nutriFORUM 2019 - Ponencia sobre el empleo de insectos en dietas de aves

Empleo de insectos en dietas de aves Achille Schiavone UNIVERSITY of TURIN (Italia)

INSECTS DERIVED PRODUCTS: NEW FEED INGREDIENT

The first scien;fic papers about insect in animal nutri;on Lindner (1919) Production protein and fat by housefly from human excreta 1969

1972

Abdel Gawaad A.A & Brune H. (1979) Insect Protein as a Possible Source of Protein to Poultry

Insect chemical composi;on (%DM)

Hermetia illucens 42,1

7,0

26,0

20,6

Larva

Tenebrio molitor 48,1

5,1

40,0

3,1

Larva

Musca domestica 50,4

70,8

•

High fat quan;;es = problems • Raw material shelf life • Diets formula;on

13,8

18,9

15,7

10,1

Larva

15,5

7,7

Pupa

5,8

http://www.feedipedia.org

Black soldier fly

Mealworm

Housefly

5 – 16 %

40 -70 %

FULL FAT MEAL

15 – 40 %

3 – 20 %

NUTRACEUTICALS FATS

CHITIN

ANTIMICROBIAL PEPTIDES

DEFATTED MEAL FEED ADDITIVES

ANIMAL NUTRITION

Mass produc;on

Circular economy – zero waste

http://www.proteinsect.eu/index.php?id=35

hDp://eur-­‐lex.europa.eu/legal-­‐content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017R0893&from=en

EU legisla;on Live larvae

PAPs

PeZood Fish

Poultry and swine

hNp://eur-­‐lex.europa.eu/legal-­‐content/IT/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017R0893&from=EN

Lipids

Hydrolised proteins

Raw material

Price of protein-­‐rich raw materials

Fishmeal

Price (€/tonne)

1500-­‐1900

High protein soya

350-­‐620

Peas

320-­‐450

TM

4750 (LEI, 2010)

TM

3700 (Kreca, 2014)

TM

2500 (Ynsect)

HI

2500 – 5000 (Hermeea, 2016)

HI

2000 -­‐ 2700 (Proex)

HI

800 (1200 CAD) (EnterraFeed, 2014)

HI

1300 (Agriprotein, 2017)

Compe;;ve?

Trading price of different protein sources expressed as times relative to Soy meal 45% (=1) 90 80 70 60 50 40 CP

30

$

20 10 0 soybean meal

fish meal

soybean concentrate

MW larva BSF larva

Tretola et al. in press (Animal)

CP and EE (%) of full fat, par;ally defaNed and defaNed BSF meal

(De Marco et al. 2015; Schiavone et al., 2017)

CP and EE (%) of full fat, par;ally defaNed and defaNed BSF meal

(De Marco et al. 2015; Schiavone et al., 2017)

Energy values (MJ/kg): AME and AMEn of full fat, par;ally defaNed and defaNed BSF meal

18,00 16,00

17,38 16,60

14,40

14,00

14,18

11,87

12,00

11,58

10,00 8,00 6,00 4,00 2,00 0,00

AME AMEn

BSF FullFat

BSF Pdef

BSF Tdef (De Marco et al. 2015; Schiavone et al., 2017)

Effect of the dietary BSF larva meal inclusion level on the growth performances of the broiler chickens Items LW, g

ADG, g

DFI, g

FCR, g/g

Age 1 d 10 d 24 d 35 d 1-­‐10 d 10-­‐24 d 24-­‐35d 1-­‐10 d 10-­‐24 d 24-­‐35 d 1-­‐10 d 10-­‐24 d 24-­‐35 d 1-­‐35 d

BSF-­‐0 40.23 262.19 1194.91 2269.25 22.20 66.62 97.67 25.89 97.50 176.42 1.17 1.46 1.81 1.60

Dietary treatments BSF-­‐5 BSF-­‐10 40.20 40.33 259.22 285.23 1199.45 1227.89 2264.11 2278.95 21.90 24.49 67.16 67.33 96.79 95.55 25.64 28.52 96.69 98.70 174.62 174.27 1.17 1.16 1.44 1.47 1.81 1.83 1.59 1.60

BSF-­‐15 40.23 267.89 1095.23 2072.15 22.77 59.10 88.81 26.54 95.23 171.73 1.17 1.61 1.93 1.72

SEM 0.020 2.349 10.157 18.173 0.234 0.716 1.187 0.279 0.572 0.988 0.005 0.016 0.018 0.012

P-­‐value Linear Quadraec 0.443 0.363 0.005 0.030 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.005 0.031 <0.001 <0.001 0.007 0.179 0.012 0.040 0.340 0.238 0.115 0.852 0.866 0.900 <0.001 0.001 0.011 0.136 <0.001 <0.001

