Effect of enzymatic hydrolysate of cottonseed protein supplementation on growth performance and intestinal health of nursery pigs in Thailand

  • Wacharaporn Tanumtuen
  • Seksom Attamangkune
  • Ling Tang
  • Qiang Zhang
  • Wei-Wei Xiao
  • Sen LiuEmail author
  • Yuwares RuangpanitEmail author
Regular Articles


This study investigated the effects of enzymatic hydrolysate of cottonseed protein (EHCP) supplementation on the growth performance and intestinal health of nursery pigs in Thailand. A total of 180 newly weaned piglets were randomly allocated to 3 groups with 6 replicates in each group and 10 piglets per replicate. Nursery pigs were fed three diets containing 0, 1%, and 1.5% EHCP for 28–63 days of age. The results indicated that 1% EHCP supplementation increased average daily feed intake (ADFI) and average daily gain (ADG) and decreased feed conversion rate (FCR) in the numerical, suggesting that appropriate EHCP supplementation could numerically improve growth performance of nursery pigs in Thailand. Moreover, 1% EHCP supplementation significantly decreased intestinal crypt depth and diarrhea incidence and increased intestinal villus height to crypt depth ratio and fecal consistency, suggesting that optimum EHCP supplementation could improve intestinal morphology and decreased diarrhea incidence of nursery pigs in Thailand. Furthermore, 1% EHCP supplementation significantly improved intestinal glutathione (GSH) level and superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity and indicated that optimal EHCP supplementation could improve intestinal antioxidant capacity of nursery pigs in Thailand. Optimum EHCP supplementation numerically increased growth, significantly decreased diarrhea incidence, significantly improved intestinal morphology and antioxidant capacity of nursery pig in Thailand.


Enzymatic hydrolysate of cottonseed protein Nursery pigs Growth performance Intestinal health 



The authors would like to thank the personnel of this team for kind assistance.

Funding information

This research was financially supported by Chengdu Mytech Biotech Co., Ltd.

Compliance with ethical standards

All experimental procedures were approved by the Animal Science Department of Kasetsart University.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Open access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.


  1. Apha., 1985. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bendich A., 1990. Antioxidant nutrients and immune functions-introduction. Adv Exp Med Biol, 262: 1–12.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown DC, Maxwell CV, Erf GF, et al., 2006. Ontogeny of T lymphocytes and intestinal morphological characteristics in neonatal pigs at different ages in the postnatal period. J Anim Sci, 84(3): 567–578.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen HM, Muramoto K, Yamauchi F, et al., 1996. Antioxidant activity of designed peptides based on the antioxidative peptide isolated from digests of a soybean protein. J Agr Food Chem, 44(9): 2619–2623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cho JH, Min BJ, Chen YJ, et al., 2007. Evaluation of FSP (fermented soy protein) to replace soybean meal in weaned pigs: growth performance, blood urea nitrogen and total protein concentrations in serum and nutrient digestibility. Asian Austral J Anim, 20(12): 1874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eckmann L, Kagnoff MF, Fierer J., 1995. Intestinal epithelial cells as watchdogs for the natural immune system. Trends Microbiol, 3(3): 118–120.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Genton L, Kudsk KA., 2003. Interactions between the enteric nervous system and the immune system: role of neuropeptides and nutrition. Am J Surg, 186(3): 253–258.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Hashemi S R, Zulkifli I, Davoodi H, et al., 2012. Growth performance, intestinal microflora, plasma fatty acid profile in broiler chickens fed herbal plant (Euphorbia hirta) and mix of acidifiers. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 178(3–4): 167–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Helrick K., 1990. Official methods of analysis. Washington, DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemists Press.Google Scholar
  10. Jeppesen P B, Lund P, Gottschalck I B, et al., 2009. Short bowel patients treated for two years with glucagon-like peptide 2: effects on intestinal morphology and absorption, renal function, bone and body composition, and muscle function. Gastroenterology Research and Practice, 2009:616054.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Kalbande, V.H., Gaffar, M.A., Deshmukh, S.V., 1992. Effect of probiotic and nitrofurin on performance of growing commercial pullets. Indian J. Poultry Sci, 27:116–117.Google Scholar
  12. Kandil HM, Argenzio RA, Chen W, et al., 1995. L-glutamine and L-asparagine stimulate ODC activity and proliferation in a porcine jejunal enterocyte line. Am J Physiol-Gastr, 269(4): G591-G599.Google Scholar
  13. Le Dividich J, Rooke J A, Herpin P., 2005. Nutritional and immunological importance of colostrum for the new-born pig. J Agr Sci-Cambridge, 143(6): 469–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Maneewan C, Yamauchi K, Mekbungwan A, et al., 2012. Histological alterations of intestinal villi and epithelial cells after feeding dietary sugar cane extract in piglets. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 11(3): e43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Marino M, Ruvo M, De Falco S, et al., 2000. Prevention of systemic lupus erythematosus in MRL/lpr mice by administration of an immunoglobulin-binding peptide. Nat Biotechnol, 18(7):735-9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. McLamb BL, Gibson AJ, Overman EL, et al., 2013. Early weaning stress in pigs impairs innate mucosal immune responses to enterotoxigenic E. coli challenge and exacerbates intestinal injury and clinical disease. PLoS One, 8(4): e59838.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moretó M, Pérez-Bosque A., 2009. Dietary plasma proteins, the intestinal immune system, and the barrier functions of the intestinal mucosa. J Anim Sci, 87(14_suppl): E92-E100.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Nabuurs, M.J.A., 1998. Weaning piglets as a model for studying pathophysiology of diarrhea. Vet Quart, 3:42–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nyachoti CM, Omogbenigun FO, Rademacher M, et al., 2006. Performance responses and indicators of gastrointestinal health in early-weaned pigs fed low-protein amino acid-supplemented diets. J Anim Sci, 84(1): 125–134.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Oswald IP., 2006. Role of intestinal epithelial cells in the innate immune defence of the pig intestine. Vet Res, 37(3): 359–368.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Partanen, K.H., Mroz, Z., 1999. Organic acids for performance enhancement in pig diets. Nutr. Res. Rev, 12:117–145.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Pearce SC, Mani V, Boddicker RL, et al., 2013. Heat stress reduces intestinal barrier integrity and favors intestinal glucose transport in growing pigs. PLoS One, 8(8): e70215.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pluske, J.R., Williams, I.H., Aherne, F.X., 1995. Nutrition of the neonatal pig. In: M.A. Varley (ed.) The neonatal pig: development and survival. CAB Int., Wallingford.Google Scholar
  24. Pluske, J.R., Hampson, D.J., Williams, I.H., 1997a. Factors influencing the structure and function of the small intestine in the weaned pig: a review. Livest. Prod. Sci, 51:215–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pluske JR, Hampson DJ, Williams IH., 1997b. Factors influencing the structure and function of the small intestine in the weaned pig: a review. Livest Prod Sci, 51(1): 215–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ramakrishnan S., 2001. Comparative study of growth, carcass characteristics and economics of crossbred, indigenous and exotic pigs. Thrissur, Kerala Agricultural University.Google Scholar
  27. Re R, Pellegrini N, Proteggente A, et al., 1999. Antioxidant activity applying an improved ABTS radical cation decolorization assay. Free Radical Bio Med, 26(9): 1231–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reeds PJ, Burrin DG., 2001. Glutamine and the bowel. J Nutr, 131(9): 2505S–2508S.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Selsted ME, Ouellette AJ., 2005. Mammalian defensins in the antimicrobial immune response. Nat Immunol, 6(6): 551.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Shen YB, Piao XS, Kim SW, et al., 2009. Effects of yeast culture supplementation on growth performance, intestinal health, and immune response of nursery pigs. J Anim Sci., 87(8): 2614–2624.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Shirkey TW, Siggers RH, Goldade BG, et al., 2006. Effects of commensal bacteria on intestinal morphology and expression of proinflammatory cytokines in the gnotobiotic pig. Exp Biol Med, 231(8): 1333–1345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stevenson CL., 2000. Characterization of protein and peptide stability and solubility in non-aqueous solvents. Curr Pharm Biotechno, 1(2): 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stier H, Ebbeskotte V, Gruenwald J., 2014. Immune-modulatory effects of dietary Yeast Beta-1, 3/1, 6-D-glucan. Nutr J, 13(1): 38.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Szuba-Trznadel A, Rząsa A, Lira R, et al., 2014. The influence of (1, 3) -(1, 6)-β-D-glucan on the production results of sows and their offspring. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences, 663: 127.Google Scholar
  35. Wang YZ, Shan TZ, Xu ZR, et al., 2007. Effects of the lactoferrin (LF) on the growth performance, intestinal microflora and morphology of weanling pigs. Anim Feed Sci Tech, 135(3): 263–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wang X, You F, Gang SHU, et al., 2011. Effect of dietary supplementation with hydrolyzed wheat gluten on growth performance, cell immunity and serum biochemical indices of weaned piglets (Sus scrofa). Agr Sci China, 10(6): 938–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Xiong X, Yang HS, Li L, et al., 2014. Effects of antimicrobial peptides in nursery diets on growth performance of pigs reared on five different farms. Livest Sci, 167: 206–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yvon M, Chabanet C, Pélissier JP., 1989. Solubility of peptides in trichloroacetic acid (TCA) solutions hypothesis on the precipitation mechanism. Chem Biol Drug Des, 34(3): 166–176.Google Scholar
  39. Zelko I N, Mariani T J, Folz R J., 2002. Superoxide dismutase multigene family: a comparison of the CuZn-SOD (SOD1), Mn-SOD (SOD2), and EC-SOD (SOD3) gene structures, evolution, and expression [J]. Free Radical Biology and Medicine, 33(3): 337–349.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhang M, Huang G, Jiang J., 2012. Effects of chemical modification and molecular weight distribution on iron binding ability of phytate-removal soybean protein isolate hydrolysate. Advance Journal of Food Science and Technology, 4(2): 78–83.Google Scholar
  41. Zhou SF, Sun ZW, Ma LZ, et al., 2011. Effect of feeding enzymolytic soybean meal on performance, digestion and immunity of weaned pigs. Asian Austral J Anim, 24(1): 103–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhu LH, Zhao KL, Chen XL, et al., 2012. Impact of weaning and an antioxidant blend on intestinal barrier function and antioxidant status in pigs. J Anim Sci, 90(8): 2581–2589.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wacharaporn Tanumtuen
    • 1
  • Seksom Attamangkune
    • 1
  • Ling Tang
    • 2
  • Qiang Zhang
    • 2
  • Wei-Wei Xiao
    • 2
  • Sen Liu
    • 2
    Email author
  • Yuwares Ruangpanit
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture at Kamphaeng SaenKasetsart UniversityNakhon PathomThailand
  2. 2.Chengdu Mytech Biotech Co., LtdChengduChina

Personalised recommendations