Livestock Research for Rural Development 34 (3) 2022 LRRD Search LRRD Misssion Guide for preparation of papers LRRD Newsletter

Citation of this paper

Effects of supplementing squid soluble hydrolyte and shrimp soluble hydrolyte extracts on growth performance and digestion of local Muscovy ducks

Pham Tan Nha and Le Thu Thuy

Cantho University, Cantho City, Vietnam

Abstract

conducted with the goal of evaluate the utilization capacity of squid soluble hydrolyte and shrimp soluble hydrolyte extracts of local Muscovy ducks. It was a complete randomized design with 5 treatments corresponding to 5 diets and 3 replications. equal numbers in sex were used in one experimental unit. The treatment 1 (basic diet), Treatment 2, 3 were mixed basic and squid soluble hydrolysate with 1%, 2%, respectively (DM). The treatment 4 and 5 similarly turn but additional 1%, 2% of shrimp soluble extracts in the diet, respectively. The treatments were: CSM0, CSM1, CSM2, CST1 and CST2, respectively. The results shown that daily weight gain (DWG) was lower for the ducks without supplementing shrimp and squid hydrolyte (CSM0 treatment) than those fed shrimp and squid hydrolyte and the significantly higher result found in the CSM2, CST1 and CST2 treatments (P<0.05). FCR of local Muscovy ducks were better in the CSM2, CST1 and CST2 treatments (P <0.05). Accumulated Nitrogen (Nr) of CSM2, CST1 and CST2 treatments were higest (59.17g/kg, 60.12g/kg and 60.15g/kg, respectively). It was concluded that the diets supplemented with hydrolyzed shrimp juice at 2% gave higher results in terms of weight gain and low feed conversion

Key words: local muscovy duck, squid soluble hydrolyte, shrimp soluble extracts


Introduction

Local muscovy ducks is an easy breed of duck with a fast growth rate, which helps farmers maintain a stable income. Local muscovy ducks usually have black feathers, white feathers on the neck and head.They weigh between 1.8 and 2.0 kg for females and 3 to 3.5 kg for males after three months of rearing Local Muscovy ducks meat is delicious, the price is higher than other duck breeds. This breed is easy to raise the enviroment which used by-products. Ducks are commonly raised among farmers in the Mekong Delta.

Shrimp is the main export processing product of the seafood processing industry

Vietnamese products. At the same time, with a large volume of shrimp exported every year, waste. Shrimp head and shell also account for a very large amount. According to some studies, the proportion of by-products of shrimp processing accounts for 50% (30-55%) (by fresh weight). Protein hydrolysis from aquatic ingredients has become popular in the food industry due to its high protein content (Colrdova-Murueta et al, 2007). The hydrolysis of proteins reduces the size of the peptide and the hydrolyzate is an available source of amino acids for protein biosynthesis.

Specifically, shrimp juice and hydrolyzed squid have many advantages compared to similar products on the market. Taste-stimulating products help pets eat better, more, gain weight faster, reduce feed conversion rate (FCR - Feed Conversion Rate), reduce stress, increase survival rate. Especially, according to the results According to the latest analysis results from Novozymes Corporation, a product with low molecular weight (under 500 Dalton accounts for more than 93%), helps to increase the resistance of livestock, thereby increasing economic efficiency, bringing high profits. for breeders (VNF company). According to the research results of Pham Tan Nha et al., 2019 on broiler chickens, adding 1-2% of shrimp juice and hydrolysed squid had a higher profit than no supplement (5-9% increase in profit).


Materials and methods

Location and climate of the study area

Experiment was conducted from May to November in 2020, at a private farm (a householder) in Vinh Long province. The chemical analysis of feeds was done at the laboratory of the Department of Animal sciences. Faculty of Agriculture of Can Tho University.

Experimental animals

One day old-local Muscovy ducks were bought from a local Muscovy ducks breeding farm in Long An province. Local Muscovy duck from 2 to 28 days were fed special concentrate pellet (20% CP). The local Muscovy ducks at 29 days of age were introduced to the trial, all local Muscovy ducks were vaccinated H5N9. Duck cholera vaccine and some common diseases before using in the trial.

Experimental design and treatments

One hundred and fifty local Muscovy ducks at 5 weeks of age (805 30.50 g/duck) were allotted in a completely randomized design with 5 treatments and 3 replicates and 10 ducks per experimental unit (balanced sex). The treatments were the different shrimp and squid hydrolyte supplement levels of 0, 1.0 and 2.0 % (shrimp hydrolyte); 1.0 and 2.0% (squid hydrolyte) to concentrate basal diets, corresponding to the CSM0 (basal diet), CSM1, CSM2, CST1 and CST2 treatments, respectively). The trial lasted 7 weeks with local Muscovy ducks from 5 to 11 weeks of age.

Digestive experiment

The experimental setup was the same as the growth experiment. Each experimental unit has 2 ducks (1 male:1 female). The experiment was performed at 8 weeks of age. The experimental period was 14 days (7 days to get the ducks used to the feed and 7 days to take feed and faeces samples). Feed ingredients of basal diet was presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Chemical compositions of the ingredients in diets (%)

Ingredients

DM

OM

CP

EE

CF

Ash

ME* (kcal/
kg DM)

Paddy

88.9

95.1

7.2

1.64

11.1

4.80

2.930

Soybean extraction

89.5

94.8

43.3

1.22

5.46

6.73

2.482

Pangasius meal

89.7

78.2

42.9

15.9

3.7

21.5

3.143

Squid hydrolyte

22.9

80.8

76.1

6.6

3.94

19.2

-

Shrimp hydrolyte

31.9

84.5

67.1

6.4

3.85

15.5

-

* Jansen (1989)



Table 1a. Amino acid composition in hydrolyzed Squid and Shrimp juice (%)

Squid
hydrolyte

1.36%
aspartic acid

0.69%
serine

2.31%>
Glutamic acid

1.35%
glycine

0.57%
histidine

1.25%
arginine

0.79%
threonine

2.18%
alanine

1.00%
proline

0.21%
cystine

0.61%
tyrosine

1.12%
valine

0.41%
methionine

0.85%
lysine

0.85%
isoleucine

1.44%
leucine

1.05%
phenyl alanine

Shrimp
hydrolyte

1.47%
aspartic acid

0.71%
serine

2.33%
Glutamic acid

1.43%
glycine

0.56%
histidine

1.22%
arginine

0.83%
threonine

2.17%
alanine

1.01%
proline

0.23%
cystine

0.64%
tyrosine

1.14%
valine

0.46%
methionine

0.95%
lysine

0.90%
isoleucine

1.43%
leucine

1.04%
phenyl alanine

Pham Tan Nha (2019)



Photo 1. Shrimp and squid hydrolyte Photo 2. Muscovy ducks lodging and prepare feed


Figure 1. Hydrolysis process of squid and shrimp juice



Table 2. Chemical compositions of feed ingredients in diet (% DM)

Ingredients (%)

Treatments

CSM0

CSM1

CSM2

CST1

CST2

Paddy

73

72.26

71.53

72.36

71.53

Soybean extraction

10

9.9

9.8

9.9

9.8

Pangasius meal

16

15.85

15.69

15.75

15.69

Squid hydrolyzate

-

1

2

-

-

Shrimp hydrolyzate

-

-

-

1

2

Mineral and vitamin

1

0.99

0.98

0.99

0.98

Total

100

100

100

100

100

DM

88.19

87.54

86.88

87.63

86.06

OM

92.29

92.32

91.99

92.30

92.26

CP

16.00

16.61

17.21

16.58

17.18

EE

2.95

2.99

3.02

2.98

3.02

CF

9.34

9.30

9.23

9.27

9.21

Ash

6.86

7.00

7.10

6.95

7.04

ME* (kcal/kg)

3,020

-

-

-

-

DM: dry matter, OM: orgarnic matter, CP: crude protein, EE: ether extraction, CF: crude fibre, NDF: neutral detergent fibre, ME*: metablolizable ernergy (Janssen et al, 1989)

