Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences

Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies (아세아태평양축산학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effects of sweetener sucralose on diet preference, growth performance and hematological and biochemical parameters of weaned piglets

  • Zhang, Wenwei (State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Ministry of Agriculture Feed Centre, China Agricultural University) ;
  • He, Holden (Nanjing Jinhe Yikang Biotechnology, Jiangbei New Area) ;
  • Gong, Limin (State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Ministry of Agriculture Feed Centre, China Agricultural University) ;
  • Lai, Wenqing (State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Ministry of Agriculture Feed Centre, China Agricultural University) ;
  • Dong, Bing (State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Ministry of Agriculture Feed Centre, China Agricultural University) ;
  • Zhang, Liying (State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Ministry of Agriculture Feed Centre, China Agricultural University)
  • Received : 2018.11.17
  • Accepted : 2019.05.25
  • Published : 2020.05.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: Two experiments were conducted to investigate the effects of dietary sucralose on diet preference and growth performance of weaned piglets, and a third experiment was a 28-d safety study to examine if high-dose sucralose could affect the health state of weaned piglets. Methods: In experiment one, 48 piglets had free access to a corn-soybean based diet and the same diet supplemented with 150 mg/kg sucralose for 15 d. In experiment two, 180 piglets were blocked into 5 treatments with 6 replications. They were fed basal diets supplemented with 0, 75, 150, 225, and 300 mg/kg sucralose for 28 days. In experiment three, 108 piglets were randomly assigned to 3 treatments and fed diets supplemented with 0, 150 (suitable level), and 1,500 (ten-fold suitable level) mg/kg sucralose for 28 d. Results: The experiment 1 showed that piglets preferred (p<0.05) diets containing sucralose during experimental period. In experiment 2, piglets fed a diet supplemented with 150 mg/kg sucralose had a higher average daily gain (ADG) and average daily feed intake (ADFI) than pigs in the control group and other treatment groups during the experiment period. The concentrations of sucralose over 150 mg/kg may decrease feed intake. However, no difference in feed conversion ratio was observed. In experiment 3, piglets fed diet supplemented with 150 mg/kg sucralose had a higher ADG and ADFI than that of pigs in the control group and 1,500 mg/kg treatment groups during the experiment period. Clinical blood metabolites, organ index and histological morphology were not significantly different between sucralose treatments. Conclusion: Sucralose can promote feed intake and thereby improve growth performance of weaned piglets. Moreover, inclusion of 1,500 mg/kg sucralose was demonstrated to have no observed adverse effects. Supplementing 150 mg/kg sucralose for weaned piglets is recommended in this study.

Keywords

References

  1. Campbell JM, Crenshaw JD, Polo J. The biological stress of early weaned piglets. J Anim Sci Biotechnol 2013;4:19. https://doi.org/10.1186/2049-1891-4-19
  2. Pluske JR, Hampson DJ, Williams IH. Factors influencing the structure and function of the small intestine in the weaned pig: a review. Livest Prod Sci 1997;51:215-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(97)00057-2
  3. Dong GZ, Pluske JR. The low feed intake in newly-weaned pigs: problems and possible solutions. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2007;20:440-52. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2007.440
  4. Sterk A, Schlegel P, Mul AJ, Ubbink-Blanksma M, Bruininx EM. Effects of sweeteners on individual feed intake characteristics and performance in group-housed weanling pigs. J Anim Sci 2008;86:2990-7. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2007-0591
  5. Lewis CJ, Catron DV, Combs JrGE, Ashton GC, Culbertson CC. Sugar in pig starters. J Anim Sci 1955;14:1103-15. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1955.1441103x
  6. Aldinger SM, Speer VC, Hays VW, Catron DV. Effect of saccharin on consumption of starter rations by baby pigs. J Anim Sci 1959;18:1350-5. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1959.1841350x
  7. Zhu L, Wang G, Dong B, Peng CC, Tian YY, Gong LM. Effects of sweetener neotame on diet preference, performance and hematological and biochemical parameters of weaned piglets. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2016;214:86-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.02.013
  8. Kennedy JM, Baldwin BA. Taste preferences in pigs for nutritive and non-nutritive sweet solutions. Anim Behav 1972;20:706-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(72)80142-8
  9. Wiet SG, Beyts PK. Sensory characteristics of sucralose and other high intensity sweeteners. J Food Sci 1992;57:1014-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1992.tb14345.x
  10. Horne J, Lawless HT, Speirs W, Sposato D. Bitter taste of saccharin and acesulfame-K. Chem Senses 2002;27:31-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/27.1.31
  11. Kuhn C, Bufe B, Winnig M, et al. Bitter taste receptors for saccharin and acesulfame K. J Neurosci 2004;24:10260-5. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1225-04.2004
  12. Glaser D, Wanner M, Tinti JM, Nofre C. Gustatory responses of pigs to various natural and artificial compounds known to be sweet in man. Food Chem 2000;68:375-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-8146(99)00212-5
  13. Roura E, Koopmans SJ, Lalles JP, et al. Critical review evaluating the pig as a model for human nutritional physiology. Nutr Res Rev 2016;29:60-90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954422416000020
  14. Grice HC, Goldsmith LA. Sucralose-an overview of the toxicity data. Food Chem Toxicol 2000;38(Suppl 2):S1-6.
  15. Sims J, Roberts A, Daniel JW, Renwick AG. The metabolic fate of sucralose in rats. Food Chem Toxicol 2000;38(Suppl 2):S115-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-6915(00)00034-X
  16. Magnuson BA, Roberts A, Nestmann ER. Critical review of the current literature on the safety of sucralose. Food Chem Toxicol 2017;106(Pt A):324-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct. 2017.05.047
  17. Sylvetsky AC, Welsh JA, Brown RJ, Vos MB. Low-calorie sweetener consumption is increasing in the United States. Am J Clin Nutr 2012;96:640-6. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.112.034751
  18. Nofre C, Tinti JM. Neotame: discovery, properties, utility. Food Chem 2000;69:245-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-8146 (99)00254-X
  19. Committee on Nutrient Requirements of Swine. National Research Council. Nutrient requirements of swine. 11th ed. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press; 2012.
  20. Richer CP. Total self-regulatory functions in animals and human beings. Harvey Lect 1943;38:63-103.
  21. AOAC. Official methods of analysis. 16th edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Washington, DC, USA: AOAC International; 1995.
  22. Shackelford C, Long G, Wolf J, Okerberg C, Herbert R. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of nonneoplastic lesions in toxicology studies. Toxicol Pathol 2002;30:93-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926230252824761
  23. Hellekant G. Preference for sweet and the taste of sweeteners in animals. Fortschr Tierphysiol Tierernahr 1980;11:43-52.
  24. McLaughlin CL, Baile CA, Buckholtz LL, Freeman SK. Preferred flavors and performance of weanling pigs. J Anim Sci 1983;56:1287-93. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1983.5661287x
  25. Guzman-Pino SA, Sola-Oriol D, Figueroa J, Dwyer DM, Perez JF. Effect of a long-term exposure to concentrated sucrose and maltodextrin solutions on the preference, appetence, feed intake and growth performance of post-weaned piglets. Physiol Behav 2015;141:85-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2015. 01.009
  26. Grotz VL, Munro IC. An overview of the safety of sucralose. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2009;55:1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2009.05.011
  27. Perina DD, Sbardella M, de Andrade C, et al. Effects of sorbitol or an antimicrobial agent on performance, diarrhea, feed digestibility, and organ weight of weanling pigs. Livest Sci 2014;164:144-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2014.03.011
  28. Munro PJ, Lirette A, Anderson DM, Ju HY. Effects of a new sweetener, Stevia, on performance of newly weaned pigs. Can Vet J 2000;80:529-31. https://doi.org/10.4141/A00-001
  29. Schlegel P, Hall P. Effects of diet type and an artificial high intensity sweetener $(SUCRAM^{(R)})$ on weaned piglet performance. J Anim Sci 2006;84(Suppl 1):45-6.
  30. Whitehouse CR, Boullata J, McCauley LA. The potential toxicity of artificial sweeteners. AAOHN J 2008;56:251-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/216507990805600604
  31. Guido R, Gabriele A, Giovanna A, et al. Guidance on the assessment of the safety of feed additives for the target species. EFSA J 2017;15:5021. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.5021
  32. Goldsmith LA. Acute and subchronic toxicity of sucralose. Food Chem Toxicol 2000;38 (Suppl 2):S53-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-6915(00)00028-4
  33. Obika M, Noguchi H. Diagnosis and evaluation of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Exp Diabetes Res 2012;2012:1-12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/145754

Cited by

  1. Effect of dietary stevia-based sweetener on body weight and humoral immune response of broiler chickens vol.14, pp.4, 2020, https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2021.913-917