Next Article in Journal
Valorization of Fish Processing By-Products: Microstructural, Rheological, Functional, and Properties of Silver Carp Skin Type I Collagen
Next Article in Special Issue
Potential of Coccolithophore Microalgae as Fillers in Starch-Based Films for Active and Sustainable Food Packaging
Previous Article in Journal
Development of a Reliable ic-ELISA with a Robust Antimatrix Interference Capability Based on QuEChERS Technology for the Rapid Detection of Zearalenone in Edible and Medical Coix Seeds and Subsequent Risk Assessments
Previous Article in Special Issue
Optimisation of Operational Conditions during the Production of Arthrospira platensis Using Pilot-Scale Raceway Reactors, Protein Extraction, and Assessment of their Techno-Functional Properties
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 11
Issue 19
10.3390/foods11192984
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Digestive Constraints of Arthrospira platensis in Poultry and Swine Feeding

by
Maria P. Spínola
1,2,†,
Mónica M. Costa
1,2,† and
José A. M. Prates
1,2,*
1
CIISA—Centro de Investigação Interdisciplinar em Sanidade Animal, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. da Universidade Técnica, 1300-477 Lisboa, Portugal
2
Associate Laboratory for Animal and Veterinary Sciences (AL4AnimalS), Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. da Universidade Técnica, 1300-477 Lisboa, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Foods 2022, 11(19), 2984; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11192984
Submission received: 21 July 2022 / Revised: 4 September 2022 / Accepted: 20 September 2022 / Published: 24 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Application of Microalgae for the Development of High-Added-Value Products)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Microalgae have emerged as novel sources for monogastric animals’ diets since they are rich in many nutrients, including proteins. Arthrospira platensis is particularly rich in proteins (up to 76% of dry matter), lipids, minerals and pigments. However, its rigid peptidoglycan cell wall interferes with the digestibility, bio-accessibility and bioavailability of nutrients for monogastric animals. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the digestibility, bio-accessibility, bioavailability and protein quality of nutrients from A. platensis for poultry and swine feeding, searching all the studies available in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar in June 2022 concerning this subject. Overall, digestibility values of A. platensis proteins or amino acids varying from 66.1 to 68.7% for poultry (microalgae at 1% feed) and from 75.4 to 80.6% for swine (10% feed) have been reported. Therefore, the extraction of microalgae components using mechanical or non-mechanical pre-treatments is required to promote cell disruption and improve digestibility and bio-accessibility. Although A. platensis is a promising feedstuff to support future needs, it is important to perform more investigation concerning digestibility, dietary inclusion level and possible treatments to disrupt microalga cell walls and increase bioavailability of nutrients.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The growth in human population makes the search for alternative sources for animal feeding, especially those rich in proteins, imperative [1]. Since the 1950s, a lot of research has been performed in an attempt to find alternative protein sources, in anticipation of the estimated lack of protein supply in the forthcoming years [2].
Microalgae have emerged as promising sources with high protein content and biological value [2]. They are aquatic microscopic organisms that can have high growth rates and are usually divided into four different groups, according to pigmentation, life cycle and cell structure: diatoms (Bacillariophyceae), green algae (Chlorophyceae), blue-green algae (Cyanophyceae) and golden algae (Chrysophyceae) [3]. The majority is autotrophic with photosynthetic activity, but some of them are heterotrophic [4]. Microalgae do not require arable land for cultivation or compete for a limited space, which makes them sustainable sources [5,6,7]. They can grow in open oceans, rocky shores, freshwater habitats (rivers, lakes, ditches and ponds) and deserts [8,9]. In addition, they could present high concentrations of proteins, which are comparable to or higher than those of conventional protein sources used in animal nutrition, as well as carbohydrates and lipids, even though their chemical composition varies depending on species, culturing and growth conditions (i.e., temperature, light and salinity) [10].
Arthrospira platensis, also known as Spirulina, is the most cultured microalga worldwide, since, from 1950 to 2019, 99.6% of 56,456 tonnes of total microalgae production corresponded to Spirulina [11]. This alga is an autotrophic blue-green microalga, with a prokaryotic structure typical of a Cyanobacteria and photosynthetic activity [2]. It preferentially grows in fresh water, in alkaline lakes, but also in saltwater, which affects alga mineral content [10,12,13]. The microalga biomass is rich in proteins and bioactive compounds [4]. Although there is a lack of information concerning the use of A. platensis in swine diets [14], the microalga has been studied as a supplement in poultry diets, and the results demonstrate that it acts as a natural colour enhancer for meat [15] and eggs [16]. However, A. platensis has a poor digested peptidoglycan cell wall, especially for monogastric animals such as poultry and swine [17]. Therefore, it is essential to properly process this microalga before feeding it to these animals in order to avoid impairment of nutrients´ bioavailability and bio-accessibility [4]. In addition, an optimization of microalgae production towards a reduction of its economic and environmental impact is necessary, taking advantage of the current technological advances associated with algae cultivation, such as the use of wastewater and industrial carbon dioxide. This is expected to enhance the sustainability and diminish the costs of algae production [18].
Regarding the safety of A. platensis for feed and food consumption, this microalga is generally recognised as safe by the European Food Safety Authority, and A. platensis products are authorized for consumption under specific conditions in the EU, including their use as food supplements [19]. Indeed, A. platensis is one of the microalgae used as food in the EU prior to 1997 and, therefore, is not considered as a novel foodstuff [20,21]. A previous study by Martín-Girela et al. [22] emphasized the safety of A. platensis for dietary supplementation, showing that several contaminants from freshwater (i.e., hormones, pharmaceutical and personal care products, flame retardants and biocides) were present below the detection limits in the microalga. However, Manali, et al. [23] detected microcystins in Spirulina used as food supplements for fish, although those cyanotoxins were not found in human food, and advised standard cultivation and production conditions to guarantee the quality of microalgae. Therefore, the maximum limit of microcystins, as well as their toxicity, in A. platensis should be defined using realistic testing methodologies and recognizing the difference between the level (1 μg/L) and toxicity of microcystins in drinking water and in cyanobacterial supplements. Indeed, microalgae have several antioxidants, such as pigments, vitamin E and polysaccharides, which can reduce the toxicity of these substances [24].
The objective of the present study was to evaluate the digestibility, bio-accessibility and bioavailability of nutrients from A. platensis biomass and the respective improvement challenges, covering the literature available in PubMed (NCBI, Bethesda, MD, USA), Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA), Scopus (Elsevier B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands) and Google Scholar (Google LLC, Mountain View, CA, USA). The literature search was performed in June 2022 using the keywords “Arthrospira platensis”, “Spirulina”, “bioavailability”, “bio-accessibility”, “digestibility”, “poultry”, “swine” and “pig”.