(Dabbou et al. 2018)

Effect of the dietary BSF larva meal inclusion level on the haematological and serum parameters of the broiler chickens

Items Erythrocyte, 106 cell/µL Leukocyte, 103 cell/µL H/L ra;o Urea, g/dL Uric Acid, mg/dL AST, UI/L Crea;nine, mg/dL Triglycerides, mg/dL Cholesterol, mg/dL Calcium, mg/dL Phosphorus, mg/dL Magnesium, mEq/L Iron, µg/dL TAS, mmol/L GPx, U/g Hb

BSF-­‐0 4.18 13.70 0.66 34.88 2.89 379.57 0.29 105.25 81.34 8.77 3.91 1.12 59.89 0.58 88.68

Dietary treatments BSF-­‐5 BSF-­‐10 3.94 3.93 13.55 13.77 0.68 0.65 39.53 42.59 2.67 2.46 367.52 366.33 0.27 0.27 94.70 97.82 81.07 85.73 7.56 8.43 5.90 6.02 1.04 0.96 61.12 66.03 0.65 0.79 107.27 155.52

BSF-­‐15 3.98 14.32 0.69 36.30 2.77 358.78 0.28 84.32 82.64 8.42 5.34 0.92 61.72 0.78 178.14

SEM 0.046 0.246 0.028 1.980 0.180 13.508 0.006 3.541 2.044 0.209 0.172 0.055 3.866 0.044 11.978

Linear 0.132 0.344 0.838 0.712 0.750 0.437 0.546 0.057 0.660 0.947 <0.001 0.186 0.780 0.054 0.002

P-­‐value Quadraec 0.122 0.492 0.824 0.177 0.477 0.904 0.542 0.826 0.734 0.155 <0.001 0.837 0.727 0.679 0.884

(Dabbou et al. 2018)

Effects of diet, intestinal segment and interaction between diet and intestinal segment on the intestinal morphometric indices of the broiler chickens Index

Fixed effect Dieta

Vh, mm

Cd, mm

Vh/Cd, mm/mm

Intesenal segmentb Diet × Intesenal segment Diet Intesenal segment Diet × Intesenal segment Diet Intesenal segment Diet × Intesenal segment

d.f.c 3 2

F 2.893 53.448

P-­‐value 0.038 < 0.001

6 3 2

0.922 3.223 10.130

0.482 0.040 < 0.001

6 3 2

1.988 5.024 17.858

0.072 0.002 < 0.001

6

2.274

0.040

(Dabbou et al. 2018)

Effects of dietary BSF larva meal inclusion level on the histopathological scores of the broiler chickens

HI0

HI5

HI10

HI15

SEM

Spleen

1.08

1.17

1.33

0.83

0.09

P-­‐value 0.259

Thymus

0.17

0.00

0.25

0.33

0.06

0.312

Bursa of Fabricius

1.08

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.09

0.430

Liver

0.92

0.50

0.92

0.33

0.11

0.174

Heart

No alteraeons

Kidney

No alteraeons

(Dabbou et al. 2018)

Effect of the dietary BSF larvae meal inclusion level on the carcass traits of broiler chickens Dietary treatments

SEM

Live weight (LW) (g)

BSF-­‐0

BSF-­‐5

BSF-­‐10

BSF-­‐15

2260.56

2259.44

2266.87

2070.12

Carcass weight (g)

1594.84

1601.01

1607.84

Carcass weight (% LW)

70.55

70.86

Breast (% LW)

14.46

Thigh (% LW)

P-­‐value

15.69

Linear <0.001

Quadraec <0.001

1469.65

11.73

<0.001

<0.001

70.92

71.00

0.20

0.453

0.785

14.67

14.84

13.57

0.16

0.067

0.018

18.67

18.59

18.79

18.45

0.12

0.676

0.611

Spleen (% LW)

0.11

0.10

0.10

0.11

0.01

0.486

0.262

Liver (% LW)

2.17

2.13

2.08

2.25

0.05

0.707

0.368

Heart (% LW)

0.64

0.60

0.56

0.57

0.01

0.078

0.400

Bursa of Fabricius (% LW)

0.29

0.26

0.26

0.26

0.01

0.532

0.476

Abdominal fat (% LW)

1.21

1.17

1.43

1.44

0.05

0.042

0.813

(Schiavone et al. 2019 in press)

Effect of the dietary BSF larvae meal inclusion on the meat quality and chemical composition in breast meat of broiler chickens

pHu Color Lightness (L*) Redness (a*) Yellowness (b*) Drip loss (%) Cooking loss (%) Allo Kramer shear force (kg/g) Proximate composi;on Moisture (%) Protein (%) Lipid (%) Ash (%)