Housing and management

House for ducks was made by wood and tole. Experimental birds were confined in pens with 5.0 m2/10 ducks, which were surrounded by wood, plastic net and its floor was overlaid with 20 cm of sand and rice straw layer in its surface for bedding. Feeders and drinkers were put in front of each cage. Feeders and drinkers were cleaned daily every morning and chicken litters were removed weekly. The ducks were fed 3 times daily at 7.00, 13.00 and 17.00 h and feed offered to the ducks was weekly adjusted by an increase from 5 % to 10% according to real feed intake. Ducks were freely to access water.

Measurements

Daily intakes of feed and nutrients: feed and refusals were collected and weighed daily morning.

Daily weight gain and feed conversion ratio: the ducks were weighed weekly and at the end of experiment.

Carcass values: after finishing 4 ducks (2 male and 2 female) per each experimental unit were slaughtered for the evaluation of carcass traits. Body measurements of birds were described by Salomon (1996).

Digestive experiment

Accumulated Nitrogen : Content of accumulated nitrogen per 1kg test diets was calculated by using the following formula: Nr = (Nd - Ne x AIAd /AIAe) x 1000/100 (Lammers et al 2008)

Where: Nr: Mass of accumulated nitrogen (g / kg)

Nd: Content of Nitrogen in a diet (%)

Ne: Content of Nitrogen in faeces (%)

AIAd: Content of acid chlorhydric insoluble ash in a diet (%)

AIAe Content of HCl-insoluble minerals in faeces (%).

Determine the ratio of nutrient digestibility in diet

Apparent digestibility EE, dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM) and CF in a diet calculated according to the formula of Huang et al (2005) as follows:

DD = (1 - [(ID x AF) / (IF x AD)]) x 100. Among them:

DD: Full apparent digestibility tatio of nutrients in diet (%).

ID: Ash content (AIA) in diet insoluble in acid (mg / kg).

AF: Nutrient content in waste (mg / kg).

IF: AIA content insoluble in acid of waste (mg / kg).

AD: Nutrient content in diet (mg / kg).

Chemical analyses

Feeds offered were analyzed for chemical compositions: DM, OM, CP, EE, CF, Ash. They were analyzed following procedures of AOAC (1990). NDF analysis was followed the Van Soest et al, (1991) and ME was calculated by Janssen (1989).

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed by using General Linear Model (GLM) of Minitab progam 16.1.0 (Minitab. 2010) and the comparison of significant difference between two treatments was done by Tukey method of Minitab (2010).


Results and discussion

Daily intakes of feed and nutrients of growing local Muscovy ducks

Table 3. Daily intakes of feed and nutrient of local Muscovy duck (g/duck/day)

Item

Treatment

SEM

p

CSM0

CSM1

CSM2

CST1

CST2

DM

135.3c

140.9b

141.8b

146.6a

141.6b

0,73

0,002

OM

124.9c

130.1b

130.9b

135.4a

130.7b

0,67

0,003

CP

21.65c

23.39b

24.39a

24.34a

24.36a

0,12

0,002

EE

3.99c

4.21b

4.28b

4.37a

4.28b

0,02

0,001

a,b,c Mean values with different superscripts within the same row are different at P<0 05

Daily intakes of DM, OM, CP and EE were significantly lower (P<0.05) for the ducks given CSMO diet than for other diets with the highest values observed in duck group fed CST1 diet. The DM and CP intakes in the present trial are higher than those of a previous study on Muscovy duck (119-125 gDM/day; 16.6-20.8 gCP/day, respectively) reported by Nguyen Thi Kim Dong (2005).