2. Nutritional Composition of Arthrospira platensis

A. platensis has a rich nutritional composition (Table 1), although variable and largely dependent on production conditions [10]. The protein content is considerably high (up to 76% of dry matter, DM) with a good quality, since it contains all the essential amino acids [4,8,25], which makes this microalga one of the top choices as alternative to traditional protein sources [26]. The most predominant amino acids are glutamic and aspartic acids, leucine, alanine and arginine [10], with lower amounts of methionine and cysteine [26,27]. For poultry, lysine and methionine are essential for limiting amino acids [28]. In addition, for swine, lysine is also the first-limiting amino acid, but the proportion of tryptophan, threonine and methionine is also relevant [29]. The microalgae also contain considerable amounts of lysine (average of 7.8% of total amino acids), which is a limiting amino acid for monogastric animals (Table 1).
In addition, A. platensis contains a considerable amount of carbohydrates (up to 22.6% DM) [4], although a previous study reported lower values (6.5% DM) [8]. The variability of carbohydrate contents depends on the culture period, with a proportional increase in carbohydrates, mainly glucose, with microalga cultivation time. This phenomenon occurs in detriment of other alga components, such as proteins [10]. The main carbohydrate fraction include soluble carbohydrates [8,27], but insoluble polysaccharides are important components of recalcitrant microalga cell wall. These are composed of a multilayer structure of glucan and peptidoglycan polymers covered by acidic polysaccharides [30].
A. platensis is also rich in vitamins, such as vitamin E (tocopherols) and some vitamins of B complex, and antioxidant pigments including carotenoids (e.g., β-carotene), allophycocyanin, C-phycocyanin, chlorophyll a and xantophylls, such as zeaxanthin [10,31]. The latter were shown to confer a yellow [32] or red [16] colour to chicken eggs and yellow colour to meat [15], which modifies consumers’ perception of these animal products [25]. A. platensis has biliproteins, especially C-phycocyanin, which is a bioactive compound acting as antioxidant, regulator of immunity and, thus, protector of the organism against disease [26]. The mineral content of A. platensis can vary between 3 and 11% DM [25], and calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium are amongst the most predominant minerals [27]. Total lipids are present in variable amounts in A. platensis (1.8–16% DM), but this microalga could be a good source of some polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), such as linolenic acid (18:3n-6) [25,27].
Overall, the nutritional quality of A. platensis, particularly in what concerns the protein fraction, makes it a good alternative to conventional feedstuffs (e.g., soybean meal). However, there are still difficulties related to microalga production and bioavailability of algal nutrients [4,27], which could be overcome, respectively, by technological advances associated with more sustainable algae cultivation [18] and by dietary supplementation with feed enzymes [33] or algae pre-treatments.

3. Digestibility, Bio-Accessibility and Bioavailability of Nutrients

It is important to differentiate the concepts of digestibility, bio-accessibility and bioavailability of nutrients. In fact, digestibility is the fraction of feed components that is transformed by digestion into possibly accessible matter and then absorbed by the animal. It is calculated as the amount of nutrient consumed minus that retained in the faeces [17,52]. The digestibility can be divided into ileal and faecal. The determination of the first implies digesta collection at the ileal junction from cannulated animals or slaughtered small animals, such as poultry [53], whereas, for the last, faecal collection and analysis are executed. In turn, bio-accessibility is the nutrient amount or fraction that is released in the gastrointestinal tract and is available for absorption through the intestinal epithelia. It is evaluated by in vitro procedures that simulate gastric and intestinal digestion [17,52]. Finally, bioavailability is the fraction of ingested nutrient that is absorbed, reaches the circulatory system and becomes available at the site of action. The process to render a nutrient bioavailable includes gastrointestinal digestion, absorption, metabolism and tissue distribution [17,52,54]. Digestibility is commonly but incorrectly referred to as a synonym of bioavailability. Indeed, the latter can only be assessed by performing animal growth bioassays using live animals [53].
Bioavailability is a common concept in animal nutrition, especially concerning energy metabolism. It is known that, when feeding animals nutrients, they are not totally digested and metabolized by the animals, and two processes are critical, digestion and metabolism [55]. For instance, the protein bioavailability can be measured by digestibility, biological value (BV) or net protein utilization (NPU) [2]. A more accurate method for the determination of amino acid digestibility involves collecting ileal digesta or using cecectomized animals instead of analysing faeces because of the influence of microbial protein produced either in caeca, in poultry, or in large intestine, in swine [56,57,58]. However, there are some difficulties with the determination of amino acid digestibility from collected faeces, because the last portion of the intestinal microbiota can modify some undigested amino acids. Therefore, it is of upmost importance to clarify nitrogen metabolism in intestine. The degradation of nitrogenous compounds, the synthesis of microbial protein and the balance of these two modifies the amount of amino acids in excreta compared to those found in the ileum. The degradation implies deamination of amino acids and ammonia formation, which can be absorbed, but it is usually excreted via urine. If degradation is superior to synthesis, the amino acids in excreta will decrease and amino acid digestibility will be overestimated. On the other hand, if synthesis is superior to degradation, there will be an increase in amino acid in excreta and a sub-estimated amino acid digestibility [58]. This aspect is important in swine [28] and in poultry, but in the latter, the influence of microbial protein is unclear [58], and faeces and urine are mixed due to excretion via common cloaca. Therefore, it is more correct to analyse metabolizable instead of digestible protein values [58,59]. In addition, Parsons et al. [60] observed that the percentage of amino acids present in poultry excreta (25%) with microbial origin was lower than that found for swine (50%) [61]. However, the ileal cannulation method is a quite difficult procedure due to the viscosity of this intestinal portion, which makes it very hard to keep the cannula in the right conditions [28]. Thus, the collection of ileal content from euthanized animals previously fed with a diet containing an indigestible marker is an easier method to evaluate amino acid digestibility [7]. In addition, Gamboa-Delgado et al. [35] proposed one method to estimate nutrient assimilation, which consisted in determining the isotopic signatures in ingredients and animal tissue. Nitrogen and carbon isotope ratios were considered natural biomarkers. However, this method was only described for shrimp and not for poultry or swine.
Several factors modify digestibility and bioavailability of alga nutrients, such as unbalanced amino acids in the diet, source of protein (animal or plant), feed processing methods (heating, roasting or extrusion), antagonism, protein quality, and structure, level and composition of fibre [53,56]. The type of grain, application of fertilizer and environmental conditions can affect amino acids´ digestibility [56]. Feed processing methods can disrupt antinutritional factors present in microalgae, but overheating in particular can make amino acids unavailable and unbalanced. For instance, in poultry, the antagonism between lysine and arginine is common, where lysine stimulates the catabolism of arginine and, thus, decreases its intestinal absorption [53,62].
The rigid polysaccharide-rich cell wall present in microalgae (about 10% of dry matter) can inhibit the bioavailability of algal nutrients because the digestive system of monogastric animals cannot digest microalgae cells and the bio-accessibility of intracellular metabolites is low [2,6,63]. Thus, some studies have reported the importance of effective treatments to disrupt the cell wall and make the nutrients more bio-accessible [2]. Extraction of algae components and mechanical (mechanical forces, liquid-shear forces, energy transfer through waves and currents or heat) or non-mechanical (cell lysis with chemical agents, enzymes or osmotic chock) pre-treatments of microalgae can possibly promote cell disruption and improve digestibility and bio-accessibility of nutrients [17]. High-pressure homogenization, high-speed homogenization, bead milling and ultrasonication are the four methods most utilized on laboratory scale for microalgae cell disruption [17].
Considering non-mechanical methods, the use of pepsin and pancreatin to simulate gastrointestinal digestion and Carbohydrate-Active enZymes (CAZymes) to decompose fibre components has proven to be effective in disrupting A. platensis cell wall and increasing the bio-accessibility of algal nutrients. The assessment of in vitro digestibility of A. platensis using a combination of pepsin and pancreatin showed high organic matter, crude protein and carbohydrate digestibility for the algal biomass, with values of 86, 81 and 79%, respectively [64]. Noticeably, the crude protein digestibility value was comparable with conventional protein sources (up to 78%) [64]. Misurcova et al. [36] reported even high percentages of A. platensis dry weight digestibility using pepsin (74.1–89.6%) and pancreatin (82.9–97.5%), with only slight differences when combining the two enzymatic extracts (85.6–94.3%). Furthermore, Kose et al. [65] observed 64% of hydrolysis yield of microalga biomass degraded with pancreatin. In what concerns the use of CAZymes, few studies reported their efficiency in disrupting A. platensis cell wall. Coelho et al. [33] showed that an enzyme mixture with lysozyme and α-amylase was able to disrupt the microalga cell wall, after 16 h of in vitro incubation under controlled experimental conditions [66], and release valuable nutrients to the supernatant, including total protein (142 mg/g microalgae) (p = 0.018), n-6 PUFA (e.g., 18:2n-6) (2.8%) (p = 0.007), monounsaturated fatty acids (2.47%) (p = 0.049) and chlorophyll a (0.066 mg/g microalgae) (p = 0.025). Overall, the enzymatic mixture enhanced the nutritional composition of A. platensis supernatant. This was accompanied by a decrease in proteins in A. platensis residue, although there was still a significant increase in algal nutritive and bioactive compounds in this fraction such as chlorophyll a and some PUFA (i.e., 18:2n-6, 18:3n-3, 22:2n-6). The nutritional composition of the control and enzyme-treated residue is presented in Table 2.
No digestibility assays were performed in this experiment [33], but one in vivo study described that the combination of 10% of A. platensis with lysozyme fed to piglets compromised the apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of protein. A subsequent proteomic study on longissimus lumborum muscle reported an increase in structural muscle protein synthesis with higher energy requirements for piglets fed CAZyme-treated microalgae [67]. Although carbohydrases are able to degrade A. platensis cell wall, this causes a release of proteins that are resistant to endogenous peptidases and enhance digesta viscosity. Therefore, additional hydrolysis of algal proteins is necessary to increase their bio-accessibility and digestibility for monogastric animals.
Regarding mechanical methods, an adaptation of bead milling using a stirred ball mill before in vitro digestion assays was shown to improve in vitro protein digestibility of non-disrupted A. platensis from 74 to 78% [39]. Indeed, the bead milling technique can enhance the bioavailability of protein and fatty acids from microalgae biomass because of its ability to disrupt algae cell walls [6]. Table 3 shows the summary of main effects of in vitro pre-treatments on hydrolysis and digestibility of A. platensis.

4. Methods to Evaluate Bio-accessibility and Bioavailability of Nutrients and Protein Quality

The protein quality depends on the amino acid profile of the diet, the content of essential and limiting amino acids and the digestibility and physiological utilization of amino acids after digestion, which are very relevant for monogastric animals [53].
Protein bioavailability and protein quality can be assessed by different methods including in vivo trials or in vivo assays. Performing a digestibility assay is a good method for determination of amino acids bioavailability because of its simplicity, since it is based on faecal or excreta analysis, and it can be applied to a high number of animals without implying sacrifice. The BV measures the proportion of protein that is absorbed and incorporated into proteins of animals’ bodies, which shows the percentage of absorbed protein retained in the body and how quickly the digested protein can become available for synthesis. The NPU indicates the ratio of amino acids converted to proteins in the body to the amino acids supplied in the diet. It can range between 0, indicating none of the dietary protein was retained in the body, and 1, indicating 100% utilization of dietary nitrogen as protein. The Protein Efficiency Ratio is the ratio between body weight gain and protein consumed, assuming that all the protein is used for growth [53].
According to Bryan and Classen [68], some in vitro techniques, which are easier to perform and less expensive than in vivo trials, can evaluate protein quality in poultry. There are chemical in vitro methods (protein solubility index with potassium hydroxide or protein dispersibility index), the pH-Stat/Drop method and closed enzymatic methods. The last method can be a pepsin, pancreatin or multi-enzymatic assay. Some factors can influence protein digestion such as enzymatic specificity and activity, protein structure and forms, anti-nutritive agents or even the test samples. Although in vitro assays do not truly replicate in vivo conditions, they give an estimation of protein bio-accessibility and are good alternatives to in vivo digestibility assays.
Neumann et al. [69] measured the protein quality of piglet and growing pig diets using N balance assays. The diets consisted of 21% or 13% of Spirulina meal for piglets or pigs, respectively, with amino acids supplementation. In this study, productive protein value (PPV) and NPU were used to evaluate the complex dietary protein quality concerning the process of digestion and post-absorption utilization. PPV and NPU depend on the actual level of protein intake. The results showed that the dietary supplementation with amino acids enhanced protein quality, and supplementation with histidine in Spirulina meal diet led to a superior protein quality.
Moreover, the production of bioactive compounds is a different process that allows the isolation of proteins and peptides with functional functions from microalgae. This methodology increases the bio-accessibility of valuable compounds and includes a first step of protein extraction using various mechanical and non-mechanical methods as mentioned before [17], followed by protein enrichment and purification through dialysis, ultrafiltration, and ion-exchange chromatography. For protein characterization, SDS-PAGE, mass spectrometry or colorimetric assays can be applied. Then, protein hydrolysis is performed by enzymatic or chemical hydrolysis or microbial fermentation. When peptides are released from the protein, amino acid composition, hydrophobicity and molecular weight influence their bioactivity [70].

5. Bioavailability of Arthrospira platensis Nutrients for Poultry

One of the most important nutrients for animal nutrition, which also constitutes a large proportion of A. platensis biomass, is protein. Therefore, it is important to clarify the bioavailability of amino acids, particularly of lysine and methionine, which are essential and limiting amino acids for poultry [28]. Additionally, glycine is an essential amino acid to chickens [53]. Noticeably, the amount of methionine in the microalga is usually low (average of 4.1% of total amino acids), which might necessitate an increase in dietary incorporation levels of A. platensis. The protein digestibility was found to be lower at the initial stages of poultry growth and to increase afterwards, within the first two weeks of life. Therefore, it is important that the animals have access, in the first two weeks, to highly digestible ingredients and that their requirements are set high for digestible amino acids [28]. The growth assay is one of the methods to determine amino acid bioavailability and is considered a gold standard method, although it is not a digestibility assay. For instance, a diet can be supplemented with two or more levels of a tested amino acid, followed by evaluation of growth performance parameters. This procedure estimates the digestion, absorption and utilization of each amino acid for protein synthesis, but it is time-consuming, and many variables can interfere with the results [28]. Another option is to perform a digestibility assay, which includes the use of cecectomized animals, collection of faeces and urine separately and analysis of faeces for its amino acid content [28,71]. This type of assay was applied to broiler chickens fed a fish meal diet [71]. The authors showed that cecum has an important role in protein digestion for poultry, since cecectomized animals could not absorb digesta containing amino acids, in contrast to intact broilers, which indicates that the amino acids are probably absorbed and digested in cecum. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is no study describing a digestibility assay using cecectomized poultry fed microalgae. In fact, the cecostomy is easy to perform and has few complications but demands surgery, thereby requiring additional expertise [28].
An in vivo digestibility assay in broilers, where an indigestible marker (acid-insoluble ash) was applied followed by collection of ileal contents, showed that feeding A. platensis as an ingredient (20% feed) showed an increase in animal body weight with enhanced amino acid digestibility [7]. The authors reported standardized ileal amino acid digestibility coefficients for essential (0.80) and non-essential (0.78) amino acids [7].
Studies about A. platensis digestibility and nutrient assimilation are scarce [72]. This might be not only due to the difficulties of evaluating nutrient digestibility in poultry but also due to the controversial results obtained on animal growth performance when feeding with A. platensis, which are dependent on the alga level in feed. Park et al. [31] reported that the inclusion of 1% of A. platensis increased the ATTD of dry matter from 67.9 to 71.1% and nitrogen from 66.1 to 68.7%, which improved broiler growth, probably due to a better nutrient absorption. Conversely, Pestana et al. [73] showed that a basal diet containing 15% Spirulina supplemented with a recombinant lysozyme reduced broiler growth performance. This was likely due to an increase in intestinal viscosity capable of compromising the accessibility of digestive enzymes to their substrates and, thus, nutrient digestibility. The authors suggested that the CAZyme disrupted alga cell wall and released proteins from microalga biomass, which were resistant to endogenous birds’ peptidases and formed a viscous matrix trapping valuable nutrients [72]. This viscosity was probably due to a complex phenomenon of gelation, including unfolding and aggregation steps, that algal proteins suffer when denatured at high temperature (>60 °C) [74]. Table 4 presents a summary of main effects on nutrient digestibility of dietary inclusion of A. platensis in in vivo trials on poultry.

6. Bioavailability of Arthrospira platensis Nutrients for Swine

In swine, weaning is a critical life phase, and microalgae, due to their bioactive compounds acting as prebiotics, have been studied for their potential health benefits. These sources can boost intestinal health and avoid severe diarrhoea that delays piglet development, thus reducing the need for antibiotics in the post-weaning period [3,75]. Therefore, feeding swine A. platensis may represent a solution for maintaining good digestive function after weaning [75]. In addition, the microalga biomass can contain up to 11.3% lysine out of the total amount of amino acids (Table 1), which is the first-limiting amino acid for swine [29]. For newly weaned piglets’ feeding, in addition to lysine itself, the ratio between each amino acid (threonine, total sulphur amino acids, tryptophan, valine, isoleucine) and lysine is also relevant [76,77]. Particularly, the tryptophan requirement in the diet for 21-to-45-day-old piglets was found to be 1% of the dietary protein (0.613% for A. platensis). Thus, feeding A. platensis would provide such a level of this essential amino acid (1.4% of total amino acids) (Table 1). For growing-finishing pigs, the list of amino acids required is long and includes all the essential (with the exception of phenylalanine) and two conditionally essential amino acids (arginine and cysteine). For gestation sows, the list is shorter, consisting of lysine, threonine, tryptophan, isoleucine, valine, methionine, and cysteine [78]. When the microalga does not provide the recommended amount of amino acids, it is necessary to supplement them in the diet. Although A. platensis seems to be a good alternative for conventional protein sources in swine diets [79], most studies used this microalga as a supplement and not as a functional ingredient [80]. Indeed, low doses of A. platensis were shown to improve nutrient digestibility, in contrast to high doses. For instance, feeding A. platensis at 1% to piglets significantly increased the gross energy digestibility coefficient (90.9 to 92.8%), and also tended to enhance DM (91.3 to 93.0%), organic matter (92.4 to 93.8%) and neutral detergent fibre digestibility (77.3 to 81.0%), which was suggested to be caused by an effect of microalga on intestinal mucosa architecture with an increase in villus height and villus height: crypt depth ratio in jejunum [75].
In addition, high levels (10% feed) of A. platensis were reported to affect total tract apparent digestibility for all the nutrients, with the exception of neutral detergent fibre. It decreased total tract apparent digestibility of crude protein (80.6 to 75.4%) in post-weaning piglets, even though the dietary supplementation with a recombinant lysozyme increased crude fat (55.6 to 62.8%) and acid detergent fibre (23.0 to 37.3%) digestibility relative to animals fed a corn- and soy-based diet or solely the algae, respectively [80]. Nevertheless, Altmann et al. [40] and Neumann et al. [69] demonstrated that 9.5 and 13%, respectively, of A. platensis incorporated in growing-finishing pigs´ diets with amino acid supplementation, mostly lysine, had no negative effects on animal growth or pork quality. Although the former source did not analyse the effects on nutrient digestibility of such high levels of alga, Neumann et al. [69] showed no significant differences in apparent nitrogen digestibility. Table 5 is a summary of main effects on nutrient digestibility of dietary inclusion of A. platensis in in vivo trials on swine.

7. Conclusions and Future Perspectives

Overall, A. platensis is a promising novel ingredient to support the future needs in poultry and swine production. This microalga has a high protein value and several nutritional and bioactive compounds, such as fatty acids, polysaccharides, minerals and pigments, that can stimulate animal growth performance and health. However, there are some limitations on the use of microalgae as a feedstuff at a large scale associated with the cultivation process (high production costs, mostly related to drying and conditioning of algae biomass) and the bio-accessibility and bioavailability of microalgae nutrients. Although scarcely reported, the values of protein or amino acids digestibility of A. platensis range between 66.1 and 68.7% for poultry and from 75.4 to 80.6% for swine. Even though these values of protein digestibility are interesting, this microalga has a recalcitrant cell wall composed of polysaccharides that are mostly indigestible for poultry and swine, which reduces nutrient digestibility.
Therefore, for an increase in microalga nutrient bio-accessibility, it is necessary to enhance algal biomass digestibility by disrupting the cell wall using, for instance, mechanical (e.g., bead milling) or non-mechanical (e.g., feed enzymes) pre-treatments. However, depending on the A. platensis inclusion level, additional procedures might be necessary to increase nutrient bioavailability, such as the use of exogenous proteases that would degrade the gel-forming matrix of proteins released from digested microalga biomass. Further studies could help to explore the aspects concerning the bio-accessibility and bioavailability of A. platensis nutrients for monogastric animals.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.A.M.P.; data curation, M.P.S., M.M.C.; formal analysis, M.P.S., M.M.C.; investigation, M.P.S., M.M.C.; writing—original draft preparation, M.P.S., M.M.C.; writing—review and editing, J.A.M.P.; project administration, J.A.M.P.; funding acquisition, J.A.M.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia grants, Lisbon, Portugal (UI/BD/153071/2022 to M.P.S., UIDB/00276/2020 to CIISA and LA/P/0059/2020 to AL4AnimalS), and by the Portugal2020 project (P2020/17/SI/70114/2019 and associated researcher contract to M.M.C.).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Altmann, B.A.; Neumann, C.; Velten, S.; Liebert, F.; Mörlein, D. Meat quality derived from high inclusion of a micro-alga or insect meal as an alternative protein source in poultry diets: A pilot study. Foods 2018, 7, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Becker, E.W. Micro-algae as a source of protein. Biotechnol. Adv. 2007, 25, 207–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Chaves, A.A.M.; Martins, C.F.; Carvalho, D.F.P.; Ribeiro, D.M.; Lordelo, M.; Freire, J.P.B.; de Almeida, A.M. A viewpoint on the use of microalgae as an alternative feedstuff in the context of pig and poultry feeding—A special emphasis on tropical regions. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2021, 53, 396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Martins, C.F.; Ribeiro, D.M.; Costa, M.; Coelho, D.; Alfaia, C.M.; Lordelo, M.; Almeida, A.M.; Freire, J.P.B.; Prates, J.A.M. Using microalgae as a sustainable feed resource to enhance quality and nutritional value of pork and poultry meat. Foods 2021, 10, 2933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ljubic, A.; Safafar, H.; Holdt, S.L.; Jacobsen, C. Biomass composition of Arthrospira platensis during cultivation on industrial process water and harvesting. J. Appl. Phycol. 2018, 30, 943–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Neumann, U.; Derwenskus, F.; Gille, A.; Louis, S.; Schmid-Staiger, U.; Briviba, K.; Bischoff, S.C. Bioavailability and safety of nutrients from the microalgae Chlorella vulgaris, Nannochloropsis oceanica and Phaeodactylum tricornutum in c57bl/6 mice. Nutrients 2018, 10, 965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tavernari, F.C.; Roza, L.F.; Surek, D.; Sordi, C.; Silva, M.; Albino, L.F.T.; Migliorini, M.J.; Paiano, D.; Boiago, M.M. Apparent metabolisable energy and amino acid digestibility of microalgae Spirulina platensis as an ingredient in broiler chicken diets. Br. Poult. Sci. 2018, 59, 562–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Seghiri, R.; Kharbach, M.; Essamri, A. Functional composition, nutritional properties, and biological activities of Moroccan Spirulina microalga. J. Food Qual. 2019, 3, 11. [Google Scholar]
  9. Stengel, D.B.; Connan, S.; Popper, Z.A. Algal chemodiversity and bioactivity: Sources of natural variability and implications for commercial application. Biotechnol. Adv. 2011, 29, 483–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wu, H.; Li, T.; Lv, J.; Chen, Z.; Wu, J.; Wang, N.; Wu, H.; Xiang, W. Growth and biochemical composition characteristics of Arthrospira platensis induced by simultaneous nitrogen deficiency and seawater-supplemented medium in an outdoor raceway pond in winter. Foods 2021, 10, 2974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cai, J.; Lovatelli, A.; Garrido Gamarro, E.; Geehan, J.; Lucente, D.; Mair, G.; Weimin, M.; Bondad-Reantaso, M.; Roubach, R. Seaweeds and Microalgae: An Overview for Unlocking Their Potential in Global Aquaculture Development; FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 122; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  12. Reboleira, J.; Freitas, R.; Pinteus, S.; Silva, J.; Alves, C.; Pedrosa, R.; Bernardino, S. Spirulina. In Nonvitamin and Nonmineral Nutritional Supplements; Nabavi, S.M., Silva, A.S., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 409–413. [Google Scholar]
  13. DiNicolantonio, J.J.; Bhat, A.G.; OKeefe, J. Effects of spirulina on weight loss and blood lipids: A review. Open Heart 2020, 7, e001003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Hayes, M.; Skomedal, H.; Skjånes, K.; Mazur-Marzec, H.; Toruńska-Sitarz, A.; Catala, M.; Isleten Hosoglu, M.; García-Vaquero, M. Microalgal proteins for feed, food and health. In Microalgae-Based Biofuels and Bioproducts; Gonzalez-Fernandez, C., Muñoz, R., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2017; pp. 347–368. [Google Scholar]
  15. Toyomizu, M.; Sato, K.; Taroda, H.; Kato, T.; Akiba, Y. Effects of dietary Spirulina on meat colour in muscle of broiler chickens. Br. Poult. Sci. 2001, 42, 197–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Omri, B.; Amraoui, M.; Tarek, A.; Lucarini, M.; Durazzo, A.; Cicero, N.; Santini, A.; Kamoun, M. Arthrospira platensis (Spirulina) supplementation on laying hens’ performance: Eggs physical, chemical, and sensorial qualities. Foods 2019, 8, 386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Demarco, M.; Oliveira de Moraes, J.; Matos, Â.P.; Derner, R.B.; de Farias Neves, F.; Tribuzi, G. Digestibility, bioaccessibility and bioactivity of compounds from algae. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 121, 114–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Acién, F.G.; Fernández, J.M.; Magán, J.J.; Molina, E. Production cost of a real microalgae production plant and strategies to reduce it. Biotechnol. Adv. 2012, 30, 1344–1353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Enzing, C.; Ploeg, M.; Barbosa, M.; Sijtsma, L. Microalgae-based products for the food and feed sector: An outlook for Europe. JRC Sci. Policy Rep. 2014, 19–37. [Google Scholar]
  20. Zittelli, G.C.; Mangini, S.; Unamunzaga, C. Algae as Novel Food in Europe. European Algae Biomass Association 2021. [Google Scholar]
  21. European Commission. Regulation (EC) No 258/97 Of The European Parliament and of the Council concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients. Off. J. Eur. Communities 1997, 43, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  22. Martín-Girela, I.; Albero, B.; Tiwari, B.K.; Miguel, E.; Aznar, R. Screening of Contaminants of Emerging Concern in Microalgae Food Supplements. Separations 2020, 7, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Manali, K.M.; Arunraj, R.; Kumar, T.; Ramya, M. Detection of microcystin producing cyanobacteria in Spirulina dietary supplements using multiplex HRM quantitative PCR. J. Appl. Phycol. 2017, 29, 1279–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Scoglio, S. Microcystins in water and in microalgae: Do microcystins as microalgae contaminants warrant the current public alarm? Toxicol. Rep. 2018, 5, 785–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Holman, B.W.B.; Malau-Aduli, A.E.O. Spirulina as a livestock supplement and animal feed. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2013, 97, 615–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Seyidoglu, N.; Inan, S.; Aydin, C. A Prominent Superfood: Spirulina platensis. In Superfood and Functional Food—The Development of Superfoods and Their Roles as Medicine; TechOpen: London, UK, 2017; Volume 22, pp. 1–27. [Google Scholar]
  27. Madeira, M.S.; Cardoso, C.; Lopes, P.A.; Coelho, D.; Afonso, C.; Bandarra, N.M.; Prates, J.A. Microalgae as feed ingredients for livestock production and meat quality: A review. Livest. Sci. 2017, 205, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Parsons, C.M. Unresolved issues for amino acid digestibility in poultry nutrition. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2020, 29, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. van Milgen, J.; Dourmad, J.-Y. Concept and application of ideal protein for pigs. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2015, 6, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. van Eykelenburg, C. On the morphology and ultrastructure of the cell wall of Spirulina platensis. Antonie Leeuwenhoek 1977, 43, 89–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Park, J.; Lee, S.; Kim, I.-S. Effect of dietary Spirulina (Arthrospira) platensis on the growth performance, antioxidant enzyme activity, nutrient digestibility, cecal microflora, excreta noxious gas emission, and breast meat quality of broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 2018, 97, 2451–2459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Takashi, S. Effect of administration of Spirulina on egg quality and egg components. Anim. Husb. 2003, 57, 191–195. [Google Scholar]
  33. Coelho, D.; Lopes, P.A.; Cardoso, V.; Ponte, P.; Brás, J.; Madeira, M.S.; Alfaia, C.M.; Bandarra, N.M.; Fontes, C.M.G.A.; Prates, J.A.M. A two-enzyme constituted mixture to improve the degradation of Arthrospira platensis microalga cell wall for monogastric diets. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2020, 104, 310–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Batista, A.P.; Niccolai, A.; Fradinho, P.; Fragoso, S.; Bursic, I.; Rodolfi, L.; Biondi, N.; Tredici, M.R.; Sousa, I.; Raymundo, A. Microalgae biomass as an alternative ingredient in cookies: Sensory, physical and chemical properties, antioxidant activity and in vitro digestibility. Algal Res. 2017, 26, 161–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Gamboa-Delgado, J.; Navarro, Y.; Nieto-López, M.; Villarreal-Cavazos, D.A.; Cruz-Suarez, L. Assimilation of dietary nitrogen supplied by fish meal and microalgal biomass from Spirulina (Arthrospira platensis) and Nannochloropsis oculata in shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei fed compound diets. J. Appl. Phycol. 2019, 31, 2379–2389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mišurcová, L.; Kracmar, S.; Klejdus, B.; Vacek, J. Nitrogen content, dietary Fiber, and digestibility in algal food products. Czech J. Food Sci. 2010, 28, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mohammadi, M.; Soltanzadeh, M.; Ebrahimi, A.R.; Hamishehkar, H. Spirulina platensis protein hydrolysates: Techno-functional, nutritional and antioxidant properties. Algal Res. 2022, 65, 102739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Tibbetts, S.M.; Milley, J.E.; Lall, S.P. Chemical composition and nutritional properties of freshwater and marine microalgal biomass cultured in photobioreactors. J. Appl. Phycol. 2015, 27, 1109–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wild, K.J.; Steingaß, H.; Rodehutscord, M. Variability in nutrient composition and in vitro crude protein digestibility of 16 microalgae products. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2018, 102, 1306–1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Altmann, B.A.; Neumann, C.; Rothstein, S.; Liebert, F.; Mörlein, D. Do dietary soy alternatives lead to pork quality improvements or drawbacks? A look into micro-alga and insect protein in swine diets. Meat Sci. 2019, 153, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Holman, B.W.B.; Kashani, A.; Malau-Aduli, A.E.O. Effects of Spirulina (Arthrospira platensis) supplementation level and basal diet on liveweight, body conformation and growth traits in genetically divergent Australian dual-purpose lambs during simulated drought and typical pasture grazing. Small Rumin. Res. 2014, 120, 6–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Macias-Sancho, J.; Poersch, L.H.; Bauer, W.; Romano, L.A.; Wasielesky, W.; Tesser, M.B. Fishmeal substitution with Arthrospira (Spirulina platensis) in a practical diet for Litopenaeus vannamei: Effects on growth and immunological parameters. Aquaculture 2014, 426-427, 120–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Grinstead, G.S.; Tokach, M.D.; Dritz, S.S.; Goodband, R.D.; Nelssen, J.L. Effects of Spirulina platensis on growth performance of weanling pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2000, 83, 237–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Radhakrishnan, S.; Belal, I.E.H.; Seenivasan, C.; Muralisankar, T.; Bhavan, P.S. Impact of fishmeal replacement with Arthrospira platensis on growth performance, body composition and digestive enzyme activities of the freshwater prawn, Macrobrachium rosenbergii. Aquac. Rep. 2016, 3, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Dalle Zotte, A.; Cullere, M.; Sartori, A.; Szendrő, Z.; Kovàcs, M.; Giaccone, V.; Dal Bosco, A. Dietary Spirulina (Arthrospira platensis) and Thyme (Thymus vulgaris) supplementation to growing rabbits: Effects on raw and cooked meat quality, nutrient true retention and oxidative stability. Meat Sci. 2014, 98, 94–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Shabana, E.F.; Gabr, M.A.; Moussa, H.R.; El-Shaer, E.A.; Ismaiel, M.M.S. Biochemical composition and antioxidant activities of Arthrospira (Spirulina) platensis in response to gamma irradiation. Food Chem 2017, 214, 550–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Aouir, A.; Amiali, M.; Bitam, A.; Benchabane, A.; Raghavan, V.G. Comparison of the biochemical composition of different Arthrospira platensis strains from Algeria, Chad and the USA. J. Food Meas. Charact. 2017, 11, 913–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Tokuşoglu, Ö.; Üunal, M.K. Biomass nutrient profiles of three microalgae: Spirulina platensis, Chlorella vulgaris, and Isochrisis galbana. J. Food Sci. 2003, 68, 1144–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Alghonaim, A.A.; Alqahtani, M.F.; Al-Garadi, M.A.; Suliman, G.M.; Al-Baadani, H.H.; Al-Badwi, M.A.; Abdelrahman, M.M.; Alowaimer, A.N.; Khan, R.U.; Alhidary, I.A. Effects of different levels of spirulina (Arthrospira platensis) supplementation on productive performance, nutrient digestibility, blood metabolites, and meat quality of growing Najdi lambs. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2022, 54, 124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bennamoun, L.; Afzal, M.T.; Léonard, A. Drying of alga as a source of bioenergy feedstock and food supplement—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 50, 1203–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bensehaila, S.; Doumandji, A.; Boutekrabt, L.; Manafikhi, H.; Peluso, I.; Bensehaila, K.; Kouache, A.; Bensehaila, A. The nutritional quality of Spirulina platensis of Tamenrasset, Algeria. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2015, 14, 1649–1654. [Google Scholar]
  52. Carbonell-Capella, J.M.; Buniowska, M.; Barba, F.J.; Esteve, M.J.; Frígola, A. Analytical methods for determining bioavailability and bioaccessibility of bioactive compounds from fruits and vegetables: A review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2014, 13, 155–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Cherian, G. A Guide to the Principles of Animal Nutrition; Oregon State University: Corvallis, OR, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  54. Niazi, S.K. Bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for orally administered drug products. In Handbook of Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Formulations; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2004; pp. 27–40. [Google Scholar]
  55. Johnson, R.J. Principles, problems and application of amino acid digestibility in poultry. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 1992, 48, 232–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Sauer, W.C.; Ozimek, L. Digestibility of amino acids in swine: Results and their practical applications: A review. Livest. Prod. Sci. 1986, 15, 367–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Foltyn, M.; Lichovníková, M.; Rada, V.; Musilová, A. Apparent ileal digestibility of protein and amino acids in protein feedstuffs and trypsin activity in the small intestine in broiler chickens. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 60, 375–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ravindran, V.; Hew, L.; Ravindran, G.; Bryden, W. A comparison of ileal digesta and excreta analysis for the determination of amino acid digestibility in food ingredients for poultry. Br. Poult. Sci. 1999, 40, 266–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sibbald, I.R. Estimation of bioavailable amino acids in feedingstuffs for poultry and pigs: A review with emphasis on balance experiments. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 1987, 67, 221–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Parsons, C.M.; Potter, L.M.; Brown, R.D.; Wilkins, T.D.; Bliss, B.A. Microbial contribution to dry matter and amino acid content of poultry excreta. Poult. Sci. 1982, 61, 925–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mason, V.C.; Just, A. Bacterial activity in the hind-gut of pigs 1. Its influence on the apparent digestibility of dietary energy and fat. Z. Für Tierphysiol. Tierernährung Futterm. 1976, 36, 301–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Jones, J.D.; Petersburg, S.J.; Burnett, P.C. The Mechanism of the Lysine-Arginine Antagonism in the Chick: Effect of lysine on digestion, kidney arginase, and liver transamidinase. J. Nutr. 1967, 93, 103–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Shioji, Y.; Kobayashi, T.; Yoshida, T.; Otagiri, T.; Onoda, K.; Yoshioka, Y.; Sasada, T.; Miyoshi, N. Nitrogen balance and bioavailability of amino acids in Spirulina diet-fed wistar rats. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2021, 69, 13780–13786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Niccolai, A.; Chini Zittelli, G.; Rodolfi, L.; Biondi, N.; Tredici, M.R. Microalgae of interest as food source: Biochemical composition and digestibility. Algal Res. 2019, 42, 101617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kose, A.; Ozen, M.O.; Elibol, M.; Oncel, S.S. Investigation of in vitro digestibility of dietary microalga Chlorella vulgaris and cyanobacterium Spirulina platensis as a nutritional supplement. 3 Biotech 2017, 7, 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Lopes, P.A.; Coelho, D.; Prates, J.A.M. Testimony on a successful lab protocol to disrupt Chlorella vulgaris microalga cell wall. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0268565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ribeiro, D.M.; Martins, C.F.; Kuleš, J.; Horvatić, A.; Guillemin, N.; Freire, J.P.; Eckersall, P.D.; Almeida, A.M.; Prates, J.A. Influence of dietary Spirulina inclusion and lysozyme supplementation on the longissimus lumborum muscle proteome of newly weaned piglets. J. Proteomics 2021, 244, 104274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Bryan, D.D.; Classen, H.L. In vitro Methods of Assessing Protein Quality for Poultry. Animals 2020, 10, 551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Neumann, C.; Velten, S.; Liebert, F. N balance studies emphasize the superior protein quality of pig diets at high inclusion level of algae meal (Spirulina platensis) or insect meal (Hermetia illucens) when adequate amino acid supplementation is ensured. Animals 2018, 8, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lucakova, S.; Branyikova, I.; Hayes, M. Microalgal Proteins and Bioactives for Food, Feed, and Other Applications. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Payne, W.L.; Kifer, R.R.; Snyder, D.G.; Combs, G.F. Studies of protein digestion in the chicken: 1. Investigation of apparent amino acid digestibility of fish meal protein using cecectomized, adult male chickens. Poult. Sci. 1971, 50, 143–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Evans, A.M.; Smith, D.L.; Moritz, J.S. Effects of algae incorporation into broiler starter diet formulations on nutrient digestibility and 3 to 21 d bird performance. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2015, 24, 206–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Pestana, J.M.; Puerta, B.; Santos, H.; Madeira, M.S.; Alfaia, C.M.; Lopes, P.A.; Pinto, R.M.A.; Lemos, J.P.C.; Fontes, C.M.G.A.; Lordelo, M.M.; et al. Impact of dietary incorporation of Spirulina (Arthrospira platensis) and exogenous enzymes on broiler performance, carcass traits, and meat quality. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 2519–2532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Chronakis, I.S. Gelation of edible blue-green algae protein isolate (Spirulina platensis Strain Pacifica): Thermal transitions, rheological properties, and molecular forces involved. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2001, 49, 888–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Furbeyre, H.; van Milgen, J.; Mener, T.; Gloaguen, M.; Labussière, E. Effects of dietary supplementation with freshwater microalgae on growth performance, nutrient digestibility and gut health in weaned piglets. Animal 2017, 11, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Linden, J. Starter Pig Amino Acid Requirements to Gut Health Concerns. In Proceedings of the Kansas Swine Profitability Conference, Manhattan, KS, USA, 8 February 2022; p. 1. [Google Scholar]
  77. Gallo, J.; Pond, W. Tryptophan requirement of early-weaned pigs from three to seven weeks of age. J. Anim. Sci. 1966, 25, 774–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Council, N.R. Nutrient Requirements of Swine; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  79. Altmann, B.A.; Rosenau, S. Spirulina as animal feed: Opportunities and challenges. Foods 2022, 11, 965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Martins, C.F.; Pestana Assunção, J.; Ribeiro Santos, D.M.; Madeira, M.; Alfaia, C.; Lopes, P.; Coelho, D.F.M.; Cardoso Lemos, J.P.; de Almeida, A.M.; Mestre Prates, J.A.; et al. Effect of dietary inclusion of Spirulina on production performance, nutrient digestibility and meat quality traits in post-weaning piglets. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2021, 105, 247–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table
Table 1. Detailed nutritional composition of Arthrospira platensis (all values are expressed on a dry matter basis; hyphenated values are ranges based on several studies, and mean values are within parenthesis).
Table 1. Detailed nutritional composition of Arthrospira platensis (all values are expressed on a dry matter basis; hyphenated values are ranges based on several studies, and mean values are within parenthesis).
Nutritional CompositionArthrospira platensis 1
Crude protein (%)26.0–75.6 (61.3)
Amino acid profile (% total amino acids)
   Alanine7.8–10.2 (8.6)
   Arginine7.0–14.9 (9.9)
   Aspartic acid9.8–17.6 (12.4)
   Cystine0.7–2.3 (1.3)
   Glutamic acid14.1–22.5 (17.7)
   Glycine4.9–6.9 (5.6)
   Histidine1.6–3.3 (2.4)
   Isoleucine5.3–12.3 (8.1)
   Leucine9.0–22.4 (14.3)
   Lysine4.4–11.3 (7.8)
   Methionine2.4–6.3 (4.1)
   Phenylalanine4.4–10.5 (7.6)
   Proline3.7
   Serine5.2–7.1 (5.9)
   Threonine5.0–10.5 (7.4)
   Tryptophan0.85–2.0 (1.4)
   Tyrosine4.0–9.4 (6.5)
   Valine6.2–13.9 (9.1)
Ash (%)6.1–19.8 (9.0)
Macrominerals
   Calcium (g/kg)0.2–9.2 (4.0)
   Magnesium (g/kg)1.6–4.1 (3.4)
   Phosphorus (mg/kg)1.5–13.9 (8.4)
   Potassium (g/kg)13.7–27.8 (17.6)
   Sodium (g/kg)4.8–27.0 (14.3)
Microminerals
   Copper (mg/kg)1.2–5.1 (3.2)
   Iron (g/kg)0.2–1.1 (0.8)
   Manganese (mg/kg)39.2–54.0 (44.3)
   Selenium (mg/kg)1.1–38.0 (13.5)
   Zinc (mg/kg)25.3–31.1 (27.6)
Crude carbohydrates (%)4.0–44.8 (17.8)
   Non-fibre carbohydrates7.9–20.9 (15.7)
Crude fibre (%)0.1–5.0 (2.6)
   Acid detergent lignin0.1–3.2 (1.6)
   Acid neutral fibre0.3–18.3 (6.4)
   Neutral detergent fibre0.2–32.6 (11.0)
Crude fat (%)0.9–14.2 (5.8)
Fatty acid profile (% total fatty acids)
   16:026.6–71.2 (40.1)
   16:1n-7 1.8–13.5 (5.3)
   18:00.7–8.8 (2.9)
   18:1n-91.5–35.7 (12.0)
   18:2n-67.9–28.2 (16.8)
   18:3n-30.6–3.0 (1.0)
   18:3n-62.7–28.6 (9.2)
   20:00.02–15.7 (8.1)
   20:4n-60.3–0.4 (0.4)
   20:5n-30.1–2.9 (1.3)
   22:6n-32.3–3.5 (3.0)
Pigments (mg/kg)
   Total carotenoids 743–2230 (1450)
   Total chlorophylls1324–3635 (2455)
   β-carotene 248–1497 (872)
Vitamins (mg/kg)
   A 1.0
   B1 6.7–44.9 (31.2)
   B12 1.9–17.5 (9.7)
   B2 38.0–56.1 (47.1)
   B3 130–202 (161)
   B5 14.8
   B6 6.5–12.1 (8.5)
   B8 0.1
   B9 0.5–500 (250)
   K 13.9
   α-Tocopherol 26.2
   β-Tocopherol 1.0
   γ-Tocopherol1.0
1 Supporting sources: Martins, et al. [4], Ljubic, et al. [5], Holman and Malau-Aduli [25], Batista, et al. [34], Gamboa-Delgado, et al. [35], Misurcova, et al. [36], Mohammadi, et al. [37], Tibbetts, et al. [38], Wild, et al. [39], Altmann, et al. [40], Holman, et al. [41], Macias-Sancho, et al. [42], Grinstead, et al. [43], Radhakrishnan, et al. [44], Dalle Zotte, et al. [45], Shabana, et al. [46], Aouir, et al. [47], Tokuşoglu and üUnal [48], Alghonaim, et al. [49], Bennamoun, et al. [50], Bensehaila, et al. [51].
Table
Table 2. Total protein, pigments and fatty acids (mg/g microalgae) and fatty acid profile (% total fatty acids) of A. platensis residue after treatment with Carbohydrate-Active enZymes [33].
Table 2. Total protein, pigments and fatty acids (mg/g microalgae) and fatty acid profile (% total fatty acids) of A. platensis residue after treatment with Carbohydrate-Active enZymes [33].
Nutritional CompositionA. platensis ControlA. platensis with Enzyme Treatment
Total protein 669586
Total carotenois3.042.73
Total chlorophylls6.468.71
Total fatty acids 46.741.8
   16:041.341.3
   16:1n-7 1.511.51
   18:03.102.74
   18:1n-92.432.23
   18:2n-618.418.8
   18:3n-30.0900.106
   18:3n-624.724.6
   20:00.2020.224
   22:2n-60.0660.103
Control: A. platensis suspension incubated with PBS, Enzyme treatment: A. platensis suspension incubated with mix of enzymes.
Table
Table 3. Summary of main effects of in vitro pre-treatments on hydrolysis and digestibility of A. platensis biomass.
Table 3. Summary of main effects of in vitro pre-treatments on hydrolysis and digestibility of A. platensis biomass.
Pre-Treatment of A. platensis Main EffectsReferences
Combination of pepsin and pancreatinIncrease in organic matter, crude protein and carbohydrate digestibilityNiccolai, et al. [64]
Pepsin or pancreatinIncrease in dry weight digestibility (89.6% with pepsin, 97.5% with pancreatin and 94.3% with combination of the two enzymes)Misurcova, et al. [36]
Pancreatin64% of hydrolysis yield of microalga biomassKose, et al. [65]
Enzyme mixture with lysozyme and α-amilaseRelease of n-6 PUFA, monounsaturated fatty acids and chlorophyll aCoelho, et al. [33]
Bead milling before in vitro digestion assaysImprovement of protein digestibility (74% for non- disrupted cells vs. 78% for disrupted cells)Wild, et al. [39]
Table
Table 4. Summary of main effects on nutrient digestibility of dietary inclusion of A. platensis in in vivo trials on poultry.
Table 4. Summary of main effects on nutrient digestibility of dietary inclusion of A. platensis in in vivo trials on poultry.
Animals (Age/Initial Body Weight)Inclusion Level in Feed and Duration of TrialMain EffectsReferences
1-day-old male broilers 20% with an indigestible marker for 10 daysEnhanced amino acid digestibilityTavernari, et al. [7]
1-day-old male broilers weighing 41.5 ± 0.5 kg1% for 35 daysIncreased apparent total tract digestibility of dry matter and nitrogenPark, et al. [31]
1-day-old male broilers 15% supplemented with a recombinant lysozyme for 14 daysNutrient digestibility was not analysedPestana, et al. [73]
Table
Table 5. Summary of main effects on nutrient digestibility of dietary inclusion of A. platensis in in vivo trials on swine.
Table 5. Summary of main effects on nutrient digestibility of dietary inclusion of A. platensis in in vivo trials on swine.
Animals (Age/Initial Body Weight)Inclusion Level in Feed and Duration of TrialMain EffectsReferences
Piglets weaned at 28 days weighing 9.1 ± 1.1 kg1% for 14 daysIncreased gross energy digestibility coefficient
Tended to enhance dry matter, organic matter and neutral detergent fibre digestibility		Furbeyre, et al. [75]
Piglets, weaned at 28 days weighing 12.0 ± 0.89kg 10% for 28 daysIncreased total tract apparent digestibility of crude fat and acid detergent fibre (lysozyme supplementation)
Decreased total tract apparent digestibility of crude protein (with or without lysozyme)		Martins, et al. [80]
9 week-old growing-finishing pigs weighing 22 ± 1.6 kg 9.5% with amino acid supplementation, mostly lysine, for 35 to 49 daysDigestibility was not analysedAltmann, et al. [40]
Growing-finishing pigs weighing 60 kg13% with amino acid suplementation, mostly lysine. for 10 daysNo significant effect on apparent nitrogen digestibilityNeumann, et al. [69]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Spínola, M.P.; Costa, M.M.; Prates, J.A.M. Digestive Constraints of Arthrospira platensis in Poultry and Swine Feeding. Foods 2022, 11, 2984. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11192984

AMA Style

Spínola MP, Costa MM, Prates JAM. Digestive Constraints of Arthrospira platensis in Poultry and Swine Feeding. Foods. 2022; 11(19):2984. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11192984

Chicago/Turabian Style

Spínola, Maria P., Mónica M. Costa, and José A. M. Prates. 2022. "Digestive Constraints of Arthrospira platensis in Poultry and Swine Feeding" Foods 11, no. 19: 2984. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11192984

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop