Ann. Anim. Sci., Vol. 19, No. 2 (2019) 421–431 DOI: 10.

2478/aoas-2018-0055

The effect of emulsifier on growth performance

and fat digestibility in turkeys* *

Aleksandra Drażbo1, Krzysztof Kozłowski1♦, Evi Croes2

1
Department of Poultry Science, University of Warmia and Mazury,
Oczapowskiego 5, 10-718 Olsztyn, Poland
2
Nukamel B.V., Industriekade 32-34, 6001 SE Weert, The Netherlands
♦
Corresponding author: kristof@uwm.edu.pl

Abstract
The present study investigated the effect of an emulsifier with very high hydrophilic-to-lipophilic
balance (HLB) value (18) on growth performance and fat digestibility in turkeys. A total of 1120
day-old female Hybrid Converter turkeys were randomly divided into four treatment groups with
7 replicates (pens) of 40 birds each. Control group (T1) turkeys were fed a basal diet (BD), while
turkeys from experimental groups received different levels of the commercial emulsifier VE added
to diets with standard or reduced metabolizable energy (ME) content: T2 – BD + 500 ppm of VE;
T3 – BD + 500 ppm of VE until 8 weeks of age, and 250 ppm from 9 to 16 weeks; T4 – BD – 3% ME
+ 500 ppm of VE until 8 weeks of age, and 250 ppm from 9 to 16 weeks. Regardless of its dietary
inclusion level (500 g/ton and 500/250 g/ton feed), the emulsifier positively influenced the body
weights (BW) and body weight gains (BWG) of birds. On days 56 and 112, significant differences
in the values of these parameters were noted between the control treatment (T1) vs. groups T2 and
T3. Emulsifier addition even contributed to an increase in the BWG and BW of birds receiving
diets with 3% lower ME content, as compared with turkeys fed control diets. This shows that the
emulsifier more than compensated the reduction in ME in T4. The turkeys from group T3 were
characterized by significantly higher feed efficiency than T1 and T4 birds. The highest fat digest-
ibility was noted in turkeys fed diets with a standard ME level and emulsifier addition (T2 and
T3). In conclusion, the use of dietary emulsifier positively influences the growth performance of
turkeys, and improves fat digestibility.

Key words: turkeys, emulsifier, growth performance, fat digestibility

It has become common practice to add fat and oil to commercial turkey diets in
order to meet the high energy requirements of the birds. The addition of fat sources
increases dietary energy levels. Other benefits involve improved feed efficiency, in-
creased growth rates of birds, decreased dustiness of feeds, lower heat increment

*This work was supported by Nukamel B.V., Weert, The Netherlands.

422 A. Drażbo et al.

during heat stress, and feed palatability. On the other hand, excess fat in the young
animal’s diet leads to improper digestion, lower feed intake (FI) and lower body
weight gains (BWG) resulting in economic losses and posing a threat to the birds’
life (Abbas et al., 2016). Fat is mainly composed of triglycerides and, although fats
are not water-soluble, its digestion takes place in an aqueous environment of the
gastrointestinal tract, where it is hydrolyzed by lipase into fatty acids and mono- and
diglycerides (Zaefarian et al., 2015). It should be noted that fat digestibility varies
depending on fat type, feed composition and bird’s age, because young turkeys have
limited physiological capacity for fat absorption (Nir et al., 1993; Lima et al., 2003;
Guerreiro Neto et al., 2011). Fat digestion and absorption is a complex process that
requires bile salts (natural emulsifiers), pancreatic lipase and colipase and, accord-
ing to several studies, intestinal fatty acid-binding proteins (Sell et al., 1986). An
improvement in fat utilization with age is largely a function of increased bile produc-
tion and enhanced intestinal lipase activity as the poult matures. Bile salt secretion
in particular was found to be the first limiting step in lipid digestion (Krogdahl,
1985). Because young turkeys are slaughtered before maturity, bile secretion is not
sufficient, therefore the addition of emulsifiers to high-fat diets may improve fat uti-
lization (Abd El Rauof, 2007). Emulsifiers act synergistically with natural bile salts
in the animal’s gut. The mode of action of emulsifiers is to increase the active sur-
face of fats, allowing the action of lipases that hydrolyze triglyceride molecules into
fatty acids and monoglycerides, and to favor the formation of micelles consisting of
lipolysis products. Micelle formation is an essential step for lipid absorption, as it
creates a diffusion gradient that promotes absorption (Guerreiro Neto et al., 2011).
It was found that exogenous supplementation of emulsifiers may enhance fat utiliza-
tion and improve the growth performance of broilers (Polin, 1980; Roy et al., 2010)
and pigs (Jones et al., 1992; Dierick and Decuypere, 2004), whereas the efficacy of
emulsifiers in turkey nutrition, including their effect on growth performance and fat
digestibility, remains insufficiently investigated.
The ability of an emulsifier to be active as a biosurfactant in the watery environ-
ment of the gut and aid in fat digestion highly depends on the size and strength of the
hydrophilic or polar portion of the molecule – a quality which makes the emulsifier
more soluble in the aqueous medium of the small intestine and brings it into contact
with a greater number of fat molecules and facilitates their digestion and absorption
(Roy et al., 2008). The emulsifier used in the current experiment has been classified
as glycerol polyethylene glycol ricinoleate (GPR). It has high HLB (hydrophilic-to-
lipophilic balance) values (18), which is very important from a nutritional point of
view. As the digestive tract is a watery environment, an emulsifier with high HLB
values and thus very hydrophilic in nature is needed to form an oil-in-water emul-
sion. According to Roy et al. (2010), dietary addition of GPR improves fat utilization
in chickens. Kaczmarek et al. (2015) demonstrated that GPR had a positive effect on
the digestion of animal fat/rapeseed oil blends.
In view of the fact that there is a general scarcity of studies investigating the effi-
cacy of emulsifiers in turkey diets, the objective of this experiment was to determine
the effect of emulsifier on growth performance and fat digestibility in turkeys.
 Effect of emulsifier on growth and fat digestibility in turkeys 423

Material and methods

Animals and treatment

The experiment was carried out in a poultry house in Bałdy, owned by the Uni-
versity of Warmia and Mazury (UWM) in Olsztyn, Poland. All procedures used in
this experiment were approved by the Animal Ethics Committee.

Table 1. Composition and nutritional value of basal diets fed to turkeys in groups T1, T2 and T3 in
successive feeding phases (%)
Compounds P-1 (1–4 wk) P-2 (5–8 wk) P-3 (9–12 wk) P-4 (13–16 wk)
Wheat 45.04 47.57 55.89 64.57
Soybean meal 39.34 38.84 29.41 20.86
Rapeseed meal 3.00 4.00 5.00 5.00
Potato protein 4.00 – – –
Soybean oil 2.30 2.56 1.90 1.53
Animal fat 1.15 2.55 3.79 4.62
NaHCO3 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Salt 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.17
Limestone 1.83 1.51 1.51 1.46
MCP 1.91 1.42 0.98 0.67
Choline chloride 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
DL-methionine 0.31 0.34 0.32 0.26
Lysine 0.34 0.44 0.39 0.35
Threonine 0.12 0.14 0.18 0.10
Premix1 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Nutritional value (g/kg)
ME (kcal/kg) 2802 2900 3000 3100
Crude protein 279.95 255.00 225.00 195.00
Methionine 7.21 6.96 6.39 5.44
Met+Cys 11.80 11.30 10.40 9.10
Lysine 17.50 16.20 13.70 11.40
Threonine 11.60 10.30 9.50 7.50
Arginine 17.16 15.88 13.56 11.33
Calcium 12.00 10.00 9.00 8.00
Available phosphorus 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.30
1
Premix – see Table 3.

A total of 1120 day-old female Hybrid Converter turkeys, supplied by a com-

mercial hatchery, were randomly divided into four treatment groups with 7 replicates
of 40 birds each, and were kept in floor pens (0.25 m2 for 1 bird). The house was
provided with artificial programmable lights and climate, automated electric heating
and forced ventilation. The heating program was consistent with the recommenda-
tions of Hybrid Turkeys (2016). Wood shavings were used as bedding material, and
the litter was replenished as necessary. Drinking water was supplied ad libitum by
a self-filling system. Each pen was equipped with a feeder manually filled with bags
on a daily basis. The lighting program was as follows: full lighting with an intensity
424 A. Drażbo et al.

of 100 lx for the first 36 hours followed by 16L:8D until the end of the rearing period;
from 3 days of age, light intensity was decreased to reach 5 lx on day 7, and then it
was increased to 15 lx at 35 days of age.

Table 2. Composition and nutritional value of basal diets fed to turkeys in group T4 in successive feed-
ing phases (%)
Compounds P-1 (1–4 wk) P-2 (5–8 wk) P-3 (9–12 wk) P-4 (13–16 wk)
Wheat 47.17 49.80 58.22 67.00
Soybean meal 38.78 38.25 28.78 20.21
Rapeseed meal 3.00 4.00 5.00 5.00
Potato protein 4.00 – – –
Soybean oil 1.25 1.74 1.33 1.09
Animal fat 0.63 1.73 2.65 3.28
NaHCO3 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Salt 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.17
Limestone 1.84 1.52 1.52 1.47
MCP 1.89 1.41 0.96 0.66
Choline chloride 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
DL-methionine 0.31 0.34 0.32 0.26
Lysine 0.35 0.45 0.40 0.36
Threonine 0.13 0.14 0.18 0.10
Premix1 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Nutritional value (g/kg)
ME (kcal/kg) 2718 2813 2910 3007
Crude protein 280.00 255.00 225.00 195.00
Methionine 7.19 6.93 6.37 5.41
Met+Cys 11.80 11.30 10.40 9.10
Lysine 17.50 16.20 13.70 11.40
Threonine 11.60 10.30 9.50 7.50
Arginine 17.11 15.82 13.49 11.26
Calcium 12.00 10.00 9.00 8.00
Available phosphorus 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.30
1
Premix – see Table 3.

The composition and nutritional value of basal diets for four feeding phases (P1:
1–4, P2: 5–8, P3: 9–12, P4: 13–16 weeks) are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Diets, offered
in crumbled/pelleted form, were formulated to meet the nutrient and energy require-
ments of turkeys (Hybrid Turkeys, 2016). All diets contained phytase and xylanase
at similar levels (so T1 till T4). Control group (T1) turkeys were fed a basal diet
(BD) based on wheat and soybean meal, while turkeys from experimental groups
received different levels of the commercial emulsifier Volamel Extra (VE; Nukamel,
The Netherlands) added to diets with standard (BD) or reduced metabolizable energy
(ME) content: T2 – BD + 500 ppm of VE; T3 – BD + 500 ppm of VE until 8 weeks
of age, and 250 ppm from 9 to 16 weeks; T4 – BD – 3% ME + 500 ppm of VE until
8 weeks of age, and 250 ppm from 9 to 16 weeks. Basic composition analyses were
performed, using standard procedures (Naumann and Bassler, 2004). All diets were
 Effect of emulsifier on growth and fat digestibility in turkeys 425

assayed for crude protein (VDLUFA III 4.1.1 modified according to macro-N deter-
mination (vario Max CN)), crude fiber (VDLUFA III 6.1.4), crude fat (VDLUFA III
5.1.1), dry matter (DM; VDLUFA III 3.1) and ash (VDLUFA III 8.1) content. Tita-
nium dioxide (0.3%) was included in diet P3 as an inert marker. The concentration
of TiO2 in feed and digesta was measured using the method described by Short et al.
(1996). Chemical analyses of feed were performed at UWM.

Table 3. Composition of 1 kg of premix (vitamins and trace minerals)

Compounds Units Diets P1 and P2 Diets P3 and P4
Vitamin A IU 5.000.000 3.840.000
Vitamin D3 IU 1.330.000 1.920.000
Vitamin D3 (HyD) IU 670.000 –
Vitamin E mg 40.000 24.000
Vitamin K3 mg 1.600 1.200
Vitamin B1 mg 1.800 800
Vitamin B2 mg 6.000 4.800
Vitamin B6 mg 2.000 2.000
Vitamin B12 mg 16 10
Folic acid mg 1.400 1.000
Pantothenic acid mg 11.200 9.200
Nicotinic acid mg 44.000 34.000
Biotin mg 150 150
Manganese mg 64.000 48.000
Zinc mg 64.000 48.000
Iron mg 32.000 16.000
Copper mg 10.000 10.000
Iodine mg 1.000 800
Selenium mg 120 120

Production parameters and fat digestibility

The body weights (BW) of turkeys, FI and mortality rates were determined
throughout the experiment. The BW of birds in each pen were recorded at 28, 56, 84
and 112 days of age (on a pen basis). The BWG of birds and feed conversion ratio
(FCR) were calculated for each group. During the final two days of the experiment
(d 83 and d 84), morning and afternoon, clean excreta (free from feathers, litter
and feed) were collected from plastic liners placed in the excreta collection trays
(0.6 × 0.4 m) underneath each pen of birds, and DM content and fat digestibility
were determined. Fat digestibility was determined using the titanium marker content
of diets and feces. For this measurement, 7 samples were taken from each treat-
ment group. Fat digestibility was calculated using the following equation (Hill et al.,
1960): fat digestibility (%) = {1-[(TiO2 % diet/ TiO2 % feces) × (fat % feces/fat % diet)]}×100.

Statistical analysis
The results of the experiment were verified by one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) using the Statistica for Windows Operating System (StatSoft Inc., 2011).
Mortality data were subjected to arcsin transformation prior to the analysis. The sig-
426 A. Drażbo et al.

nificance of differences between groups was determined by the F-test. The differenc-
es were considered significant at P≤0.05, and 0.05<P<0.10 values were considered
as a near-significant trend.

Results

Throughout the experiment (1–112 days), mortality rates ranged from 1.07 to
1.79%, and no significant differences were found between groups (Table 4). The ad-
dition of emulsifier positively influenced the BWG and BW of birds (from 28 days
of age until the end of the experiment). On day 28, turkeys from groups T2 and T3
were numerically heavier than control group birds (T1), and tended (P=0.056) to be
heavier than birds receiving diets with reduced ME content (T4). On day 56, signifi-
cant differences in the values of these parameters were noted between the control
treatment (T1) vs. groups T2 and T3 (5.50 and 5.58%, respectively). Group T4 birds
were also significantly (4.48%) heavier than control group birds (T1). During the en-
tire experimental period, the addition of the emulsifier at both inclusion levels (500
g/ton and 500/250 g/ton feed) resulted in significant differences (3.08 and 4.16%
in groups T2 and T3, respectively) in the BW and BWG of birds. Tested emulsifier
caused an increase in the BW (2.43%) and BWG of birds receiving diets with 3%
lower ME content, as compared with turkeys fed control diets.
Until day 84, no differences were noted in daily FI between treatments. Between
85 and 112 days, group T4 birds were characterized by significantly higher FI com-
pared with group T1 birds (P=0.044). No differences were found in FI between
groups throughout the experiment. From 1 to 28 days of age, significant differences
were observed in FCR between treatments. Turkeys from groups T1–T3 were char-
acterized by significantly higher feed efficiency (2.02 to 3.03%) than group T4 birds.
Significant differences were also noted in the period from 85 to 112 days, when feed
efficiency was higher in group T3 birds than in turkeys from groups T1 and T4 (8.04
and 7.35%, respectively). The same results were obtained for the entire experiment
where the differences between group T3 vs. treatments T1 and T4 reached 3.23 and
3.70%, respectively.

Table 4. Growth performance of turkeys fed diets supplemented with different rates of emulsifier
Treatment
Item, days SEM P
T1 T2 T3 T4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
BW (kg)
1 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.000 0.293
28 0.993 xy 1.006 x 1.011 x 0.966 y 0.007 0.056
56 3.638 b 3.838 a 3.841 a 3.801 a 0.025 0.003
84 7.545 7.728 7.592 7.623 0.033 0.242
112 10.877 b 11.212 a 11.330 a 11.141 ab 0.060 0.041
 Effect of emulsifier on growth and fat digestibility in turkeys 427

Table 4 – contd.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
BWG (g/day)
1–28 33.5 xy 34.0 x 34.2 x 32.6 y 0.236 0.062
29–56 94.5 b 101.2 a 101.1 a 101.2 a 0.813 0.001
57–84 139.6 138.9 134.0 136.5 0.987 0.171
85–112 123.4 b 129.0 ab 138.5 a 130.3 ab 1.915 0.037
1–112 97.5 b 100.5 a 101.6 a 99.9 ab 0.540 0.041
FI (g/day)
1–28 51.6 52.0 53.2 51.1 0.362 0.229
29–56 191.5 200.4 204.6 202.5 2.168 0.148
57–84 331.4 x 327.3 xy 316.3 y 330.9 x 0.348 0.072
85–112 443.2 b 457.3 ab 455.4 ab 464.1 a 2.731 0.044
1–112 255.0 260.0 261.8 263.4 1.376 0.146
FCR (kg/kg)
1–28 1.538 a 1.543 a 1.554 a 1.586 b 0.006 0.016
29–56 2.029 1.981 2.014 2.001 0.020 0.858
57–84 2.368 2.349 2.361 2.411 0.016 0.555
85–112 3.605 b 3.517 ab 3.315 a 3.578 b 0.042 0.048
1–112 2.571 b 2.535 ab 2.488 a 2.583 b 0.013 0.032
Mortality (%) 1.07 1.79 1.07 1.79 0.001 0.894
BW – body weight, BWG – body weight gain, FI – feed intake, FCR – feed conversion ratio; a, b – values
in rows denoted by different letters differ significantly (P<0.05), x, y – near significant trend (0.05<P<0.10).

Table 5 presents the effect of emulsifier on fecal DM content and fat digestibility
coefficients. No differences were found in fecal DM content between treatments. Fat
digestibility was significantly higher in turkeys from groups T2 and T3 than in con-
trol group birds (T1). Turkeys fed diets with reduced ME content, supplemented with
emulsifier (T4), were characterized by the same fat digestibility as control group
birds (T1).

Table 5. Fecal dry matter content and fat digestibility coefficients (%)
Treatment
SEM P
T1 T2 T3 T4
Fecal DM content 18.66 18.16 18.14 18.81 0.256 0.740
Fat digestibility 83.60 b 86.07 a 86.14 a 84.06 ab 0.394 0.026

DM – dry matter; a, b – values in rows denoted by different letters differ significantly (P<0.05).

Discussion

The tested emulsifier positively influenced the BWG and final BW of turkeys.
A tendency towards higher values of the above parameters was observed from 28
days of age, and significant differences between groups were observed from 56 days.
Literature provides scant information on the use of emulsifiers in turkey nutrition.
428 A. Drażbo et al.

However, the results of this study are in accordance with experiments in broiler
chickens performed by Roy et al. (2010), Maertens et al. (2013) and Abbas et al.
(2016), in which the addition of an emulsifier improved the BWG of birds from the
second feeding phase onwards. Kaczmarek et al. (2015) reported that a supplemental
emulsifier improved fat digestibility in 14-day-old broilers, but when FI was taken
into account, dietary fat utilization was found to increase by only 1.2 g per bird over
the entire 14-day period. This explains why no improvement was noted in the growth
performance of birds in the starter phase.
However, Wang et al. (2016) demonstrated that the supplementation of emulsi-
fier in broiler diets is more efficient in the starter phase, because lipase secretion and
activity in young chicks are insufficient and reach a peak between days 40 and 56
of age. Research of Zhang et al. (2011) also showed that the addition of lysophos-
phatidylcholine increased BWG and tended to reduce FCR of broiler chickens in the
starter period. These contradictory results could be linked to the low level of lipase
production in young birds. According to Krogdahl and Sell (1989), lipase activity
increases in turkeys during the first eight weeks of their life, although the pancreas
reaches adult size at 14 days post hatch. Moreover, they found that the development
of the intestinal lipase activity depends on dietary fat level and composition. As
Meng et al. (2004) found no effect of lipase addition on chicken performance and
nutrient utilization they suggested that lipase secretion in young birds may not be as
inadequate as expected when estimated based on FI (Sklan, 2001). It is well docu-
mented in the literature that lipid digestion/absorption improves with age and the
magnitude of the improvement is greater for lipid sources with high levels of satu-
rated versus unsaturated fatty acids (Whitehead and Fisher, 1975; Krogdahl, 1985;
Sell et al., 1986). The inability to utilize fats has been attributed mainly to low bile
salt concentrations in the intestine, rather than to deficiencies in lipase secretion or
activation (Maisonnier et al., 2003; Maiorka et al., 2004). Limited levels of bile salt
seem to be the first limiting step in fat digestion. Moreover, not only the synthesis but
also the recirculation of bile is poor in newly hatched chickens (Krogdahl, 1985). Ac-
cording to Friedman and Nylund (1980), the absorption of long-chain saturated fatty
acids is also limited by their incorporation rate into micelles. Saturated fatty acids
have more difficulty to be solubilized into the micelles because of their non-polarity,
which makes them rely on the presence of adequate amounts of bile salts or other
emulsifying agents (Polin, 1980; Dänicke, 2001).
No significant differences in FI were found between treatments during the first
28 days of the rearing period. Group T4 birds, fed diets with reduced ME content
supplemented with emulsifier, consumed equal levels of feed as turkeys from the
high ME groups. The findings suggest that emulsifier improved nutrient digestibility,
resulting in the fulfillment of the caloric requirements of birds and thus not leading to
excess intake (Mathlouthi et al., 2002). Reduced dietary energy content usually leads
to increased FI, and compromises growth performance, whereas, in our experiment,
the BW and BWG of group T4 turkeys and control group birds were comparable
after 112 days. According to Wang et al. (2016), the inclusion of emulsifier in low-
energy diets can increase the BWG of broiler chickens to the level determined in
birds fed high-energy diets.
 Effect of emulsifier on growth and fat digestibility in turkeys 429

The emulsifier had a significant positive effect on FCR in the high ME diets.
Despite the fact that feed efficiency was lower in the starter phase in turkeys fed di-
ets with reduced ME content and dietary emulsifier supplementation, in comparison
with the high ME treatments, the overall FCR of group T4 birds was similar to the
control group. Our results corroborate with several studies on emulsifiers in broiler
chickens. Guerreiro Neto et al. (2011) reported that feed efficiency was higher in
14-day-old broilers fed diets supplemented with soybean oil and emulsifier, which
could result from the fatty acid composition of this fat source and its effect on fat
digestion and absorption. According to Ketels and DeGroote (1989), the utilization
of dietary fat by broilers increases when the ratio between unsaturated and saturated
fatty acids increases from 0 to 2.5. The above differences in research findings could
be due to differences in the potential and emulsifying properties of the applied emul-
sifiers. In a study of Zhang et al. (2011) the use of lysophosphatidylcholine tended
to reduce FCR in the starter period. Similarly, broiler chicks fed diets supplemented
with sodium stearoyl-2-lactate as emulsifier improved feed conversion ratio through-
out the 35-day feeding period (Wang et al., 2016). Kaczmarek et al. (2015) conclud-
ed that birds fed diets supplemented with glyceryl polyethylene glycol ricinoleate
were characterized by lower FCR during the whole trial.
According to Roy et al. (2010) and Zhang et al. (2011), the improvement in
growth performance of broiler chickens receiving dietary emulsifier results at least
partially from increased fat digestibility. In the above experiment, emulsifier signifi-
cantly improved the digestibility of fat compared to the control diet without emulsi-
fier, irrespective of its inclusion level. Turkeys fed diets with reduced ME content,
supplemented with emulsifier, were characterized by identical fat digestibility as con-
trol group birds (T1). Our results are consistent with the findings of Maisonnier et al.
(2003), Maertens et al. (2013), Kaczmarek et al. (2015), Parsaie et al. (2007), Cho et
al. (2012) and Abbas et al. (2016), who reported a beneficial influence of emulsifiers
on fat digestibility in broiler chickens. According to Cho et al. (2012), the above results
could be attributed to the action of fat emulsifier as an emulsifying agent for dietary
fat and a stabilizer for other feed ingredients. A better formation of emulsion droplets
in the gut leads to a higher degree of lipolysis of triglycerides. In combination with an
improved micelle formation, absorption of fat can be enhanced. The dietary addition
of an emulsifier not only favors fat digestibility but also digestion of other nutrients is
found to be increased because dietary lipids could cover other nutrients lowering their
digestion (Zhang et al., 2011). Guerreiro Neto et al. (2011) argued that the emulsifier
increased the availability of smaller fat particles, thereby favoring the action of lipase.
These researchers argued that increasing the demand for pancreatic lipase actually in-
duced the enzyme secretion, improving ether extract digestibility.
As already mentioned, due to the absence of studies investigating the effect of
nutritional emulsifiers on turkey performance, we had to compare our findings with
the results of experiments performed on broiler chickens. According to Mossab et al.
(2000), who compared the utilization of vegetable and animal fats in young turkeys
and chickens, one-week-old turkeys used fats, in particular saturated fats, more ef-
ficiently than chickens. This could suggest that turkeys may have higher bile salt se-
cretion and lipase activity from 1 week of age. However, the authors also found that
430 A. Drażbo et al.

fluctuations in secretion of bile salts and lipase activity may influence saturated fatty
acid digestibility in turkeys. Therefore, further research is needed to expand existing
knowledge about fat utilization and the use of emulsifiers in diets for young turkeys.
The results of the present study indicate that the use of emulsifier positively af-
fected the growth performance of turkeys. Regardless of its dietary inclusion level,
the emulsifier positively influenced the BWG and, consequently, final BW of birds,
and contributed to a significant increase in fat digestibility. Higher feed efficiency
was also noted when the emulsifier was added to turkey diets at 500 g/ton in the first
8 weeks and at 250 g/ton in the last 8 weeks. The growth performance parameters of
turkeys fed diets with reduced ME content (-3%), supplemented with the emulsifier,
were comparable with those noted in control group birds.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge Nukamel (Weert, The Netherlands) for provid-
ing Volamel Extra emulsifier and financial support for this project.

References

A b b a s M.T., A r i f M., S a e e d M., R e y a d - u l - f e r d o u s M., H a s s a n M.A., A r a i n M.A.,

R e h m a n A. (2016). Emulsifier effect on fat utilization in broiler chicken. Asian J. Anim. Vet.
Adv., 11: 158–167.
A b d E l R a u o f M.A. (2007). Use of emulsifiers in high fat level diets of broilers; theses of doctor
of philosophy in agricultural sciences (animal production and poultry nutrition). 2007, pp. 235.
C h o J.H., Z h a o P.Y., K i m I.H. (2012). Effects of emulsifier and multi-enzyme in different energy
density diet on growth performance, blood profiles and relative organ weight in broiler chickens.
J. Agric. Sci., 4: 161–168.
D ä n i c k e S. (2001). Interaction between cereal identity and fat quality and content in response to feed
enzymes in broilers. In: Enzymes in Farm Animal Nutrition, Bedford M.R., Partridge G.G. (eds).
London, UK, pp. 199–236.
D i e r i c k N.A., D e c u y p e r e 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
Agr., 84: 1443–1450.
F r i e d m a n H.I., N y l u n d B. (1980) Intestinal fat digestion, absorption, and transport. A review. Am.
J. Clin. Nutr., 33: 1108–1139.
G u e r r e i r o N e t o A.C., P e z z a t o A.C., S a r t o r i J.R., M o r i C., C r u z V.C., F a s c i n a V.B.,
P i n h e i r o D.F., M a d e i r a L.A., G o n c a l v e z J.C. (2011). Emulsifier in broiler diets contain-
ing different fat sources. Braz. J. Poult. Sci., 13: 119–125.
H i l l F.W., A n d e r s o n D.L., R e n n e r R., C a r e w Jr. L.B. (1960). Studies on the metabolizable
energy of grain and grain products for chickens. Poultry Sci., 39: 573–579.
Hybrid Turkeys (2016). Commercial management guide. Converter commercial females performance
goals. http://www.hybridturkeys.com.
J o n e s D.B., H a n c o c k J.D., H a r m o n D.L., W a l k e r C.E. (1992). Effects of exogenous emulsi-
fiers and fat sources on nutrient digestibility, serum lipids and growth performance in weanling pigs.
J. Anim. Sci., 70: 3473–3482.
K a c z m a r e k S.A., B o c h e n e k M., S a m u e l s s o n A.C., R u t k o w s k i A. (2015). Effects of
glyceryl polyethylene glycol ricinoleate on nutrient utilization and performance of broiler chickens.
Arch. Anim. Nutr., 69: 285–296.
K e t e l s E., D e G r o o t e G. (1989). Effect of ratio of unsaturated to saturated fatty acids of the di-
etary lipid fraction on utilization and metabolizable energy of added fats in young chicks. Poultry
Sci., 68: 1506–1512.
 Effect of emulsifier on growth and fat digestibility in turkeys 431

K r o g d a h l A. (1985). Digestion and absorption of lipids in poultry. J. Nutr., 115: 675–685.

K r o g d a h l A., S e l l J.L. (1989). Influence of age on lipase, amylase and protease activities in pancre-
atic tissue and intestinal contents of young turkeys. Poultry Sci., 68: 1561–1568.
L i m a A.C.F., P i z a u r o J.M. Jr., M a c a r i M., M a l h e i r o s E.B. (2003). Efeito do uso de pro-
biótico sobre o desempenho e atividate de enzimas digestivas de frangos de corte. R. Bras. Zootec.,
32: 200–207.
M a e r t e n s L., S e g h e r s L., R o v e r s M., L e l e u S., Va n d e r A a A. (2013). The effect of
different emulsifiers on fat and energy digestibility in broilers. Proc. 19th Europ. Symp. Poult. Nut.,
Potsdam, Germany, 26–29.08.2013, pp: 1–4.
M a i o r k a A., d a S i l v a A.V.F., S a n t i n E., P i z a u r o J.M. Jr., M a c a r i M. (2004). Broiler
breeder age and dietary energy level on performance and pancreas lipase and trypsin activities of
7-days old chicks. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 3: 234–237.
M a i s o n n i e r S., G o m e z J., B r e e A., B e r r i C., B a e z a E., C a r r e B. (2003). Effect of micro-
flora status, dietary bile salts and guar gum on lipid digestibility, intestinal bile salts and histomor-
phology in broiler chickens. Poultry Sci., 82: 805–814.
M a t h l o u t h i N., L a l l e s J.P., L e c l e r c q P., J u s t e C., L a r b i e r M. (2002). Xylanase and
β-glucanase supplementation improve conjugated bile acid fraction in intestinal contents and in-
crease villus size of small intestine wall in broiler chickens fed a rye-based diet. J. Anim. Sci., 80:
2773–2779.
M e n g X., S l o m i n s k i B.A., G u e n t e r W. (2004). The effect of fat type, carbohydrase, and lipase
addition on growth performance and nutrient utilization of young broilers fed wheat-based diets.
Poultry Sci., 83: 1718–1727.
M o s s a b A., H a l l o u i s J. M., L e s s i r e M. (2000). Utilization of soybean oil and tallow in young
turkeys compared with young chickens. Poultry Sci., 79: 1326–1331.
N a u m a n n K., B a s s l e r R. (2004). Methodenbuch Band III: Die chemische Untersuchung von Fut-
termitteln. Neumann-Neudamm, Melsungen, Germany.
N i r I., N i t s a n Z., M a h a g u a M. (1993). Comparative growth and development of the digestive or-
gans and some enzymes in broiler and egg type chicks after hatching. Brit. Poultry Sci., 34: 523–532.
P a r s a i e S., S h a r i a t m a d a r i F., Z a m i r i M.J., K h a j e h K. (2007). Influence of wheat-based
diets supplemented with xylanase, bile acid and antibiotics on performance, digestive tract measure-
ments and gut morphology of broilers compared with a maize-based diet. Brit. Poultry Sci., 48:
594–600.
P o l i n D. (1980). Increased absorption of tallow with lecithin. Poultry Sci., 59: 1652.
R o y A., H a l d a r S., G h o s h T.P. (2008). Nutritional emulsifiers: An innovative approach to enhance
productivity. Asian Poultry Mag., 8: 36–39.
R o y A., H a l d a r S., M o n d a l S., G h o s h T.P. (2010). Effects of supplemental exogenous emulsi-
fier on performance, nutrient metabolism and serum lipid profile in broiler chickens. Vet. Med. Int.,
Article ID 262604, 9 pages.
S e l l J.L., K r o g d h a l A., H a n y u N. (1986). Influence of age on supplemental fats by young tur-
keys. Poultry Sci., 65: 546–554.
S k l a n D. (2001). Development of the digestive tract of poultry. World. Poultry Sci. J., 57: 415–428.
W a n g J.P., Z h a n g Z.F., Y a n L., K i m I.H. (2016). Effect of dietary supplementation of emulsifier
and carbohydrase on the growth performance, serum cholesterol and breast meat fatty acids profile
of broiler chickens. Anim. Sci. J., 87: 250–256.
W h i t e h e a d C.C., F i s h e r C. (1975). The utilisation of various fats by turkeys of different ages.
Brit. Poultry Sci., 16: 481–485.
Z a e f a r i a n F., R o m e r o L.F., R a v i n d r a n V. (2015). Influence of high dose of phytase and an
emulsifier on performance, apparent metabolizable energy and nitrogen retention in broilers fed on
diets containing soy oil or tallow. Brit. Poultry Sci., 56: 590–597.
Z h a n g B., H a i t a o L., Z h a o D., G u o Y., B a r r i A. (2011). Effect of fat type and lysophosphati-
dylcholine addition to broiler diets on performance, apparent digestibility of fatty acids, and appar-
ent metabolizable energy content. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 163: 177–184.

Received: 8 III 2017

Accepted: 20 XI 2018
 © 2019. This work is published under
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0(the
“License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and
Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with
the terms of the License.