Effects of dietary different shrimp and squid hydrolyte supplement on the growth performance of growing local Muscovy duck

Table 4. Daily weight gain. final live weight and feed conversion ratio (FCR) of local Muscovy duck (g/bird)

Item

Treatments

SEM

p

CSMO

CSM1

CSM2

CST1

CST2

Initial live weight

806

810

805

802

803

30.50

0.895

Final live weight

2,967c

3,099bc

3,201ab

3,283ab

3,366a

45.92

0,001

Daily weight gain

40.4c

43.5bc

45.9ab

47.9ab

49.7a

1.07

0,001

FCR

3.35a

3.24b

3.09c

3.06c

2.85d

0.02

0,001

a. b. c Mean values with different superscripts within the same row are different at P<0 05

Table 4 shows that daily weight gain (DWG) was lower for the ducks without supplementing shrimp and squid hydrolyte (CSM0 treatment) than those fed shrimp and squid hydrolyte and the significantly higher result found in the CSM2, CST1 and CST2 treatments (P<0.05). The DWG obtained are closed with the results of 40.4g - 49.7 g/bird, but being slightly higher than the values of 34.4 -36.8 g/duck in previous trials on Muscovy duck (Bui Xuan Men, 1996; Nguyen Thuy Linh, 2010, respectively). Final live weights were significantly higher for the ducks supplemented shrimp and squid hydrolyte than that of those in the CSM0 treatment (P<0.05), resulting from higher daily weight gain. The final live weights in this trial are in a range of 2750- 3240g of a previous experiment on Muscovy duck (Dang Thi My Tu, 2012). FCR of local Muscovy ducks were better in the CSM2, CST1 and CST2 treatments (P <0.05), it could be due to higher daily weight gain. The results of FCR are consistent with the values of 2.96-3.66 reported by Nguyen Van Phuong (2017).

Figure 2. The effect of hydrolyzed squid and shrimp juice on daily weight gain Figure 3. The effect of hydrolyzed squid and shrimp juice on FCR

Figure 2 showed that when adding shrimp juice and squid solution to the diet, the daily weight gain of ducks increased compared to elephants without supplementation and the results also showed that hydrolyzed shrimp juice gave higher results than hydrolyzed squid juice.

Figure 3 showed that the addition of shrimp and squid juice caused the FCR to decrease and the results also showed that the FCR of shrimp fluid was lower than that of squid.

Effects of dietary different shrimp and squid hydrolyte supplement on carcass quality of growing local Muscovy duck

Table 5. Caracass values and internal organs of local Muscovy duck Supplemented shrimp and squid hydrolyte in diets (g/duck)

Item

Treatment

SE

p

CSMO

CSM1

CSM2

CST1

CST2

Slaughter live weight

2,967c

3,099bc

3,201ab

3,283ab

3,366a

25.45

0.001

Carcass weight

2086d

2135c

2.247b

2337ab

2433a

20.5

0.001

% Carcass

70.3

68.9

70.2

71.2

72.3

0.18

0.055

Breast meat weight

428c

430c

455bc

469b

491a

3.14

0.001

% Breast meat

20.52

20.16

20.23

20.07

20.20

0.12

0.256

Thigh meat weight

427c

433c

444bc

462b

477a

3.02

0.008

%Thigh meat

20.46

20.29

19.78

19.75

19.59

0.24

0.062

a .b. c Mean values with different superscripts within the same row are different at P<0 05

Slaughter weights of chicken were correspondent to the final live weights. Carcass weight were significantly higher in the CST2, CST1 and CSM2 treatments (P<0.05) (Table 5). Percentage of carcass was closed among the treatments (P> 0.05), these results are in a range of 69.5% - 72.6%, published by Nguyen Van Phuong (2017). Breast meat and thigh meat weights were significantly (P<0.05), highest in CST2 treatment. Percentages of breast meat and thigh meat were resembled among the treatments (P> 0.05).

Digestive experiment

Table 6. Percentage of total nutrient digestibility in experiment diet

Ingredients
(%)

Experiment diet

SEM

p

CSMO

CSM1

CSM2

CST1

CST2

DMD

86.37c

87.75b

88.64a

88.77a

88.33a

0.16

0.001

OMD

88.99c

89.12b

89.95ab

90.87a

90.96a

0.08

0.004

Nr (g/kg)

57.11c

58.34b

59.17ab

60.12a

60.15a

0.14

0.001

EED

81.00c

82.15b

83.05a

83.15a

83.03a

0.13

0.001

CFD

35.11c

36.16bc

37.10ab

38.09a

38.01a

0.15

0.001

DMD: Dry matter digestibility, OMD: Organic matter digestibility; EED: Ether extract digestibility; CFD: Crude fiber digestibility; Nr: Accumulated Nitrogen

The results showed that the apparent digestibility coefficients of nutrients in feeds were considerably valuable. The nutrients in the test feed ingredients were well digested. The DM and OM digestibility coefficient of CSM2, CST1 and CST2 treatments were higest (DM: 88.64%, 88.77% and 88.33%; OM: 89.95%, 90.87% and 90.96%, respectively). The EE digestibility coefficients of CSM2, CST1 and CST2 treatments were higest (83.05%, 83.15% and 83.03%, respectively). The CF digestibility coefficient of CST1 and CST2 treatments were higher than that of treatments. Also, Accumulated Nitrogen (Nr) of CSM2, CST1 and CST2 treatments were higest (59.17g/kg, 60.12g/kg and 60.15g/kg, respectively).


Conclusions


Acknowledgments

I am grateful to the JAPAN’s ODA Project for finance and gave me the opportunity to undertake this experiment.

Thank you VN Food company for supporting the hydrolysis of shrimp and squid for us to complete this experiment.


References

AOAC 1990 Official methods of chemical analysis. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (15th ed) Washington DC.

Cordova-Murueta J H, M de los A Navarrete and F Garcia Carreno 2007 Concentrates of fish protein from bycatch species produced by various drying processes. Food Chemistry 100: 705-711.

Lammers P J, Kerr B J Honeyman, M S Stalder, K Dozier III, W A Weber, T E Kidd and Bregendahl K 2008 Nitrogen-corrected apparent metabolizable energy value of crude glycerol for laying hens. Poultry Science. 87:104 – 107.

Janssen W M M A 1989 European Table of Energy Values for Poultry Feedstuffs. 3rd ed.

Men B X , B Ogle and T R Preston 1996 Use of duckweed as replacement for soya bean meal in broken rice based diets for fattening Muscovy and crossbred common ducks in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam.

Minitab 2010 Minitab reference manual release 16. 1.0. Minitab Inc.

Dang Thi My Tu, Nguyen Thi Kim Dong, T R Preston 2012 Effect on growth, apparent digestibility coefficients and carcass quality of local Muscovy ducks of feeding high or low protein duckweed (Lemma Minor) as replacement for soybean meal in a rice bran basal diet. Master’s Thesis Can Tho University, 2012.

Nguyen Thuy Linh 2010 Effects of replacing fishmeal in diets with by-products of pangasius and marine fish on weight gain and economic efficiency of local Muscovy ducks. Master’s Thesis Can Tho University, 2010.

Nguyen Thi Kim Dong, K Elwinger, J E Lindberg and R B Ogle 2005 Effect of Replacing Soybean Meal with Soya Waste and Fish Meal with Ensiled Shrimp Waste on the Performance of Growing Crossbred Ducks.

Nguyen Van Phuong and Pham tan Nha 2017 Effect of shrimp and squid soluble extract on growth rate of Phap Muscovy duck 6-12 weeks of age. Master’s Thesis Can Tho University, 2017.

Pham Tan Nha and Nguyen Van Nhan 2019 Effect of shrimp and squid soluble extract on growth rate of Noi chickens 5-12 weeks of age. Journal of Can Tho University. 55(1),1-6

Salomon F V 1996 Allgemeines Bauprinzip und aeussere Anatomie der Voegel. In: Lehrbuch der Gefluegelanatomie (Hrsg. F. -V. Salomon). Gustav Fischer Verla, Jena. Germany, pp. 19-25

Van Soest P, J Robertson J B and Lewis B A 1991 Symposium: Carbohydrate methodology, metabolism and nutritional implications in dairy cattle: methods for dietary fiber and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal Dairy Science 74, pp. 3585–3597.