www.poultryindia.co.in | www.poultryprotein.com | www.poultryrecipes.co.in

Towards Optimum Enteric Resilience in Poultry

Aaron, Cowieson

Principal Scientist DSM Nutritional Products

Adjunct Professor University of Sydney

3

• Defining gut health

• Enzymes and digestive health

• Enzymes and physiological health

• Enzymes and microbiological health

• Enzymes and immunological health

• Conclusions

Presentation Overview

4

‘…a steady state where the microflora and the intestinal tract exist in symbiotic equilibrium and where the welfare and performance of the animal is not constrained by intestinal disfunction.’

Defining gut health

5

• Shift in site and completeness of macro-nutrient digestion• Changing gut morphology: macro and micro• Changing gut environment e.g. viscosity, pH, ions, temperature• Changing growth rate of the bird (maturity:metabolic BW)• Changing litter composition and moisture content• Altered soluble and insoluble NSP dynamics• Altered microbial populations• Changing rate of passage and residency of feed• Changing immune status• Altered digestive enzyme complement• Altered nutrient transport function• Altered partitioning of nutrients• Altered feed matrix – ingredient and processing levels• Altered water intake

Potential converging areas: gut health and exogenous enzymes

Enzymes and digestion

6

7

• Is intestinal absorptive capacity a rate limiting step for poultry performance?

Croom et al. (1999)

8

• Development of digestive enzymes with age (turkey poults)

Krogdahl & Sell (1989)

9

• Whilst pancreatic enzyme output increases with age, body mass increases rapidly and digestive tissue decreases as a proportion of body weight

• Krogdahl & Sell (1989) show the below.• As a % of BW there is 4 times more intestinal tissue in a young chick with only 40%

of the pancreatic output per gram of pancreas• OLDER birds, NOT younger, may be limited by digestive capacity

• Is this why there are conflicting reports on the effect of age on digestibility in broilers?– Wallis & Balnave, 1984– Ten Doeschate et al. 1993– Huang et al. 2005– etc

Implications

Enzymes and gut physiology

10

11

• Sources of endogenous lossPancreatic and gastric enzymesMucinBileAcidsBicarbonateIntestinal cells(Microbial protein)Saliva

• ‘Loss’ defined when an endogenous secretion leaves the ileum (amino acid cost to the animal) where there will be no further reabsorption

BALANCE OF SECRETION AND ABSORPTION!

Endogenous loss (Moughan & Rutherfurd, 2012)

12

Low (1980)

13

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Asp Thr Ser GluPro Gly Ala Val Ile Le

u TyrPhe His Ly

sArg Cys Met

% o

f am

ino

acid

• amino acids of most significance, overall, are ser, gly, leu, pro, val, thr, asp• of least significance are met and his

Amino acid profile of endogenous proteins

• mean amino acid profile of 8 sources of endogenous protein

14

• Reduced antinutritive effects of e.g. phytate and fibre via exogenous enzymes – reduced endogenous loss

• Supplementation with exogenous enzymes can directly influence endogenous production e.g. Jiang et al. (2008) – amylase mRNA

2,250mg/kg of supplementary amylase reduced pancreatic amylase mRNA by around 20%

• Exogenous enzymes can alter GIT length and improve net energy e.g. Cowieson et al. (2003), Pirgozliev et al. (2009, 2010)

• Enzymes can reduce loss of endogenous amino acids (Cowieson et al. 2004)

Exogenous enzymes and endogenous secretion

15

Li & Sauer (1994)• Effect of added fat (canola oil) on amino acid digestibility in piglets

16

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

% c

hang

e in

ilea

l dig

estib

ility

from

PC

to N

C

d21 d42

Fat removal may compromise digestibility of AA

17

• Mean response to ProAct was around 4% ranging from 5.6% for Thr to 2.7% for Glu

• AME was significantly increased by 49 Kcal/kg and fat dig by 1%

• Inherent digestibility in the control diet explained around 47% of the variance in response (Fig above)

• Pattern of response is correlated with the AA profile of intestinal mucin (Fig right)

Cowieson & Roos, 2014: Journal of Applied Animal Nutrition

2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 60

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

f(x) = 3.31916065853471 x − 6.23896764791261R² = 0.351527456989399

Change in amino acid digestibility with protease (%)

Am

ino

acid

pro

file

of in

test

inal

muc

in

(%)

Digestibility

• Interacts with protein– Protein:phytate– Type of protein (polarity)

• Reduction of protein solubility– Increased pepsin and HCl– Increased mucin and NaHCO3

• May act as a kosmotropic anion on water structure

Phytate as an anti-nutrient

8.37.0 7.3

21.7

6.17.0

3.04.5 4.3 4.7

1.6 2.2 1.73.7

2.0 2.1 1.3

9.89.1

10.5

18.5

7.0

9.2

2.4

4.6 4.8 4.8

1.5 1.8 1.7

3.42.6 2.3

2.00

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Endo

geno

us fl

ow (m

g AA

/kg

DM in

take

)

Basal IP6

• Basal + 4g/kg Phytate-P•Total AA flow +87.6%• N flow +78%• Ser +152%; Thr +135%• Glu +49%; Ala +29%

P<0.05 for most amino acidsAsp Thr Ser Glu Pro Gly Ala Val Ile Leu Tyr Phe His Lys Arg Cys Met

Cowieson & Ravindran, 2007

Cowieson & Ravindran, 2007

9.89.1

10.5

18.5

7.0

7.0

2.4

4.6 4.8 4.8

1.5 1.8 1.7

3.42.6 2.3

2.0

10.2

7.7

9.5

21.9

6.0

8.6

2.5

4.5 4.6 4.8

1.7 1.6 1.3

3.42.1 2.3 1.2

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Endo

geno

us f

low

(mg

AA/k

g D

M in

take

)

• 4g/kg Phytate + phytase•Total AA flow -21%• N flow -19%• Cys -86%; Thr -75%• Tyr -16%; Glu -5%

P<0.05 for most amino acidsAsp Thr Ser Glu Pro Gly Ala Val Ile Leu Tyr Phe His Lys Arg Cys Met

Enzymes and gut microbiology

21

22

• Substrate limitation (proximal shift)• Viscosity reduction• pH reduction• Direct lysis• Fermentation changes e.g. xylo-oligomers• Others

Ways in which exogenous enzymes influence the gut microflora

23

Caecal thermogenesisCowieson & Masey-O’Neil (2013)

24Canola Canola+ProAct SBM SBM+ProAct

0.5

0.7

0.9

1.1

1.3

1.5

1.7

1.9

2.1

Claudin1SLC7A2

• Endogenous loss – bacterial changes/fermentation of protein?• Mucin integrity and enzyme consequences• Ion balance in the intestine e.g. NaCl egress and nutrient transport• Tight junctions (Purdue University data, In press) – ProAct P < 0.05

Enzymes and bacterial/gut influences

Enzymes and immunology

25

26

• Resistence: ability to repel an infectious agent• Resilience: ability to maintain productivity during challenge

• Nutrient requirements change during immune challenge– Linoleic acid, vitamin A, iron, selenium, B vitamins– AA requirements shift

• Exogenous enzymes improve bioavailability of minerals and amino acids required to improve resilience (not from Klasing!)

Klasing (1998)

27

• Ala, Gly, Leu & Ser are disproportionately required for synthesis of avian acute phase proteins

Ala Cys Asp Glu Phe Gly His Ile Lys Leu Met Asn Pro Gln Arg Ser Thr Val Trp Tyr0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

% o

f am

ino

acid

in a

vian

AP

Ps

Acute Phase Protein (AA profiles)

28

• Gut health is more than the absence of disease and goes well beyond the microbial flora

• Tensile strength, collagen integrity, mucin integrity, enzyme output and composition, absorptive capacity and appropriate immunological resilience are all key

• Exogenous enzymes can improve gut health directly via e.g. shift in digestion site, improved mucin integrity and indirectly though liberation of nutrients needed for immune responses

• As AGP removal becomes more commonplace feed enzymes will form a large part of the toolbox of microbial countermeasures we have

Conclusions

Aaron, CowiesonDSM Nutritional ProductsUniversity of SydneyPrincipal Scientist & Adjunct Profwww.dsm.comAaron.cowieson@dsm.com+447795520661

Contact