Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-7zcd7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T04:01:09.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The role of added feed enzymes in promoting gut health in swine and poultry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 May 2013

Elijah Kiarie*
Affiliation:
DuPont Industrial Biosciences-Danisco Animal Nutrition, Marlborough, WiltshireSN8 1XN, UK
Luis F. Romero
Affiliation:
DuPont Industrial Biosciences-Danisco Animal Nutrition, Marlborough, WiltshireSN8 1XN, UK
Charles M. Nyachoti
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Manitoba, MBWinnipeg, CanadaR3T 2N2
*
*Corresponding author: Dr Elijah Kiarie, fax +44 1672 517778, email elijah.kiarie@dupont.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The value of added feed enzymes (FE) in promoting growth and efficiency of nutrient utilisation is well recognised in single-stomached animal production. However, the effects of FE on the microbiome of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) are largely unrecognised. A critical role in host nutrition, health, performance and quality of the products produced is played by the intestinal microbiota. FE can make an impact on GIT microbial ecology by reducing undigested substrates and anti-nutritive factors and producing oligosaccharides in situ from dietary NSP with potential prebiotic effects. Investigations with molecular microbiology techniques have demonstrated FE-mediated responses on energy utilisation in broiler chickens that were associated with certain clusters of GIT bacteria. Furthermore, investigations using specific enteric pathogen challenge models have demonstrated the efficacy of FE in modulating gut health. Because FE probably change the substrate characteristics along the GIT, subsequent microbiota responses will vary according to the populations present at the time of administration and their reaction to such changes. Therefore, the microbiota responses to FE administration, rather than being absolute, are a continuum or a population of responses. However, recognition that FE can make an impact on the gut microbiota and thus gut health will probably stimulate development of FE capable of modulating gut microbiota to the benefit of host health under specific production conditions. The present review brings to light opportunities and challenges for the role of major FE (carbohydrases and phytase) on the gut health of poultry and swine species with a specific focus on the impact on GIT microbiota.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2013 
Figure 0

Fig. 1 Link between feed enzymes and gut microbiota in poultry and swine. NSPases, NSP-degrading carbohydrases. (A colour version of this figure can be found online at http://www.journals.cambridge.org/nrr)

Figure 1

Fig. 2 Ileal digestibility (%) of starch (A), fat (B), protein (C) and their contribution (kJ/kg diet) to dietary energy (D) in maize–soya (maize-SBM) or maize–soya diets with 10 % dried distillers grains and 5 % rapeseed meal (mixed) fed to broiler chickens as influenced by enzyme combinations containing xylanase and amylase (XA), or xylanase, amylase and protease (XAP). (D) , Protein; , fat; starch. Xylanase was from Trichoderma reesei at 2000 units/kg feed; amylase was from Bacillus lichiniformis at 200 units/kg feed; protease was from B. subtilis at 4000 units/kg feed. a,b,cMean values with unlike superscript letters within a subgrouping were significantly different (P< 0·05). Adapted from Romero et al.(82) (A colour version of this figure can be found online at http://www.journals.cambridge.org/nrr).

Figure 2

Table 1 Carbohydrate contents (g/kg DM) and major NSP in common feedstuffs*

Figure 3

Table 2 Monomeric sugar composition (mg/g) of enzyme hydrolysis products from common feedstuffs*

Figure 4

Fig. 3 Acute feed intake of piglets fed enzyme hydrolysis products () or a control diet () and challenged with enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) (A) and incidence and severity of diarrhoea (faecal scores) in piglets fed enzyme hydrolysis products () or a control diet () upon challenge with ETEC (B). Values are means, with standard errors represented by vertical bars. * Mean value was significantly different from that of the control (P< 0·05). Adapted from Kiarie et al.(122,123).