspartic acid; Tyr, tryptophan; Ser, serine; Glu, glutamic acid; Gly, glycine; Ala, alanine; Cys, cysteine; Arg, arginine; Pro, proline; His, histidine; Met, methionine; Val, valine; Lys, lysine; Ile, l-isoleucine; Phe, phenylalanine; Leu, leucine; Trp, tryptophan; Thr, threonin; EAA, essential amino acid; NEAA, nonessential amino acid; FAA, umami amino acids; TAA, total amino acids.