Determination of the nutritive value and metabolizable energy in Zea mays cultivars

Determination of the nutritive value and metabolizable energy in Zea mays cultivars
IJPBCS
Determination of the nutritive value and metabolizable
energy in Zea mays cultivars
M. Rahimi Jahangirlou1
, J. Kambouzia1
*, S. Soufizadeh1
, E. Zand2
, M. Rezayi3
1
Department of Agroecology, Environmental Sciences Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University, G.C., P.O. Box
19835-196 Tehran, Iran.
2
Iranian Research Institute of Plant Protection, Agricultural Research Education and Extension Organization (AREEO).
3
Iranian Research Institute of Animal Sciences, Karaj, Iran.
In the study three maize cultivars including KSC704, KSC703 and KSC260 were evaluated in
terms of the nutritive value and metabolizable energy. The metabolizable energy was
determined through In vivo method. For this purpose, 16 adult Rhode Island roosters (at the age
of 28 to 30 months) with an average weight of 2943.33±200 g were fed by 35 g milled maize after
24 hours full starvation. The results showed that the highest amounts (on the basis of dry matter
content) of crude protein (11.65%), crude fat (4.70%), gross energy (4413.15kcal/kg) and dry
matter (93.21%) were found for KSC260.the highest Apparent Metabolizable Energy (2892.49
kcal/ kg dry matter) and Apparent Metabolizable Energy corrected to zero nitrogen balance
(3081.98 Kcal/kg dry matter) were observed for KSC703, which revealed significant differences
with those in KSC704 (P≤0.01). the highest True Metabolizable energy (4117.60 kcal/kg dry
matter) and True Metabolizable Energy corrected to zero nitrogen balance (3929.69 kcal/kg dry
matter) were observed in KSC260, which showed significant differences with those in KSC703
and KSC704 (P≤0.01). Overall, it could be concluded that the new maize cultivars KSC260 and
KSC703 are in good status in terms of the recommended nutritive levels for poultry diet.
Keywords: Zea mays, cultivar, livestock, poultry diet, In vivo, protein, metabolizable energy
INTRODUCTION
Foraging is fundamental to the survival and performance
of animals (Hirata et al., 2011). Maize grain, compared
with other cereals gives the best yields of broiler chickens
and can be included in the poultry diet up to 70%
(Rutkowski, 1996).As a result of advanced plant
breeding, driven by competition in the cultivar market,
differences in chemical composition among cereal
varieties of the same species can be greater than those
between different cereal species, and this fact is not
accounted for in the nutrient requirements for poultry
(Lasek et al., 2011).The chemical composition and
nutritive value of various maize cultivars are variable
(Barteczko et al., 2008). Globally, energy sources
constitute the largest component of poultry diets and
maize is the most commonly used energy source
(Ravindran, 2012).
This is necessary to be analyzed in terms of chemical
composition before feeding (Cowieson, 2005). Song et al.
(2004) reported that maize cultivars may differ not only in
the content of protein but also in their starch and fiber
contents, as well as in nutrient digestibility and
metabolizable energy (AMEN).Chemical content of maize
grain is very important for human and animal diets.
*Corresponding author: J. Kambouzia, Department of
Agroecology, Environmental Sciences Research Institute,
Shahid Beheshti University, G.C., P.O. Box 19835-196
Tehran, Iran. E-mail: j_kambouzia@sbu.ac.ir, Tel:
(+9821) 224 31 971
International Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science
Vol. 3(1), pp. 103-109, June, 2016. © www.premierpublishers.org. ISSN: 2167-0449
Research Article

Rahimi Jahangirlou et al. 103
In study of Barteczko et al (2008) differences of nine
maize cultivars in crude protein content were about 4,62
percentage units (9.04% vs. 13.66% DM), ether extract
3%, (1.94 % vs. 5.02 % DM), N- free extractives (NFE)
7.41% (78.32% vs. 85.73 DM) and starch 10.4 %
(66.48% vs. 76.62% DM).Some breeding programs are
routing the specific traits for different usage of maize
grain, such as increasing of oil, protein or starch content
in grain (Idikut et al., 2009; Ali et al., 2014ab; Ali et al.,
2016; Aaliya et al., 2016).The objective of the present
experiment was to assess the nutritional value and
metabolizable energy of three maize genotypes varying
in maturity group and year of introduction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The present study was conducted in Livestock and
Poultry Feed Laboratory at the Animal Sciences
Research Institute (ASRI) in Karaj, Iran in 2015.
Maize cultivars
Three of the maize genotypes; i.e. KSC704, KSC703 and
KSC260 were selected and studied in terms of their
nutritional value and metabolizable energy.KSC704 is the
common maize cultivar in Iran which the majority of the
farmers used to plant it. KSC703 and KSC260 are newly
introduced cultivars that have been released in 2012 and
2008, respectively, and belong to late and early maturity
groups.
Chemical Compositional Analysis
After harvesting maize at physiological maturity, grains
were threshed from the ear cob and oven-dried at 70ᴼC
until constant weight and weighed. This is in accordance
with Balaconi et al. (2007) 100-seed weight was also
measured. After obtaining the dry matter content of grain
in each cultivar, the grain samples were sent to
laboratory for further steps of study. In phase I, and in
order to determine the nutritional value of grain samples,
chemical compositional analysis was done by
determination of concentrations of crude protein (CP)
(with automated N Kjeldahl-FOSS model), crude fat
(CFa) (Soxhlet extraction method (AOAC, 1984)),ash,
and crude fiber (CFi) as described in AOAC (2000)
methods 930.15, 942.05, and 950.02, respectively. Also
the content of gross energy (GE) in maize grain was
measured using a Parr adiabatic oxygen bomb
calorimeter (1261) and finally, Nitrogen Free Extract
(NFE) was measured (100 - (CFi + CP + ASH + CFa +
Moisture).Then all calculated values were compared with
recommended nutritional levels for poultry diets by the
National Research Council (NRC) in 1994 and Brazil in
2005.
Animals and feeding
After chemical analysis of samples, metabolizable energy
of cultivars was determined by In Vivo method. For this
purpose, 16 adult Rhode Island roosters were chosen.
This study was performed with 4 replications for each
cultivar and 4 controls (hungry group) to determine
energy excretion of internal source. The roosters were
from age 28 to 30 months with an average weight of
2943/33± 200 g. At the start, birds were not fed for 24
hours but water was available adlib. Then, by using a
tube and a rod each bird was force-fed with 30 g samples
except four of them that were used as controls for
endogenous energy and returned to their cages. The
recommended sample amount by Sibbald (Sibbald, 1989)
for force feeding is between 20 and 40 g. In order to
collect excreta, the roosters were transferred to individual
wire cages (40×45×40 cm). Then the excreta were
collected after 24 hours and immediately were transferred
to laboratory for further analysis. They dried in an oven at
70 ° C and for 48 hours and then were weighed and were
ground. The samples, then were kept in plastic
containers to carry out the next stages of experiment.
Finally, the energy of the excreta was determined using
bomb calorimeter. Excreta samples were analyzed for
DM, ether extract (EE), nitrogen, ash (AOAC, 2000) and
GE determined in an adiabatic bombcalorimeter.
Calculations and statistical analysis
After measuring the gross energy of excreta, Apparent
Metabolizable Energy (AME), Apparent Metabolizable
Energy Corrected to Zero Nitrogen (AMEn), True
Metabolizable Energy (TME) and True Metabolizable
Energy Corrected to Zero Nitrogen (TMEn) were
calculated by the following equations:
(1)AME (Kcal g-1
) =
Fi×GEf − E ×GEe
Fi
(2)AMEn (Kcal g-1
) =
{ Fi−GEf − E ×GEe − NR ×K }
Fi
(3)TME(Kcal g-1
) =
{ Fi×GEf − E ×GEe + FEm +UEe }
Fi
(4)𝑇MEn(Kcal g-
1
) =
Fi ×GEf − E×GEe − NR ×K + F𝐸𝑚 +UEe + NR0 ×K ]
Fi
(5)NR = Fi × Nf − E × Ne
Where:
AME: apparent metabolizable energy (kcal/g),AMEn:
apparent metabolizable energy corrected for nitrogen
(kcal/g), TME: true metabolizable energy (kcal/g),TMEn:
true metabolizable energy corrected for nitrogen(kcal/g),
Fi: feed intake (g), E: excreta (g), GEf: gross energy of
feed sample (kcal/g), GEe: gross energy of excreta

Int. J. Plant Breeding Crop Sci. 104
Table 1. Pedigree table of studied cultivars in current experiment – 2015.
Cultivar Introduction Year Origin Maturity group The Main Feature
KSC704 1980 America Late Common and high yield
KSC703 2012 Iran Late Stay green and high yield
KSC260 2008 Iran Early High yield cultivar in early maturity group
Table 2. Chemical composition of maize grain(based on percentage of dry matter); gross energy value based on Kcal kg-1
DM
(kcal/g). FEm: metabolic faecal energy (kcal/g),UEe:
indigenous urinary energy (kcal/g), NR: nitrogen retention
(g), Nf: feed nitrogen (%), Ne: faecal nitrogen (%), NRO:
nitrogen retention at zero level for control group (g), K=
nitrogen retention corrected coefficient (8.37 Kcal/kg for
each g N).
Calculations and statistical analysis
At the end, data obtained from determination of
metabolizable energy of studied cultivars were analyzed
in a completely randomized design with 4 replications by
using SAS software (SAS Institute, 2003) and General
Linear Model procedure. Comparison of means was
conducted by Duncan test at the level of five percent (P ≤
0.05) and figures were drawn with Excel software. Finally
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of studied maize
cultivars carried out based on all calculated variables by
using Minitab v17 (Minitab Inc, 2013).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Chemical analysis
According to the table 1 the amount of DM in KSC260
cultivar (93.21%) was higher than KSC704 and KSC703.
An accurate estimate of DM is important to formulate
diets and prevention of less or excessive nutrients
consumption (Van Emous et al., 2013).The amount of CP
in the KSC260 was 11.65 % DM While the amount of CP
in KSC704 and KSC703 was 9.86 and 7.69 % DM,
respectively. Also the highest amount of CFa was
observed in the KSC260 (4.70 % DM) which had a
highest protein. Alda et al., (2011) found positive
correlation between protein and oil content of eight maize
hybrids of various maturity groups. The crude protein is
negatively related to starch degradability. The cultivars
with higher content of CP had higher digestibility
coefficient of these nutrients so expected digestibility of
KSC260 to be higher than KSC703 and KSC704. The
lowest 100 seed weight was belonged to KSC260
(KSC704=43.00, KSC703= 49.23, KSC260=36.97 g).
There is a negative relationship between protein and
seed weight in maize (Hoffman and Shaver, 2011),
Therefore existence of high protein in KSC260 is
justifiable compared to KSC704 and KSC703. Stevanovic
et al. (2012) studied 20 maize cultivars in terms of
chemical composition. The highest protein was observed
in the FAO500 group while had the lowest seed weight
among studied cultivars.
The amount of GE in KSC260 (4413.15 Kcal.kg-1 DM)
was higher than KSC704 (4408.37 Kcal.kg-1 DM) and
KSC703 (4438/48 Kcal.kg-1 DM).The amount of CFi of
studied maize cultivars was variable from 2.00 to 2.50
%DM. In general, animal feeds with crude fiber under 6%
are considered as good feeding. This amount should not
be exceeding of 18%. There was the higher amount of
NFE in KSC703 (83.66%). Some studies have shown
that the nutritional value of the new breeding maize
cultivars has improved (Novak et al., 2004) which are
consistence with the results of this experiment.
Metabolizable energy
As shown in figure 1, the highest amount of AME was
observed in KSC703 (2892.49 Kcal/ kg dry matter) which
Components
Maize Cultivars
KSC704 KSC703 KSC260 NRC 1994 Brazil 2005
Dry matter 83.45 85.18 93.21 89.00 87.11
Crude fat 3.75 4.50 4.70 4.26 4.14
Crud protein 9.50 7.69 11.65 9.50 9.48
Crud fiber 2.5 2.5 2.00 2.47 1.98
Crude ash 1.75 1.65 1.65 - 1.45
Nitrogen free extract 82.14 83.66 80.00 - 82.92
Gross energy 4408.37 4138.48 4413.15 - 4505.79

KSC260 KSC703 KSC704
AME 2638.45 2892.49 1993.7
a a
b
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
AME(kcal/kg)
TME 4117.6 3284.92 3472.85
a
b b
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
TME(kcal/kg)
AMEn 2868.94 3081.98 2495.82
a a
b
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
AMEn(kcal/kg)
TMEn 3929.69 3260.73 3556.55
a
b b
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
TMEn(kcal/kg)
Figure 1. Comparison the amount of AME, AME, AMEn, TMEn in three maize cultivars (Means with the same letters have no significant differences in
the level of 5%)
showed a significant difference with the amount of AME
in the KSC704 (P≤0.01).Cereal grains, especially maize
grain is the main energy source in poultry diets (Scott et
al., 1988a).But all energy in food is not available for
poultry feed, thus Metabolizable energy of food must be
estimated by biological experiments (Scott et al., 1998b).
In the present study, although the highest amount of
gross energy was belonged to KSC260 (4413/15 kcal/kg
dry matter) but the highest amount of AME was observed
in KSC703.The highest amount of TME was observed in
KSC260 (4117/60 kcal/kg dry matter) that showed a
significant differences with TME amount in KSC703 and
KSC704 (P≤0.01). TME is not affected by the amount of
feed while AME at low feed consumption is reduced
dramatically (Pineda et al., 2012).
The highest amount of AMEn was observed in KSC703
(3081/98 kcal/kg dry matter) Which There was a
significant difference between AMEn amount in KSC703
and KSC704 (P≤0.01). The highest amount of TMEn was
observed in KSC260 (2939/69 kcal/kg dry matter) that
showed a significant difference with TMEn amount in
KSC703 and KSC704 (P≤0.01). TME and TMEn is less
variable (Sibbald, 1986) and more repeatable (Hallorani,
1980) compared with apparent energy.
According to the results of the chemical analysis and
determination of metabolizable energy, the highest
amount of crude protein, crude fat, gross energy and dry
matter were observed in KSC260. Also the highest
amount of TME and TMEn were observed in cultivar
KSC260 while the highest amount of AME and AMEn
was observed in the KSC703. Determination of nutritive
value and metabolizabe energy is very important for
precise adjustment of the livestock and poultry diet.

Table 3. Results of analysis of all traits to principal component.
Coefficient PC1 PC2
Eigenvalue 6.3911 4.6089
Proportion 0.581 0.419
Cumulative 0.581 1.000
Variables
DM 0.365 -0.181
CP 0.372 0.159
CFi -0.385 0.107
Ash -0.114 0.446
Fat 0.187 -0.410
Energy 0.275 0.334
NFE -0.388 -0.090
AME 0.006 -0.466
TME 0.396 -0.007
AMEn -0.030 -0.464
TMEn 0.386 0.104
Figure 2. Principal Component Analysis of studied maize cultivars (KSC704, KSC703 and KSC260).
Several chemical and physical factors influence the
amount of metabolizable energy in cereals which
includes chemical composition, and the amount of
soluble non-starch polysaccharides hardness (Carre et
al., 2002). These properties are mainly influenced by
cultivar (March et al., 1973) and crop cultivation condition
(Fuente et al., 1995). The chemical composition and
nutritive value of various maize cultivars are variable
(Barteczko et al., 2008).
PCA based on all studied traits
Results of analysis of all traits to principal component are
shown in Table 3. Due to the Eigen value PC1 and PC2
were more than one and altogether justified 100%
change of the variables. In PC1 six variables including
DM, CP, CFi, NFE, TME and TMEn were more than
0.3.According to this can be stated that mentioned
variables is the main variables causer the differences
between cultivars.
Figure (2) shows PCA of studied maize cultivars
(KSC704, KSC703 and KSC260). As shown in figure, the
cultivars based on PC1 were divided into two categories:
1) KSC260
2) KSC704 and KSC703

KSC260 cultivar had the maximum amount of DM, CP
and TMEn which were the main variables causer the
differences between cultivars.
CONCLUSION
In total, according to the results of the present experiment
it could be stated that KSC260 and KSC703, which are
new bred cultivars in Iran, performed better than the older
cultivar KSC704 in terms of all studied traits. According to
PCA results cultivars were divided into two categories (1-
KSC260 2-KSC704, KSC703) and it can be stated
KSC260 cultivar was in a better condition than other
cultivars.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to gratefully acknowledge Dr. Houshang
Lotfollahian, Mr. Mehdi Kaykavousi and Researchers of
Maize and Forage Plants Department of Seed and Plant
Improvement Institute for providing maize seeds for the
field experiment.
REFERENCES
Aaliya K, Qamar Z, Nasir IA, Ali Q, Munim A (2016).
Transformation, evaluation of gtgene and multivariate
genetic analysis for morpho-physiological and yield
attributing traits in Zea mays. Genetika, 48(1):423-443.
Alda S, Lazureanu A, Carciu G, Nita L, Alda Liana CT,
Danci M (2011). Quality evaluation of some maize
hybrids cultivated under pedoclimatic conditions of
Banat area (West of Romania). Journal of Horticulture,
Forestry and Biotechnology, 15(2), 207-211.
Ali Q, Ali A, Awan MF, Tariq M, Ali S, Samiullah TR,
Azam S, Din S, Ahmad M, Sharif NM, Muhammad S
(2014). Combining ability analysis for various
physiological, grain yield and quality traits of Zeamays
L. Life Sci J, 11(8s): 540-551.
Ali, Q., Ali, A., Ahsan, M., Nasir, I.A., Abbas, H.G. and
Ashraf, M.A., 2014. Line× Tester analysis for morpho-
physiological traits of Zea mays L
seedlings. Advancements in Life Sciences, 1(4),
pp.242-253.
Ali Q, Ahsan M, Kanwal N, Ali F, Ali A, Ahmed W, Ishfaq
M, Saleem M (2016). Screening for drought tolerance:
comparison of maize hybrids under water deficit
condition. Advancements in Life Sciences, 3(2): 51-58.
AOAC, (Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2000).Official Methods
of Analysis, 17th Ed.
AOAC(1984). Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC
International.18thed. Gaithersburg (MD) A.O.A.C.
International.
Balconi C, Lanzanova C, Conti E, Triulzi T, Forlani F,
Cattaneo M, Lupotto E (2007). Fusarium head blight
evaluation in wheat transgenic plants expressing the
maize b-32 antifungal gene. Journal of Plant Pathology,
117(2), 129-140.
Barteczko JAN, Lasek OLGA, Augustyn ROMANA
(2008). Energy utilization and nutritive value of maize
grain cultivars for broiler chickens. Journal of Central
European Agriculture, 9(1), 209-212.
Carre B, Idi A, Maisonnier S, Melcion JP, Oury FX,
Gomez J, Pluchard P (2002). Relationships between
digestibilities of food components and characteristics of
wheats (Triticumaestivum) introduced as the only
cereal source in a broiler chicken diet. Journal of British
Poultry Science, 43(3), 404-415.
Cowieson AJ (2005). Factors that affect the nutritional
value of maize for broilers. Animal Feed Science and
Technology, 119(3), 293-305.
Fuente JM, Perez P, Villamide MJ (1995). Effect of
dietary enzyme on the metabolizable energy of diets
with increasing levels of barley fed to broilers at
different ages. Journal of Animal Feed Science and
Technology, 56(1), 45-53.
Hallorani HR (1980). Comparison of metabolizable
energy methods on identical ingredient samples.
Journal of Poultry Science. 59, 1552-1553.
Hirata M, Tanikawa T, Tobisa M (2011). Quantifying
short-term foraging behavior of cattle grazing a tall
grass: A preliminary study with maize. Livestock
Science, 138(1), 220-228.
Hoffman PC, Shaver RD (2011). Grain quality: a diary
cow’s perspective. Proc of the 2011 Wisconsin Crop
Management Conference 50: 63-73.
Idikut L, Atalay AI, Kara SN, Kamalak A (2009). Effect of
hybrid on starch, protein and yields of maize
grain. Journal of Animal and Veterinary
Advances, 8(10), 1945-1947.
Lasek O, Barteczko J, Augustyn R, Smulikowska S,
Borowiec F (2011). Nutritional and energy value of
wheat cultivars for broiler chickens. Journal of Animal
and Feed Sciences, 20(2), 246-258.
Novak C, Yakout H, Scheideler S (2004). The combined
effects of dietary lysine and total sulfur amino acid level
on egg production parameters and egg components in
Dekalb Delta laying hens. Journal of Poultry
Science, 83(6), 977-984.
Pineda A, Zheng SJ, Van Loon JJA, Dicke M (2012).
Rhizobacteria modify plant–aphid interactions: a case
of induced systemic susceptibility. Journal ofPlant
Biology, 14: 83-90.
Ravindran V (2012). Poultry feed availability and nutrition
in developing countries.
Rutkowski A (1996). The value of the Feeding cereal for
broiler chickens. Annals of Agricultural University of
Poznan. Scientific hearing, (267), 1-91..
Scott TA, Silversides FG, Classen HL, Swift ML, Bedford

MR (1998a). Effect of cultivar and environment on the
feeding value of Western Canadian wheat and barley
samples with and without enzyme supplementation.
Canadian journal of animal science, 78(4), 649-656.
Scott TA, Silversides FG, Classen HL, Swift ML, Bedford
MR, Hall JW (1998b). A broiler chick bioassay for
measuring the feeding value of wheat and barley in
complete diets. Journal ofPoultry Science, 77(3), 449-
455.
Sibbald IR (1989). Metabolizable energy evaluation of
poultry diets. In: Recent development in poultry
nutrition. Butter Worth. London, U.K.
Sibbald IR, Wolynetz MS (1986). Effects of dietary lysine
and feed intake on energy utilization and tissue
synthesis by broiler chicks. Poultry Science, 65(1), 98-
105.
Song GL, Li DF, Piao XS, Chi F, Chen Y, Moughan PJ
(2004). True amino acid availability in Chinese high-oil
corn varieties determined in two types of
chickens. Journal of Poultry Science, 83(4): 683-688.
Stevanovic M, Mladenovic DS, Dragicevic V, Camdzija Z,
Filipovic M, Velickovic N, Stankovic G(2012). An
assessment of nutritional quality of hybrid maize grain
based on chemical composition. - Genetika, 44(3): 571-
582.
Van Emous RA, Kwakkel RP, Van Krimpen MM,
Hendriks WH (2013). Effects of growth patterns and
dietary crude protein levels during rearing on body
composition and performance in broiler breeder
females during the rearing and laying period. Journal of
Poultry Science, 92(8), 2091-2100.
Accepted 03 June, 2015.
Citation: Rahimi Jahangirlou M, Kambouzia J,
Soufizadeh S, Zand E, Rezayi M (2016). Determination of
the nutritive value and metabolizable energy in Zea mays
cultivars. International Journal of Plant Breeding and
Crop Science, 3(1): 103-108.
Copyright: © 2016 Rahimi Jahangirlou et al. This is an
open-access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original author and source are
cited.

Determination of the nutritive value and metabolizable energy in Zea mays cultivars

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to Determination of the nutritive value and metabolizable energy in Zea mays cultivars

Similar to Determination of the nutritive value and metabolizable energy in Zea mays cultivars (20)

More from Premier Publishers

More from Premier Publishers (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Determination of the nutritive value and metabolizable energy in Zea mays cultivars