Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Agriculture in China

ISSN 1673-7334

ISSN 1673-744X(Online)

CN 11-5729/S

Front Agric Chin    2011, Vol. 5 Issue (4) : 605-611    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11703-011-1141-z
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Effects of an emulsifier on the performances of Khaki Campbell ducks added with different sources of fats
Zosangpuii, Amlan Kumar PATRA(), Goutam SAMANTA, Kaushik PAL
Department of Animal Nutrition, Faculty of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, West Bengal University of Animal and Fishery Sciences, 37 K B, Sarani, Belgachia, Kolkata 700037, India
 Download: PDF(118 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

An experiment was conducted to assess the effects of different sources of fats added with an external emulsifier (lecithin) on the performances of Khaki Campbell Ducks in an eight-week trial. Ducks were grouped into five dietary groups with three replicates (n = 10) in each group. The ducks were fed with a basal diet supplemented with 3% soybean oil and without emulsifier (C1), 3% palm oil without emulsifier (C2), 3% soybean oil with emulsifier (T1), 3% palm oil with emulsifier (T2) and 3% lard with emulsifier (T3). The growth performance of ducks did not vary (P>0.1) among the dietary treatments. Feed intakes by ducks were also similar (P>0.1) among treatments within the periods. Similarly, feed intake to gain ratios were not affected by any dietary treatments. The metabolizability of dry matter, crude protein and nitrogen free extract also did not change (P>0.1) due to various dietary treatments. However, the metabolizability of fats in all the emulsifier added groups (T1, T2 and T3) was greater (P<0.05) than the dietary groups without emulsifier (C1 and C2). Various carcass traits such as percentages of hot carcass, breast, legs, lungs, hearts, gizzard, giblets weights relative to bodyweights did not vary (P>0.1) among the groups. The carcass yield tended (P = 0.06) to be greater in the T1 than in the C1 group. The moisture, fats, protein and ash composition of meat (percent on fresh basis) was similar (P>0.1) among treatments. In conclusion, supplementation of lecithin as an emulsifier to the diets containing different sources of fats (3%) appears to have no major impact on the overall performances of Khaki Campbell ducks in their grower phase.

Keywords Khaki Campbell ducks      fats      emulsifier      performance     
Corresponding Author(s): PATRA Amlan Kumar,Email:patra_amlan@yahoo.com   
Issue Date: 05 December 2011
 Cite this article:   
Kaushik PAL,Goutam SAMANTA,Zosangpuii, et al. Effects of an emulsifier on the performances of Khaki Campbell ducks added with different sources of fats[J]. Front Agric Chin, 2011, 5(4): 605-611.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fag/EN/10.1007/s11703-011-1141-z
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fag/EN/Y2011/V5/I4/605
IngredientsComposition
Maize (g/kg)400
Soybean (g/kg)150
Rice bran (g/kg)350
Fish meal (g/kg)40
Fats (g/kg)*30
Di-calcium phosphate (g/kg)15
L-lysine (g/kg)7.5
DL-methionine (g/kg)3.0
Common salt (g/kg)2.5
Premix**1.2
Trace minerals***0.9
Calculated chemical composition
Crude protein (g/kg)182
Metabolizable energy (Mcal/kg)2.88
Lysine (g/kg)17.2
Methionine (g/kg)6.21
Calcium (g/kg)7.52
Phosphorous (g/kg)5.14
Tab.1  Ingredient composition of diet fed to Khaki Campbell ducks
Chemical compositionC1C2T1T2T3
Crude protein (g/kg)183180186186180
Crude fiber (g/kg)68.876.577.569.876.5
Nitrogen free (g/kg)621610602608606
Ether extract (g/kg)51.150.851.354.852.0
Ash (g/kg)76.282.682.980.985.4
GE (Mcal/kg)3.9453.9273.9933.9233.983
Tab.2  Analyzed chemical composition of diets dry matter basis fed to Khaki Campbell ducks
ItemsTreatmentsSEMP value
C1C2T1T2T3
Bodyweight (g)
Day 0174.4167.1170.5174.4169.42.150.45
Day 7275.0258.6266.7283.3312.2
Day 14435.0440.0471.8445.0464.4
Day 21568.8614.3645.0594.4594.4
Day 28711.2752.9782.5729.4722.2
Day 42966.2924.3980.0934.0927.2
Day 5611021085113611261106
Intake (g/day)
Day 0-1451.050.952.951.751.12.580.80
Day 15-2881.481.381.982.181.7
Day 29-56113.7114.3114.7115.9115.3
Overall86.586.987.687.987.3
Feed to gain ratio (g/g)
Days 0-142.802.802.732.712.420.0450.21
Days 15-284.123.723.784.074.44
Days 29-568.329.598.988.148.33
Overall5.225.305.085.175.22
Tab.3  Effects of different sources of fat supplementation with an emulsifier on bodyweight (g per duck), intake (g per day) and feed to gain ratio (g/g) of Khaki Campbell ducks
ItemsTreatmentsSEMP value
C1C2T1T2T3
Daily intake
Dry matter (g)105.5103.5105.5105.8105.11.4660.65
Ether extract (g)5.395.275.415.915.460.1570.15
Crude protein (g)19.318.719.719.618.90.3140.29
Nitrogen free extract(g)64.563.163.564.362.60.8750.46
Gross energy (kcal)4164074214154172.870.21
AME (kcal)38832834934534620.70.16
Metabolizability
Dry matter (g/kg)7987908168228158.840.19
Fat (g/kg)912a916a937b939b942b3.460.01
Crude protein (g/kg)74876978577978525.80.35
Nitrogen free extract (g/kg)9489359509499475.550.37
Energy (g/kg)8138068298318297.210.18
AME (Mcal/kg)3.2063.1653.3103.2603.3010.0720.15
Villi length (μm)
Duodenum83567192599877392.30.09
Jejunum95064070177568686.50.23
Ilium79072374382367845.80.32
Cholesterol (mg/dL)1661761471321359.290.08
Tab.4  Effects of different sources of fat supplementation with an emulsifier on intake and metabolizability of nutrients in Khaki Campbell ducks
ItemsTreatmentsSEMP value
C1C2T1T2T3
Carcass traits (g/kg of BW)
Hot carcass61662064763362310.00.32
Breast12015416714214911.40.29
Legs102.696.8102.899.196.82.970.40
Liver21.721.318.119.820.20.680.08
Lungs11.110.013.010.610.01.090.41
Gizzard51.343.844.551.846.32.550.21
Heart11.111.911.411.813.01.140.81
Giblets92.082.483.089.684.63.050.24
Carcass yield44848451148248010.20.06
Meat composition ((g/kg, fresh basis)
Dry matter2812782812652608.860.40
Protein1992022102051993.660.22
Fat22.522.122.621.122.10.790.71
Ash14.214.714.313.014.00.890.73
Tab.5  Effects of different sources of fats supplementation with an emulsifier on carcass traits and meat composition of Khaki Campbell ducks
1 AOAC (1995). Official Methods of Analysis. 16th ed. Arlington: Association of Official Analytical Chemist
2 Blanch A, Barroeta A C, Baucells M D, Serrano X, Puchal F (1996). Utilization of different fats and oils by adult chickens as a source of energy, lipid and fatty acids. Anim Feed Sci Technol , 61(1–4): 335–342
doi: 10.1016/0377-8401(95)00931-0
3 Cera K R, Mahan D C, Cross R F, Reinhart G A, Whitmoyer R E (1988a). Effect of age, weaning and postweaning diet on small intestinal growth and jejunal morphology in young swine. J Anim Sci , 66(2): 574–584
pmid:3372395
4 Cera K R, Mahan D C, Reinhart G A (1988b). Effects of dietary dried whey and corn oil on weanling pig performance, fat digestibility and nitrogen utilization. J Anim Sci , 66(6): 1438–1445
pmid:3260896
5 Cera K R, Mahan D C, Reinhart G A (1989). Apparent fat digestibilities and performance responses of postweaning swine fed diets supplemented with coconut oil, corn oil or tallow. J Anim Sci , 67(8): 2040–2046