BSF-­‐0 6.03

55.07 2.72 11.80 1.24 20.11

Dietary treatments BSF-­‐5 BSF-­‐10 5.99 6.04

55.46 54.29 3.18 2.87 9.68 8.19 1.36 1.26 20.49 19.31

BSF-­‐15 5.98

53.41 3.71 7.57 1.39 19.71

1.86

76.14 22.37 1.56 1.23

2.24

75.51 22.28 1.76 1.33

2.06

75.24 23.09 1.75 1.31

2.14

75.50 22.42 1.85 1.24

SEM

0.05

0.38 0.14 0.39 0.06 0.36 0.06

P-­‐value Linear Quadraec 0.650 0.777

0.074 0.400 0.030 0.469 <0.001 0.174 0.211 0.928 0.480 0.990 0.375

0.074

0.13 0.12 0.05 0.02

0.016 0.035 0.134 0.427

0.460 0.118 0.110 0.718

(Schiavone et al. 2019 in press)

Effect of the dietary HI larvae meal inclusion on the fatty acid profile in breast meat of broiler chickens (g/100g of total fatty acids)

SEM

Dietary treatment

BSF-­‐0

BSF-­‐5

BSF-­‐10

BSF-­‐15

P-­‐value Linear

Quadraec

ΣSFA

29.13

28.97

29.24

29. 88

0.29

0.352

0.507

C12:0

nd

0.33

0.61

1.03

0.06

<0.001

0.367

C14:0

0.23

0.43

0.54

0.74

0.03

<0.001

0.965

C16:0

17.63

18.24

18.74

19.24

0.20

0.002

0.887

C18:0

9.55

8.48

7.98

7.61

0.21

<0.001

0.352

C20:0

0.19

0.24

0.23

0.23

0.01

0.152

0.245

C24:0

1.38

1.09

0.96

0.85

0.06

0.001

0.416

27.61

30.00

31.57

32.17

0.47

<0.001

0.279

nd

0.02

0.10

0.14

0.01

<0.001

0.630

C16:1 n7

1.79

2.24

2.62

3.13

0.12

<0.001

0.870

C18:1 c9

25.26

27.08

28.28

28.21

0.36

0.001

0.152

C20:1

0.20

0.26

0.28

0.34

0.01

<0.001

0.330

C24:1

0.28 40.06

0.22 37.89

0.26 36.65

0.01

ΣPUFA

0.31 42.36

0.182 0.524

C18:2 n6

31.44

30.62

29.61

28.32

0.51 0.41

0.091 <0.001 0.004

0.763

C18:3 n6

0.20

0.24

0.22

0.25

0.01

0.355

0.974

C18:3 n3

2.31

2.40

2.47

2.20

0.06

0.641

0.150

C20:4 n6

5.86

4.76

3.90

4.05

0.24

0.002

0.152

C20:5 n3 (EPA)

0.13

0.17

0.17

0.17

0.01

0.207

0.375

0.002

0.039

0.001

0.004

ΣMUFA C14:1

C22:5 n3 (DPA)

1.09

0.81

0.62

0.72

0.05

C22:6 n3 (DHA)

0.76

0.49

0.34

0.46

0.04

Others FA

0.90

0.97

1.29

1.30

0.08

0.032

0.814

ΣPUFA/SFA

1.46

1.40

1.30

1.23

0.03

<0.001

0.901

Σn3

4.30

3.87

3.60

3.56

0.08

<0.001

0.162

Σn6

38.06

36.19

34.29

33.08

0.45

<0.001

0.646

9.40

0.13

0.140

0.169

Σn6/n3

8.93

9.39

9.63

(Schiavone et al. 2019 in press)

Heavy metals in HI larvae meal

HI meal

MRL (Direc;ve 2002/32/EC)

As (mg/Kg 12% h)

< 0.05

2

Cd (mg/Kg 12% h)

0.32

2

Pb (mg/Kg12% h)

0.07

10

Hg (mg/Kg 12% h)

< 0.02

0.1

Cr (mg/Kg)

0.23

Not legislated

Fe (mg/Kg)

189

Not legislated

Ni (mg/Kg)

0.18

Not legislated

Cu (mg/Kg)

10

Not legislated

Zn (mg/Kg)

157

Not legislated

Co (mg/Kg)

< 0.05

Not legislated

Se (mg/Kg)

< 0.02

Not legislated

(Schiavone et al. 2019 in press)

Heavy metals in breast meat of broiler chickens

MRL (Regula;on 881/2006/EC)

Dietary treatments

BSF-­‐0

BSF-­‐5

BSF-­‐10

BSF-­‐15

As (mg/Kg 12% h)

< 0.05

< 0.05

< 0.05

< 0.05

Not legislated

Cd (mg/Kg 12% h) Pb (mg/Kg 12% h)

< 0.05 < 0.05

< 0.05 < 0.05

< 0.05 < 0.05

< 0.05 < 0.05

0.050 (EU n. 488/14) 0.10 (EU n. 1005/15)

Hg (mg/Kg 12% h)

< 0.02

< 0.02

< 0.02

< 0.02

Not legislated

Cr (mg/Kg)

< 0.05

< 0.05

< 0.05

< 0.05

Not legislated

Fe (mg/Kg)

9.1

6.5

6.5

6.7

Not legislated

Ni (mg/Kg)

0.08

< 0.05

< 0.05

< 0.05

Not legislated

Cu (mg/Kg)

0.64

0.46

0.41

0.46

Not legislated

Zn (mg/Kg)

13

13

13

13

Not legislated

Co (mg/Kg)

< 0.05

< 0.05

< 0.05

< 0.05

Not legislated

Se (mg/Kg)

0.28

< 0.25

< 0.25

< 0.25

Not legislated

(Schiavone et al. 2019 in press)

Insect meal in ducks

(Gariglio et al. 2019 in press)

Growing performance: Live weight 3000

2500

*

2000

g

* 1500

* 1000

500

0 0d

7d

14d

21d BSF0

BSF3

28d BSF6

35d BSF9

42d

47d

* P<0.05 (Gariglio et al. 2019 in press)

Digestibility of insect diets at different age in Muscovy Duck Age

13-­‐17 d

34-­‐38 d

46-­‐50 d

Apparent diges;bility DM CP EE OM DM CP EE OM DM CP EE OM

HI0 0.960 0.852 0.945 0.963 0.953 0.800 0.958 0.958 0.943 0.733 0.953 0.950

Dietary treatments1 HI3 HI6 0.960 0.960 0.872 0.828 0.967 0.963 0.963 0.966 0.956 0.962 0.802 0.802 0.966 0.968 0.964 0.967 0.948 0.952 0.682 0.715 0.958 0.965 0.953 0.958

HI9 0.953 0.817 0.962 0.962 0.960 0.828 0.977 0.963 0.953 0.718 0.983 0.958

SEM 0.002 0.007 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.005 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.012 0.003 0.002

P -­‐value Linear Quadraec 0.174 0.315 0.010 0.195 0.003 0.085 0.853 0.453 0.086 0.511 0.085 0.269 <0.001 0.891 0.215 0.168 0.099 0.703 0.913 0.259 <0.001 0.092 0.072 0.642

(Gariglio et al. 2019 in press)

Intestinal morphometric indices in the ducks in relation to diet and intestinal segment Index Vh, mm Cd, mm Vh/Cd

HI0 1.55 0.16 9.80

Diet (D)1 HI3 HI16 1.51 1.52 0.14 0.15 11.06 10.67

HI19 1.63 0.15 10.83

Intes;nal segment (IS)2 DU JE IL 2.12a 1.41b 1.14c 0.18a 0.15b 0.13c 12.62a 9.67b 9.48b

SEM D IS 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.60 0.45

P-­‐value D IS D × IS 0.442 <0.001 0.508 0.346 <0.001 0.782 0.469 <0.001 0.966

(Gariglio et al. 2019 in press)

INSECTS and GUT HEALTH

(Biasato et al. 2018)

GUT MICROBIOTA: FEMALE HYBRIDS TM

POSITIVE modulaeon by TM meal inclusion

Ø ↑Clostridium

One of the most abundant genera in the chicken caecum (Gong et al., 2007)

Ø ↑Oscillospira

Ø ↑Ruminococcus

Ø ↑Coprococcus

Ruminococcaceae and Lachnospiraceae family: produceon of SCFAs (++ butyrate) (Liu et al., 2008; Danzeisen et al., 2011)

(Biasato et al. 2018)

CHITIN

POULTRY BEHAVIOUR

ANTI-­‐MICROBIAL PEPTIDES

FATS Lauric acid (C 12:0)

Aneoxidant > Immune system < Cholesterol < Obesity

GUT MICROBIOTA modulaeon > ANIMAL WELFARE

Take home message! Ø

Ø

Ø

Ø

MW or BSF meals have no negative effects on animal health and food quality and safety Low percentages of MW and BSF meal inclusion (5.0% or 7.5 %) are preferable in terms of animal performance and gut health Higher MW inclusion (> 10%) may negatively affect performance and gut traits A multidisciplinary post mortem approach is needed for the evaluation of gut health

www.esvcn2019.unito.it Mail to: achille.schiavone@unito.it

Kit Supervivencia nutriForum Puede Copiar/ Pegar cualquier icono de esta página…… no borre esta página hasta el final

Cada 5 diapo Use una llamada a preguntar

Use los iconos para ilustrar su temá9ca