6 Cobos A, Veiga A, D??az O (2000). Chemical and fatty acid composition of meat and liver of wild ducks (Anas platyrhynchos). Food Chem , 68(1): 77–79
doi: 10.1016/S0308-8146(99)00164-8
7 Dierick N A, Decuypere J A (2004). Influence of lipase and/or emulsifier addition on the ileal and faecal nutrient digestibility in growing pigs fed diets containing 4% animal fat. J Sci Food Agric , 84(12): 1443–1450
doi: 10.1002/jsfa.1794
8 Freeman C P, Holme D W, Annison E F (1968). The determination of the true digestibilities of interesterified fats in young pigs. Br J Nutr , 22(4): 651–660
doi: 10.1079/BJN19680076 pmid:5712034
9 Gu X, Li D (2003). Fat nutrition and metabolism in piglets: a review. Anim Feed Sci Technol , 109(1–4): 151–170
doi: 10.1016/S0377-8401(03)00171-8
10 Huang J, Yang D, Gao S, Wang T (2008). Effects of soy-lecithin on lipid metabolism and hepatic expression of lipogenic genes in broiler chickens. Livest Sci , 118(1–2): 53–60
doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2008.01.014
11 Iji P A, Saki A, Tivey D R (2001). Body and intestinal growth of broiler chicks on a commercial starter diet. 1. Intestinal weight and mucosal development. Br Poult Sci , 42(4): 505–513
doi: 10.1080/00071660120073151 pmid:11572627
12 Incharoen T, Khambualai O, Yamauchi K (2009). Performance and histological changes of the intestinal villi in chickens fed dietary natural zeolite including plant extract. Asian J Polit Sci , 3(2): 42–50
doi: 10.3923/ajpsaj.2009.42.50
13 Jones D B, Hancock J D, Harmon D L, Walker C E (1992). Effects of exogenous emulsifiers and fat sources on nutrient digestibility, serum lipids, and growth performance in weanling pigs. J Anim Sci , 70(11): 3473–3482
pmid:1459909
14 Kim W T, Shinde P, Chae B J (2008) Effect of lecithin with or without chitooligosaccharide on the growth performance, nutrient digestibility, blood metabolites and pork quality of finishing pigs. Can J Anim Sci , 88(2): 283–292
doi: 10.4141/CJAS07079
15 Li D F, Thaler R C, Nelssen J L, Harmon D L, Allee G L, Weeden T L (1990). Effect of fat sources and combinations on starter pig performance, nutrient digestibility and intestinal morphology. J Anim Sci , 68(11): 3694–3704
pmid:2262422
16 Marenus K D, Sj?strand F S (1982). The effects of different concentrations of administered fat on the structure of columnar cells in the small intestine. J Ultrastruct Res , 79(1): 110–120
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5320(82)90056-9 pmid:7086940
17 Overland M, Mroz Z, Sundst?l F (1994). Effect of lecithin on the apparent ileal and overall digestibility of crude fat and fatty acids in pigs. J Anim Sci , 72(8): 2022–2028
pmid:7982831
18 Overland M, Tokach M D, Cornelius S G, Pettigrew J E, Wilson M E (1993). Lecithin in swine diets: II. Growing-finishing pigs. J Anim Sci , 71(5): 1194–1197
pmid:8505253
19 Polin D (1980). Increased absorption of tallow with lecithin. Poult Sci , 59: 1652 (abstract)
20 Rinninger F, Pittman R C (1987). Regulation of the selective uptake of high density lipoprotein-associated cholesteryl esters. J Lipid Res , 28(11): 1313–1325
pmid:3430062
21 Roy A, Haldar S, Mondal S, Ghosh T K (2010). Effects of supplemental exogenous emulsifier on performance, nutrient metabolism, and serum lipid profile in broiler chickens. Vet Med Int , (2010): 262604
doi: 10.4061/2010/262604 pmid:20671938
22 Schiavone A, Marzoni M, Castillo A, Nery J, Romboli I (2010). Dietary lipid sources and vitamin E affect fatty acid composition or lipid stability of breast meat from Muscovy duck. Can J Anim Sci , 90(3): 371–378
doi: 10.4141/CJAS10010
23 Smith M W, Jarvis L G (1978). Growth and cell replacement in the new-born pig intestine. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci , 203(1150): 69–89
doi: 10.1098/rspb.1978.0092 pmid:32546
24 Soares M, Lopez-Bote C J (2002). Effects of dietary lecithin and fat unsaturation on nutrient utilisation in weaned piglets. Anim Feed Sci Technol , 95(3–4): 169–177
doi: 10.1016/S0377-8401(01)00324-8
25 Spilburg C A, Goldberg A C, McGill J B, Stenson W F, Racette S B, Bateman J, McPherson T B, Ostlund R E Jr (2003). Fat free foods supplemented with soy stanol-lecithin powder reduce cholesterol absorption and LDL cholesterol. J Am Diet Assoc , 103(5): 577–581
doi: 10.1053/jada.2003.50110
26 SPSS (1997). Statistical Package for Social Sciences, Base Applications Guide 7.5. SPSS, Chicago, USA
27 Thomson A B R, Keelan M (1986). The development of the small intestine. Can J Physiol Pharmacol , 64(1): 13–29
doi: 10.1139/y86-003 pmid:3513924
28 Van Wormer D M, Pollman D S (1985). Effect of lecithin addition to starter pig diets with and without added fat and dried whey. Nutr Rep Int , 32: 801–808
29 Wilson T A, Meservey C M, Nicolosi R J (1998). Soy lecithin reduces plasma lipoprotein cholesterol and early atherogenesis in hypercholesterolemic monkeys and hamsters: beyond linoleate. Atherosclerosis , 140(1): 147–153
doi: 10.1016/S0021-9150(98)00132-4 pmid:9733225
30 Wiseman J, Powles J, Salvador F (1998). Comparison between pigs and poultry in the prediction of the dietary energy value of fats. Anim Feed Sci Technol , 71(1–2): 1–9
doi: 10.1016/S0377-8401(97)00142-9
31 Xing J J, van Heugten E, Lit D F, Touchette K J, Coalson J A, Odgaard R L, Odle J (2004). Effects of emulsification, fat encapsulation, and pelleting on weanling pig performance and nutrient digestibility. J Anim Sci , 82(9): 2601–2609
pmid:15446476
32 Younoszai M K, Adedoyin M, Ranshaw J (1978). Dietary components and gastrointestinal growth in rats. J Nutr , 108(3): 341–350
pmid:627908
33 Yu B, Chiou W S (1997). The morphological changes of intestinal mucosa in growing rabbits. Lab Anim , 31(3): 254–263
doi: 10.1258/002367797780596301 pmid:9230507
[1] Baojiang CHEN, Yong WANG, Huimin YU, Qing XU. Effects of aflatoxin-detoxifizyme on growth performance and liver biochemical indices of broilers fed with aflatoxin B1[J]. Front Agric Chin, 2011, 5(4): 594-597.
[2] Lanhui LI, Guoxian ZHAO, Zhiyou REN, Lei DUAN, Huiqin ZHENG, Jianping WANG, Yongkang HE. Effects of early feed restriction programs on production performance and hormone level in plasma of broiler chickens[J]. Front Agric Chin, 2011, 5(1): 94-101.
[3] Bing YU, Guangbo YANG, Jingbo LIU, Daiwen CHEN. Effects of folic acid supplementation on growth performance and hepatic folate metabolism-related gene expressions in weaned piglets[J]. Front Agric Chin, 2010, 4(4): 494-500.
[4] TANG Zhonglin, LI Kui, PENG Zhongzhen, LIU Bang, FAN Bin, ZHAO Shuhong, LI Xiaoping, XU Sanping. Effect of breed, sex and birth parity on growth, carcass and meat quality in pigs[J]. Front. Agric. China, 2008, 2(3): 331-337.
[5] LI Xia, LI Lianlu, WANG Meiyun, DING Zaisong, ZHAO Ming. Heterosis of maize photosynthetic performance[J]. Front. Agric. China, 2007, 1(4): 411-417.
[6] SUN Bin, ZHANG Keying, ZENG Qiufeng, WANG Cairong. Effects of ascites syndrome in broilers on their growth performances and the availability of energy and nutrients[J]. Front. Agric. China, 2007, 1(2): 220-223.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed