Validation of the Energy Matrix of Guanidinoacetic Acid for Broiler Chickens: Effects on Performance, Carcass Traits, and Meat Quality
by
, , and
Fernanda Danieli Antoniazzi Valentini
1, 
Heloísa Pagnussatt
2,
Fernanda Picoli
3,*,
Letieri Griebler
1,
Carine de Freitas Milarch
4,
Arele Arlindo Calderano
2,
Fernando de Castro Tavernari
5 and
Tiago Goulart Petrolli
1 1
Department of Animal Science, Western University of Santa Catarina, R. Dirceu Giordani, 696, Jardim Taruma, Xanxerê 89820-000, SC, Brazil
2
Department of Animal Science, Federal University of Viçosa, Peter Henry Rolfs Ave., s/n, University Campus, Viçosa 36570-900, MG, Brazil
3
Department of Animal Science, State University of Santa Catarina, Rua Beloni Trombetta Zanin, 680E, Chapecó 89815-530, SC, Brazil
4
Saguaçu II and III Units, Bom Jesus Ielusc College, R. Mafra, 84, Saguaçu, Joinville 89221-665, SC, Brazil
5
Embrapa Suínos e Aves, BR153, km 110, Tamanduá’s District, Concórdia 89715-899, SC, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Poultry 2025, 4(3), 30; https://doi.org/10.3390/poultry4030030
Submission received: 25 May 2025
/
Revised: 26 June 2025
/
Accepted: 2 July 2025
/
Published: 14 July 2025
Abstract
The objective of this study was to validate the energy matrix of guanidinoacetic acid (AGA) in broiler diets, assessing its effects on performance, carcass traits, organ development, and meat quality. The experiment was conducted at the UNOESC Xanxerê poultry facility using 480 COBB broilers in a completely randomized design with three treatments: positive control (standard energy level), negative control (75 kcal/kg reduction in metabolizable energy—ME), and negative control + AGA (600 mg/kg). Male broilers in the positive control and negative control + AGA groups showed improved feed conversion, higher weight gain, and greater feed intake (p < 0.001) compared to the negative control group. A significant difference in relative liver weight (p = 0.037) was observed between the positive and negative control groups. Birds supplemented with AGA had higher blood glucose levels and lower levels of cholesterol (p = 0.013), triglycerides (p = 0.005), total proteins (p < 0.001), and creatinine (p = 0.056). Regarding meat quality, the AGA-supplemented group showed higher crude protein content and greater lipid peroxidation in breast meat. In conclusion, the inclusion of AGA using an energy matrix reduced by 75 kcal/kg ME is feasible, maintaining performance and carcass characteristics while improving meat quality in broiler chickens.
1. Introduction
Broiler chicken feed represents approximately 75% of production costs, a figure that is expected to increase due to the commodity nature of animal feed ingredients, especially soybean oil, a primary raw material in feed production [1,2]. Currently, there are few alternative energy sources to soybean oil available for reducing production costs in poultry farming.
Given these challenges, there is a growing need to explore alternative energy sources in broiler diets to enhance both technical and economic sustainability. One potential avenue of study involves improving the metabolic status of animals to enhance cellular ATP production efficiency. Creatine is a molecule that fits this criterion as it serves as a precursor for muscular energy production and promotes muscle growth [3]. Additionally, it plays a direct role in protein accretion by redirecting amino acids arginine, glycine, and methionine, thereby enhancing ATP availability for myosin [4,5].
The premise is that increasing cellular levels of creatine (since endogenous production alone is insufficient for maximum phosphorylation) could enhance organismal energy potential, thereby allowing for reduced caloric content in diets without compromising batch performance. Chickens have limited capacity for endogenous synthesis of creatine, necessitating supplementation through feed sources. Animal-origin ingredients are rich sources of creatine, although their levels diminish significantly due to thermal processing, leading to variability [6]. Moreover, monohydrate creatine, while an added formulation, is considered unstable during feed manufacturing processes [7].
The inclusion of guanidinoacetic acid (AGA) in poultry feed has potential as a cellular creatine precursor, offering an alternative to reduce dietary energy content (by decreasing soybean oil levels), and showing strong potential for use in poultry farming. AGA serves as a creatine precursor in the liver and operates within the avian metabolic biochemical framework, where creatine acts as a phosphorus transporter in the mitochondrial electron transport chain’s final step of oxidative phosphorylation, responsible for producing adenosine triphosphate (ATP) molecules for cellular energy [8]. AGA is stable under various conditions, making it a suitable supplement for feed inclusion [9]. The thermo-instability of creatine complicates its inclusion in diets undergoing thermal processing such as pelleting and extrusion. Guanidinoacetic acid is more stable and can withstand these high-temperature physical processes. This situation increases its utility in the poultry industry, as most feed manufacturers employ one of these processes [10]. Studies demonstrate that AGA (0.6–1.2 g/kg feed) is safe, improving performance without compromising health [11]. However, AGA levels >1.5 g/kg may reduce feed intake and cause renal risks [6,8].
Creatine naturally occurs in animal-derived meals routinely used in poultry diets, leading to scientific debate regarding the effectiveness of adding pure creatine (or its precursors) to feeds containing animal-derived meals. Given its absence in plants, there is a premise that including creatine in diets composed exclusively of plant-derived ingredients may yield better gains compared to diets containing animal-derived ingredients. However, these hypotheses require further substantiation through additional research [8,11,12].
Therefore, this study aims to evaluate whether the addition of guanidinoacetic acid to broiler diets with varying energy levels affects productive performance parameters, hepatic biochemistry, and serum biochemistry.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Animals, Housing, Diets, and Experimental Design
The research was conducted at the poultry facilities of UNOESC Xanxerê, using 480 male COBB lineage chickens distributed on the first day of age. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee on Animal Use (CEUA/UNOESC) under approval number 28/2021. It employed a completely randomized experimental design with three treatments (Table 1), each consisting of eight replications with 20 animals per replication. Guanidinoacetic acid was added to the experimental diets (Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4) at a rate of 600 mg/kg, an amount recommended to contribute 75 kcal/kg to the feed. Diets were provided in mash form and included ingredients of animal origin, such as meat and bone meal.
The animals were obtained from a commercial hatchery (GEAL Hatchery, Xanxerê, SC, Brazil) at one day of age, after being vaccinated against Marek’s disease post-hatching. They were then transferred directly to the experimental aviary, where they were raised following commercial farm standards and breed manual guidelines. They were housed in 2 m2 pens with wood shavings bedding, equipped with tube feeders and nipple drinkers, providing ad libitum access to feed and water throughout the experimental period.
2.2. Performance, Carcass, and Organ Yield
Chickens were weighed at 7, 21, and 42 days along with feed leftovers to determine weight gain, feed intake, and feed conversion ratio. At 42 days of age, three birds per experimental unit were euthanized to evaluate carcass yield, specific cuts (wing, drumstick, thigh, back, breast, and abdominal fat), and organ weights (heart, liver, proventriculus, gizzard, small intestine, spleen, and abdominal fat), following animal welfare and euthanasia norms outlined in Resolution n37/2018 [14]. The following calculations were used:
Carcass yield (%) = (carcass weight × 100)/(body weight at slaughter) × 100
Relative weight of cut (%) = (cut weight × 100)/(body weight at slaughter) × 100
Relative weight of organ (%) = (organ weight × 100)/(body weight at slaughter) × 100
2.3. Serum Biochemistry
For biochemical parameter assessment, blood samples (1 mL per animal) were collected via the brachial vein at 42 days of age. Serum was separated by centrifugation and stored at −20 °C for subsequent colorimetric enzymatic analysis of glucose (mg/dL), cholesterol (mg/dL), triglycerides (mg/dL), uric acid (mg/dL), total proteins (g/dL), and creatinine (mg/dL) concentrations using commercial kits (Gold Analisa®, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil) on a semi-automatic analyzer (Bioplus®, BIO-2000, Barueri, SP, Brazil).
2.4. Bromatological Composition and Lipid Peroxidation Analysis of Breast Meat
Approximately 35 g of chicken breast meat was weighed, frozen, and subsequently lyophilized for dehydration. The dried samples were ground using a laboratory multi-purpose mill. The samples were then dried in an oven at 105 °C for 8 h to determine total dry matter. Subsequently, samples were incinerated in a muffle furnace at 600 °C for 4 h [15]. Nitrogen content was determined by the Kjeldahl method (Method 984.13, AOAC, 1997 [16]) and converted to crude protein (CP) using a correction factor of 6.25. Fat content was determined using the Bligh and Dyer method (1959) [17], which involves fat extraction from samples with chloroform.
Lipid oxidation analysis of breast meat was conducted using the TBA (2-thiobarbituric acid) method, which quantifies malondialdehyde (MDA), a major decomposition product of polyunsaturated fatty acid hydroperoxides formed during oxidation [18]. Results were expressed as milligrams of MDA per gram of sample (mg of MDA/g) based on a standard curve. The methodology followed Pikul et al. [19], with readings on a spectrophotometer (Biospectro® SP-22, Curitiba, PR, Brazil) at a wavelength of 538 nm.
2.5. Statistical Analysis
Experimental results were subjected to Shapiro–Wilk normality tests, and as all data were found to be normally distributed, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed. Significant differences among means were determined by Tukey’s test at a significance level of 0.05 using R® statistical software (Posital®, RStudio version 2021.09.0, Boston, MA, USA).
3. Results
3.1. Performance
No significant differences (p > 0.05) were observed in weight, weight gain, and feed intake of the chickens during the 1- to 21-day phase. However, there was a significant reduction (p < 0.001) in feed conversion ratio for chickens receiving diets from the positive control and negative control + AGA groups compared to those in the negative control group (Table 5).
During the 1- to 42-day period (Table 5), chickens fed diets from the positive control and negative control + AGA groups showed higher body weight, weight gain, and feed intake (p < 0.001). Feed conversion ratio was higher (p < 0.001) in chickens from the negative control group compared to those from the positive control group.
3.2. Organ Yield
No significant effects (p > 0.05) were observed on relative weights of the heart, gizzard, intestines, proventriculus, and spleen in broiler chickens subjected to different treatments. However, there was a difference in relative liver weight (p = 0.037), with chickens from the positive control group having lower liver weights compared to those from the negative control group (Table 6).
3.3. Carcass and Cut Yield
No effects (p > 0.05) were observed on carcass yield, breast, thigh, drumstick, back + wings, and abdominal fat yields in chickens subjected to different treatments in both experiments (Table 7). There was a trend (p = 0.088) towards a difference in breast yield observed in chickens.
3.4. Serum Biochemistry
Regarding biochemical data (Table 8), chickens receiving guanidinoacetic acid supplementation in their diet showed higher glucose levels (p < 0.001), lower cholesterol levels (p = 0.013), lower triglyceride levels (p < 0.005), and lower total protein levels (p < 0.001) compared to the negative control group. Creatinine levels (p = 0.056) were also higher in control treatments, with no changes observed in uric acid analysis (p = 0.061).
3.5. Bromatological Composition and Lipid Peroxidation
In the bromatological composition and lipid peroxidation (mg of MDA/g) of the breast muscle in broiler chickens, an increase in crude protein (% in DM) was observed in animals belonging to the NC + AGA treatment group (p < 0.001) compared to those in the negative control group. There was a difference in fat content (%) (p = 0.032), with the negative control group showing a decrease in fat percentage compared to the positive control group. Regarding lipid peroxidation TBARS (p = 0.027), the breast meat of animals in the NC + AGA group showed higher oxidation compared to those in the negative control group (Table 9).
4. Discussion
Muscular energy supply is crucial in rapidly growing broiler chickens to achieve their maximum production potential, and energy status is a key determinant of carcass growth. Muscle energy is derived from intracellular ATP, produced through biochemical reactions in glycolysis, the Krebs cycle, and the respiratory chain in mitochondria. Creatine plays a significant role by “recycling” phosphorus molecules within the intracellular environment to facilitate the production of new ATP molecules, bypassing the need for subsequent metabolic reactions [20,21]. Creatine binds with phosphorus to form phosphocreatine, which is then acted upon by the enzyme creatine kinase to regenerate ATP from ADP in mitochondria [20,21]. The interaction between creatine and phosphocreatine with ATP and ADP, respectively, suggests that creatine-loaded muscles have the capacity to enhance growth or work efficiency [12].
Dietary guanidinoacetic acid increases muscle creatine concentrations, leading to improved energy metabolism in the respective tissue [22]. Guanidinoacetic acid serves as a precursor to creatine in the liver, which is then directed to tissues with high energy demands such as skeletal muscle, cardiac muscle, and the brain following its synthesis. In our study, we observed improvements in livestock performance, particularly in feed conversion efficiency, through the addition of guanidinoacetic acid to diets. Supplementation with AGA can reduce serum creatinine levels, due to greater efficiency in the use of phosphocreatine for ATP synthesis and arginine sparing, which reduces the endogenous production of creatine and its residual metabolite (creatinine) [23,24]. These findings align with those reported by Khajali et al. [25], who also found improved feed conversion efficiency in poultry supplemented with guanidinoacetic acid. This improvement occurred without changes in feed intake, indicating increased energy efficiency in chickens with guanidinoacetic acid supplementation [26].
There has been a scientific controversy regarding the addition of guanidinoacetic acid, or even creatine, to diets already containing animal-derived ingredients, as these typically contain creatine naturally derived from muscle tissues. However, the processing of these ingredients in rendering plants involves high-temperature digestion, which destroys creatine due to its thermolabile nature, thereby supporting the beneficial effects of exogenous supplementation on performance in poultry. Lemme et al. [22] found that supplementation with guanidinoacetic acid improves animal performance in diets containing fish meal, consistent with findings by Córdova-Noboa et al. [27], who demonstrated improved feed conversion and weight gain in animals supplemented with guanidinoacetic acid in diets containing animal meals. Additionally, Esser et al. [28] reported that feed conversion was better in animals supplemented with guanidinoacetic acid in diets containing animal meals compared to other treatments tested. Thus, guanidinoacetic acid supplementation at different stages of animal growth can mitigate the adverse effects of energy reduction in poultry diets, compared to the group without supplementation [29].
Additionally, there is another physiological mechanism that helps elucidate the action mechanism of the molecule in this study. Studies report that the improved performance observed in guanidinoacetic acid-supplemented broiler chickens may be attributed to its ability to spare arginine and glycine in metabolism [6,14,24,30], as the body produces guanidinoacetic acid in the liver using arginine and glycine as precursors. Supplementing this compound allows the organism to spare and redirect these amino acids for other functions, such as protein synthesis, resulting in improved animal performance [31]. This arginine-sparing function is practically significant in the nutrition of broiler chickens, as they lack a functional urea cycle and are entirely dependent on dietary arginine [25].
Dietary arginine is required for the synthesis of compounds such as ornithine, proline, citrulline, glutamate, and for protein synthesis. It also increases the release of insulin, growth hormone, and IGF-I into the bloodstream, playing roles in both catabolic and anabolic events in skeletal muscle, adding to myofibrillar protein, which is crucial for the process of muscle hypertrophy [32,33]. In our results, particularly observed in Experiment I, the p value of 0.088 for breast yield (Table 8) approached statistical significance, indicating better utilization of dietary amino acids. Studies by Fernandes et al. [34] and Córdova-Noboa et al. [27] have described improvements in breast yield in chickens supplemented with guanidinoacetic acid. A study by EFSA [9] demonstrated that guanidinoacetic acid supplementation at doses of 800 mg/kg in the diet increased breast weight and reduced abdominal fat in animals. According to Wyss and Kaddurah-Daouk [20], supplementation of diets with creatine, even when used correctly, may not increase muscle mass due to variability in individual absorption, transport, and intramuscular storage.
There were no observed changes in the relative organ weights in most cases, except for differences in liver weight between positive control and negative control. Since guanidinoacetic acid does not exert digestive effects, it is expected not to affect these organs. Liver lipid metabolism is heavily burdened in poultry, where there is significant fat mobilization to this organ in certain situations to catabolize fatty acids [35].
It was observed that the addition of guanidinoacetic acid to the diet improves glucose availability and consequently energy, as it is used as an energy source by the organism. It is noted that in the experiment, with energy levels recommended by Rostagno et al. [13], there was a decrease in cholesterol and triglycerides in animals supplemented with guanidinoacetic acid, related to the reduction in vegetable oil. Conversely, animals fed a high-energy diet showed increased levels of cholesterol and triglycerides, as vegetable oil is an unsaturated fatty acid that is easier to digest and absorb. This set of information allows us to infer that the organism (especially muscle tissue) used intracellular energy sources more efficiently, saving glucose at a general metabolic level.
Following the same logic, serum triglyceride levels decreased due to less fat mobilization needed to meet the organism’s energy demand. Cholesterol, on the other hand, was reduced due to its lower demand as a lipid transporter in the organism, reflecting reduced overall lipid mobilization. A reduction in total protein levels was also observed with the decrease in dietary energy levels, which can be explained by the reduced need for lipoprotein transporters in the blood, as the lower presence of lipids in the diet reduced the requirement.
Serum biochemical analysis reflects the metabolic status of the animals, enabling the assessment of tissue damage, organ function issues, and the adaptation of animals to physiological and nutritional challenges [36]. The biochemical profile allows us to evaluate whether the use of additives or some exogenous molecules can be safely conducted in the animal organism. In our study, there was a reduction in almost all evaluated parameters, except for uric acid levels, which remained constant. This situation allows us to infer that there are no metabolic risks associated with the use of guanidinoacetic acid, indicating its safe use as a molecule.
Since guanidinoacetic acid is considered a saver of dietary arginine, it has been studied as an alternative for modulating lipid deposition and promoting protein synthesis. Thus, the use of a lipid source and supplementation with guanidinoacetic acid may explain the higher protein content and lower percentage of fat in chicken breast meat found in this study. In literature, several studies have found an increase in breast yield [25,29]. Increased breast yield is one of the most sought-after parameters in poultry farming recently, as it is one of the most financially representative cuts of the carcass, contributing to the technical and economic viability of using the additive in question.
Excessive production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) is detrimental to normal metabolism and can cause cellular damage through lipid peroxidation and protein oxidation [37,38]. Peroxidation occurs as a result of oxidative attack on membrane phospholipids [39]. Lipid peroxidation primarily affects cell membranes, altering their structure and permeability. This leads to the loss of selective ion exchange and the leakage of organelle contents, generating cytotoxic products such as malondialdehyde (MDA), ultimately resulting in cell death [40,41]. The increased formation of free radicals may result from elevated oxygen consumption and the activation of specific metabolic pathways related to muscle growth.
According to Wang et al. [42], the addition of guanidinoacetic acid improves antioxidant status by increasing total antioxidant capacity and the activities of several antioxidant enzymes. Metabolites related to guanidinoacetic acid (creatine and arginine) may be capable of scavenging free radicals, suggesting an indirect antioxidant effect of its use. Creatine, the final product of guanidinoacetic acid utilization, is believed to possess antioxidant capacity in some studies [43,44], but is reported to reduce antioxidant status in others [45], which is consistent with the findings of our study. The increase in MDA observed in the study may reflect transient oxidative stress due to the greater muscular energy demand induced by AGA, exacerbated by the reduction of dietary antioxidants (such as vitamin E) in the low-energy diet. However, further information is needed to understand how guanidinoacetic acid affects the antioxidant system [39].
5. Conclusions
The addition of guanidinoacetic acid can replace vegetable oil as an energy source for broiler chickens, ensuring maintenance of livestock performance and maintaining weight development parameters of organs, carcass, and carcass cuts of the birds.
Author Contributions
F.D.A.V.: Conceived and designed the analysis, collected the data, contributed data of analysis tools, performed the analysis and wrote the paper; H.P.: Collected the data; F.P.: Contributed to the writing of the paper; L.G., C.d.F.M., A.A.C., and F.d.C.T.: Conceived and designed the analysis and contributed data of analysis tools; T.G.P.: Conceived and designed the analysis, collected the data, contributed data of analysis tools, performed the analysis and wrote the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This study was financed in part by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel—Brazil (CAPES)—Finance Code 001.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was approved by the Ethics Committee on Animal Use (CEUA/UNOESC) under approval number 28/2021. The approval date was 29 June 2021.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- Goes, R.H.d.T.B.; Oliveira, E.R.d.A.; da Silva, J.A. Alimentos e Alimentação Animal. In Alimentos e Alimentação Animal; UFGD: Dourados, MS, Brazil, 2013; pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar]
- Thirumalaisamy, G.; Muralidharan, J.; Senthilkumar, S.; Hema Sayee, R.; Priyadharsini, M. Cost-effective feeding of poultry. Int. J. Sci. Environ. Technol. 2016, 5, 3997–4005. [Google Scholar]
- Hall, M.; Trojian, T.H. Creatine Supplementation. Curr. Sports Med. Rep. 2013, 12, 240–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dvořák, P. The role of amino acids in ATP availability for myosin function. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1981, 32, 1013–1018. [Google Scholar]
- Ibrahim, D.; El Sayed, R.; Abdelfattah-Hassan, A.; Morshedy, A.M. Creatine or guanidinoacetic acid? Which is more effective at enhancing growth; tissue creatine stores; quality of meat; and genes controlling growth/myogenesis in Mulard ducks. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2019, 47, 159–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tossenberger, J.; Rademacher, M.; Németh, K.; Halas, V.; Lemme, A.J.P.S. Digestibility and metabolism of dietary guanidino acetic acid fed to broilers. Poul. Sci. 2016, 95, 2058–2067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baker, D.H. Advances in protein–amino acid nutrition of poultry. Amino Acid 2009, 37, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lemme, A.; Ringel, J.; Petri, A. Effects of graded levels of creatine and guanidinoacetic acid on performance and muscle creatine content in broilers. In Proceedings of the 16th European Symposium on Poultry Nutrition, Strasbourg, France, 26–30 August 2007; pp. 389–392. [Google Scholar]
- EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). Safety and efficiency of guanidino acetic acid as feed additive for chickens for fattening. EFSA J. 2009, 988, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Der Poel, A.F.B.; Braun, U.; Hendriks, W.H.; Bosch, G. Stability of creatine monohydrate and guanidinoacetic acid during manufacture (retorting and extrusion) and storage of dog foods. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2019, 103, 1242–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michiels, J.; Maertens, L.; Buyse, J.; Lemme, A.; Rademacher, M.; Dierick, N.A.; De Smet, S. Supplementation of guanidinoacetic acid to broiler diets: Effects on performance; carcass characteristics; meat quality; and energy metabolism. Poul. Sci. 2012, 91, 402–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wuertz, S.; Reiser, S. Creatine: A valuable supplement in aquafeeds? Rev. Aquac. 2023, 15, 292–304. [Google Scholar]
- Rostagno, H.S.; Albino, L.F.T.; Hannas, M.I.; Donzele, J.L.; Sakomura, N.K.; Perazzo, F.G.; de Oliveira Brito, C. Tabelas brasileiras para aves e suınos. Composiçao de alimentos e exigências nutricionais, 4th ed.; UFV: Viçosa, MG, Brazil, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Brazil. Ministério da Ciência Tecnologia e Inovação. Resolução Normativa Nº 37–Diretriz Para Pratica De Eutanásia Do CONCEA–Brasília. 15 de Fevereiro de 2018. Available online: https://www.gov.br/mcti/pt-br/acompanhe-o-mcti/concea/arquivos/pdf/legislacao/resolucao-normativa-no-37-de-15-de-fevereiro-de-2018.pdf/@@download/file (accessed on 20 May 2025).
- Silva, D.J.; Queiroz, A.C. Análise de alimentos: Métodos químicos e biológicos, 3rd ed.; UFV: Viçosa, MG, Brazil, 2002; p. 235. [Google Scholar]
- Association Of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC). Official Methods of Analysis, 16th ed.; 3rd Revision; AOAC International: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Bligh, E.G.; Dyer, W.J. A raphid method of total lipid extraction and purification. Can. JBPY 1959, 37, 911–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osawa, C.C.; Felício, P.E.D.; Gonçalves, L.A. Teste de TBA aplicado a carnes e derivados: Métodos tradicionais; modificados e alternativos. Química Nova 2005, 28, 655–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pikul, J.; Leszczynski, D.E.; Kummerow, F.A. Evaluation of three modified TBA methods for measuring lipid oxidation in chicken meat. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1989, 37, 1309–1313. [Google Scholar]
- Wyss, M.; Kaddurah-Daouk, R. Creatine and creatinine metabolism. Physiol. Rev. 2000, 80, 1107–1213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wallimann, T. Introduction--creatine: Cheap ergogenic supplement with great potential for health and disease. Subcell. Biochem. 2007, 46, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lemme, A.; Ringel, J.; Petri, A. Supplementation of guanidinoacetic acid to broiler diets: Effects on performance; carcass characteristics; meat quality; and creatine deposition. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2011, 95, 576–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Majdeddin, M.; Braun, U.; Lemme, A.; Golian, A.; Kermanshahi, H.; De Smet, S.; Michiels, J. Guanidinoacetic acid supplementation improves feed conversion in broilers subjected to heat stress associated with muscle creatine loading and arginine sparing. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 4442–4453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Degroot, A.A.; Braun, U.; Dilger, R.N. Efficacy of guanidinoacetic acid on growth and muscle energy metabolism in broiler chicks receiving arginine-deficient diets. Poult. Sci. 2018, 97, 890–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khajali, F.; Wideman, R.F. Dietary arginine: Metabolic; environmental; immunological and physiological interrelationships. World Poult. Sci. J. 2010, 66, 751–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmadipour, B.; Khajali, F.; Sharifi, M.R. Effect of Guanidinoacetic Acid Supplementation on Growth Performance and Gut Morpholog yin Broiler Chickens. Poult. Sci. 2018, 6, 19–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Córdova-Noboa, H.A.; Oviedo-Rondón, E.O.; Sarsour, A.H.; Barnes, J.; Sapcota, D.; López, D.; Gross, L.; Rademacher-Heilshorn, M.; Braun, U. Effect of guanidinoacetic acid supplementation on live performance, meat quality, pectoral myopathies and blood parameters of male broilers fed corn-based diets with or without poultry by-products. Poult. Sci. 2018, 97, 2494–2505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Esser, A.F.G.; Taniguti, T.L.; da Silva, A.M.; Vanroo, E.; Kaneko, I.N.; dos Santos, T.C.; Fernandes, J.I.M. Effect of supplementation of guanidinoacetic acid and arginine in vegetable diets for broiler on performance; carcass yield and meat quality. Semin. Ciênc.Agrár. 2018, 39, 1307–1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ale Saheb Fosoul, S.S.; Azarfar, A.; Gheisari, A.; Khosravinia, H. Energy utilisation of broiler chickens in response to guanidinoacetic acid supplementation in diets with various energy contents. Br. J. Nutr. 2018, 120, 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dilger, R.N.; Bryant-Angeloni, K.; Payne, R.L.; Lemme, A.; Parsons, C.M. Dietary guanidino acetic acid is an efficacious replacement for arginine for young chicks. Poult. Sci. 2013, 92, 171–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Murakami, A.E.; Rodrigueiro, R.J.B.; Santos, T.C.; Ospina-Rojas, I.C.; Rademacher, M. Effects of dietary supplementation of meat-type quail breeders with guanidinoacetic acid on their reproductive parameters and progeny performance. Poult. Sci. 2014, 93, 2237–2244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newsholme, P.; Procopio, J.; Lima, M.M.R.; Pithon-Curi, T.C.; Curi, R. Glutamine and glutamate—Their central role in cell metabolism and function. Cell Biochem. Funct. 2005, 23, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Florini, J.R.; Ewton, D.Z.; Coolican, S.A. Growth hormone and the insulin-like growth factor system in myogenesis. Endocr. Rev. 1996, 17, 481–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernandes, J.I.M.; Esser, A.F.G.I.; Gonçalves, D.R.M.; Rorig, A.; Cristo, A.B.; Perini, R. Efeitos da suplementação de ácido guanidinoacético e L-arginina em dietas vegetais para frangos de corte submetidos a estresse térmico antes do abate. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Avic. 2017, 19, 429–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lehninger, A.L.; Nelson, D.L.; Cox, M.M. Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry, 4th ed.; W.H. Freeman and Company: New York, NY, USA, 2000; ISBN 978-0-7167-3051-0. [Google Scholar]
- Kaneko, J.J. Serum proteins and the dysproteinemias. In Clinical Biochemistry of Domestic Animals; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1997; pp. 117–138. [Google Scholar]
- Zabłocka, A.; Janusz, M. The two faces of reactive oxygen species. AHEM 2008, 62, 118–124. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Estévez, M. Oxidative damage to poultry: From farm to fork. Poul. Sci. 2015, 94, 1368–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, T.; He, W.; Yan, C.; Qi, Y.; Zhang, Y. Roles of reactive oxygen species and mitochondria in cadmium-induced injury of liver cells. Toxicol. Ind. Heal. 2011, 27, 249–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mello Filho, A.C.; Hoffmann, M.E.; Meneghini, R. Cell killing and DNA damage by hydrogen peroxide are mediated by intracellular iron. Biochem. J. 1984, 218, 273–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hershko, C. Mechanism of iron toxicity and its possible role in red cell membrane damage. Semin. Hematol. 1989, 26, 277–285. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, L.S.; Shi, B.M.; Shan, A.S.; Zhang, Y.Y. Effects of guanidinoacetic acid on growth performance; meat quality and antioxidation in growing-finishing pigs. J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 2012, 11, 631–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sestili, P.; Martinelli, C.; Bravi, G.; Piccoli, G.; Curci, R.; Battistelli, M.; Falcieri, E.; Agostini, D.; Gioacchini, A.M.; Stocchi, V. Creatine supplementation affords cytoprotection in oxidatively injured cultured mammalian cells via direct antioxidant activity. Free. Radic. Biol. Med. 2006, 40, 837–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sestili, P.; Barbieri, E.; Martinelli, C.; Battistelli, M.; Guescini, M.; Vallorani, L.; Stocchi, V. Creatine supplementation prevents the inhibition of myogenic differentiation in oxidatively injured C2C12 murine myoblasts. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2009, 53, 1187–1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Percário, S.; Domingues, S.P.D.T.; Teixeira, L.F.M.; Vieira, J.L.F.; de Vasconcelos, F.; Ciarrocchi, D.M.; Almeida, E.D.; Conte, M. Effects of creatine supplementation on oxidative stress profile of athletes. J. Int. Soc. Sports Nutr. 2012, 9, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1.
Treatments used.
| Treatment | Energy Level | Addition of AGA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial | Growth | Final | ||
| Positive control | 3000 | 3100 | 3200 | No |
| Negative control | 2925 | 3025 | 3125 | No |
| Negative control + AGA | 2925 | 3025 | 3125 | Yes |
Positive control: Diet containing metabolizable energy levels according to Rostagno et al. [13]. Negative control: Diet containing metabolizable energy levels reduced by 75 kcal/kg compared to positive control levels. AGA—guanidinoacetic acid.
Table 2.
Dietary composition and nutritional values of experimental diets for initial phase (1–21 days) of nutrition programs with different energy levels.
Table 2.
Dietary composition and nutritional values of experimental diets for initial phase (1–21 days) of nutrition programs with different energy levels.
| Ingredient | Initial 3000 kcal | Initial 2925 kcal | Initial 2925 kcal + AGA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Corn, g/kg | 539.91 | 539.91 | 539.91 |
| Soybean meal (46%), g/kg | 374.52 | 374.52 | 374.52 |
| Meat and bone meal, g/kg | 45.29 | 45.29 | 45.29 |
| Soybean oil, g/kg | 14.66 | 6.13 | 6.13 |
| Limestone, g/kg | 9.47 | 9.47 | 9.47 |
| Salt, g/kg | 3.86 | 3.86 | 3.86 |
| Vitamin/mineral premix 1, g/kg | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 |
| DL-Methionine (99%), g/kg | 3.60 | 3.60 | 3.60 |
| L-Lysine HCl, g/kg | 2.88 | 2.88 | 2.88 |
| L-Threonine, g/kg | 1.03 | 1.03 | 1.03 |
| L-Valine g/kg | 0.66 | 0.66 | 0.66 |
| Xylanase ECONASE XT, g/kg | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.06 |
| Phytase Quantum Blue, g/kg | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 |
| Inerte (Kaolin), g/kg | - | 8.54 | 7.94 |
| AGA, g/kg | - | - | 0.60 |
| Calculated Values | Quantity | ||
| Metabolizable energy, kcal/kg | 3000 | 2925 | 2925 |
| Crude protein, g/kg | 243.00 | 243.00 | 243.00 |
| Digestible lysine, g/kg | 13.64 | 13.64 | 13.64 |
| Digestible Met. + Cys., g/kg | 9.89 | 9.89 | 9.89 |
| Digestible threonine, g/kg | 8.82 | 8.82 | 8.82 |
| Digestible tryptophan, g/kg | 2.57 | 2.57 | 2.57 |
| Digestible valine, g/kg | 10.29 | 10.29 | 10.29 |
| Calcium, g/kg | 10.11 | 10.11 | 10.11 |
| Available phosphorus, g/kg | 4.82 | 4.82 | 4.82 |
| Sodium, g/kg | 2.27 | 2.27 | 2.27 |
| Linoleic acid, g/kg | 21.16 | 16.53 | 16.53 |
1 Vitamin and mineral supplement per kg of product: Vit. A—10,000,000 IU; Vit. D3—2,000,000 IU; Vit. E—30,000 IU; Vit. B1—2.0 g; Vit. B2—6.0 g; Vit. B6—4.0 g; Vit. B12—0.015 g; Pantothenic Acid—12.0 g; Biotin—0.1 g; Vit. K3—3.0 g; Folic Acid—1.0 g; Niacin—50.0 g; Selenium—250.0 mg; Carrier q.s.p—1000 g; Iron—100.0 g; Cobalt—2.0 g; Copper—20.0 g; Manganese—160.0 g; Zinc—100.0 g; and Iodine—2.0 g.
Table 3.
Dietary composition and nutritional values of experimental diets for growth phase (22–33 days) of nutrition programs with different energy levels.
Table 3.
Dietary composition and nutritional values of experimental diets for growth phase (22–33 days) of nutrition programs with different energy levels.
| Ingredient | Growth 3100 kcal | Growth 3025 kcal | Growth 3025 kcal + AGA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Corn, g/kg | 574.50 | 574.50 | 574.50 |
| Soybean meal (46%), g/kg | 349.34 | 349.34 | 349.34 |
| Meat and bone meal, g/kg | 29.05 | 29.05 | 29.05 |
| Soybean oil, g/kg | 22.94 | 14.40 | 14.40 |
| Limestone, g/kg | 9.50 | 9.50 | 9.50 |
| Salt, g/kg | 3.77 | 3.77 | 3.77 |
| Vitamin/mineral premix 1, g/kg | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 |
| DL-Methionine (99%), g/kg | 3.16 | 3.16 | 3.16 |
| L-Lysine HCl, g/kg | 2.33 | 2.33 | 2.33 |
| L-Threonine, g/kg | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.83 |
| L-Valine g/kg | 0.47 | 0.47 | 0.47 |
| Xylanase ECONASE XT, g/kg | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.06 |
| Phytase Quantum Blue, g/kg | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 |
| Inerte (Kaolin), g/kg | - | 8.54 | 7.94 |
| AGA, g/kg | - | - | 0.60 |
| Calculated Values | Quantity | ||
| Metabolizable energy, kcal/kg | 3100 | 3025 | 3025 |
| Crude protein, g/kg | 226.20 | 226.20 | 226.20 |
| Digestible lysine, g/kg | 12.35 | 12.35 | 12.35 |
| Digestible Met. + Cys., g/kg | 9.14 | 9.14 | 9.14 |
| Digestible threonine, g/kg | 8.15 | 8.15 | 8.15 |
| Digestible tryptophan, g/kg | 2.41 | 2.41 | 2.41 |
| Digestible valine, g/kg | 9.51 | 9.51 | 9.51 |
| Calcium, g/kg | 8.22 | 8.22 | 8.22 |
| Available phosphorus, g/kg | 3.84 | 3.84 | 3.84 |
| Sodium, g/kg | 2.11 | 2.11 | 2.11 |
| Linoleic acid, g/kg | 26.05 | 21.36 | 21.36 |
1 Vitamin and mineral supplement per kg of product: Vit. A—10,000,000 IU; Vit. D3—2,000,000 IU; Vit. E—30,000 IU; Vit. B1—2.0 g; Vit. B2—6.0 g; Vit. B6—4.0 g; Vit. B12—0.015 g; Pantothenic Acid—12.0 g; Biotin—0.1 g; Vit. K3—3.0 g; Folic Acid—1.0 g; Niacin—50.0 g; Selenium—250.0 mg; Carrier q.s.p—1000 g; Iron—100.0 g; Cobalt—2.0 g; Copper—20.0 g; Manganese—160.0 g; Zinc—100.0 g; and Iodine—2.0 g.
Table 4.
Dietary composition and nutritional values of experimental diets for final phase (34–42 days) of nutrition programs with different energy levels.
Table 4.
Dietary composition and nutritional values of experimental diets for final phase (34–42 days) of nutrition programs with different energy levels.
| Ingredient | Final 3200 kcal | Final 3125 kcal | Final 3125 kcal + AGA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Corn, g/kg | 630.19 | 630.19 | 630.19 |
| Soybean meal (46%), g/kg | 303.22 | 303.22 | 303.22 |
| Meat and bone meal, g/kg | 17.08 | 17.08 | 17.08 |
| Soybean oil, g/kg | 27.88 | 19.35 | 19.35 |
| Limestone, g/kg | 9.17 | 9.17 | 9.17 |
| Salt, g/kg | 3.77 | 3.77 | 3.77 |
| Vitamin/mineral premix 1, g/kg | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 |
| DL-Methionine (99%), g/kg | 2.34 | 2.34 | 2.34 |
| L-Lysine HCl, g/kg | 1.81 | 1.81 | 1.81 |
| L-Threonine, g/kg | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.39 |
| L-Valine g/kg | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
| Xylanase ECONASE XT, g/kg | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.06 |
| Phytase Quantum Blue, g/kg | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 |
| Inerte (Kaolin), g/kg | - | 8.54 | 7.94 |
| AGA, g/kg | - | - | 0.60 |
| Calculated Values | Quantity | ||
| Metabolizable energy, kcal/kg | 3200 | 3125 | 3125 |
| Crude protein, g/kg | 194.40 | 195.40 | 195.40 |
| Digestible lysine, g/kg | 10.67 | 10.67 | 10.67 |
| Digestible Met. + Cys., g/kg | 7.90 | 7.90 | 7.90 |
| Digestible threonine, g/kg | 7.04 | 7.04 | 7.04 |
| Digestible tryptophan, g/kg | 2.01 | 2.01 | 2.01 |
| Digestible valine, g/kg | 8.22 | 8.22 | 8.22 |
| Calcium, g/kg | 6.61 | 6.61 | 6.61 |
| Available phosphorus, g/kg | 3.09 | 3.09 | 3.09 |
| Sodium, g/kg | 2.01 | 2.01 | 2.01 |
| Linoleic acid, g/kg | 27.03 | 24.72 | 24.72 |
1 Vitamin and Mineral Supplement per kg of product: Vit. A—10,000,000 IU; Vit. D3—2,000,000 IU; Vit. E—30,000 IU; Vit. B1—2.0 g; Vit. B2—6.0 g; Vit. B6—4.0 g; Vit. B12—0.015 g; Pantothenic Acid—12.0 g; Biotin—0.1 g; Vit. K3—3.0 g; Folic Acid—1.0 g; Niacin—50.0 g; Selenium—250.0 mg; Carrier q.s.p—1000 g; Iron—100.0 g; Cobalt—2.0 g; Copper—20.0 g; Manganese—160.0 g; Zinc—100.0 g; and Iodine—2.0 g.
Table 5.
Performance of broiler chickens from 1 to 21 days and 1 to 42 days of age, supplemented or not with guanidinoacetic acid, subjected to different metabolizable energy programs in diet.
Table 5.
Performance of broiler chickens from 1 to 21 days and 1 to 42 days of age, supplemented or not with guanidinoacetic acid, subjected to different metabolizable energy programs in diet.
| Starter Phase (1–21 days) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weight (g) | Weight gain (g) | Consumption (g) | Feed conversion ratio | |
| Treatment | ||||
| Positive control | 997 | 944 | 1239 | 1.31 b |
| Negative control | 985 | 920 | 1350 | 1.47 a |
| NC + AGA | 1025 | 966 | 1310 | 1.32 b |
| p value | 0.570 | 0.588 | 0.713 | <0.001 |
| CV (%) | 7.81 | 7.61 | 5.23 | 5.64 |
| Total Period (1–42 days) | ||||
| Weight (g) | Weight gain (g) | Consumption (g) | Feed conversion ratio | |
| Positive control | 3095 a | 3053 a | 4943 a | 1.62 b |
| Negative control | 2878 b | 2836 b | 4760 b | 1.68 a |
| NC + AGA | 2998 a | 2956 a | 4905 a | 1.65 ab |
| p value | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| CV (%) | 6.92 | 6.82 | 5.61 | 5.15 |
Positive control: Diet containing metabolizable energy levels according to Rostagno et al. [13]. NC—Negative control: Diet containing metabolizable energy levels reduced by 75 kcal/kg compared to PC levels. AGA—guanidinoacetic acid. Means followed by different letters in the same column within each experiment indicate significant differences, according to Tukey test at a 0.05 significance level.
Table 6.
Relative organ weight of broiler chickens subjected to different dietary energy levels, with or without guanidinoacetic acid supplementation.
Table 6.
Relative organ weight of broiler chickens subjected to different dietary energy levels, with or without guanidinoacetic acid supplementation.
| Relative Weight (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | Heart | Gizzard | Intestine | Liver | Proventriculus | Spleen |
| Positive control | 0.59 | 2.62 | 5.16 | 2.14 b | 0.40 | 0.09 |
| Negative control | 0.56 | 2.73 | 5.33 | 2.44 a | 0.51 | 0.13 |
| NC + AGA | 0.51 | 2.55 | 4.99 | 2.32 ab | 0.42 | 0.11 |
| p value | 0.613 | 0.622 | 0.176 | 0.037 | 0.112 | 0.195 |
| CV (%) | 9.52 | 10.23 | 6.30 | 9.63 | 13.15 | 26.09 |
Positive control: diet containing metabolizable energy levels according to Rostagno et al. [13]. NC—Negative control: diet containing metabolizable energy levels reduced by 75 kcal/kg compared to PC levels. AGA—guanidinoacetic acid. Means followed by different letters in the same column within each experiment indicate significant differences, according to Tukey test at a 0.05 significance level.
Table 7.
Carcass and cut yields of broiler chickens subjected to different dietary energy levels, with or without guanidinoacetic acid supplementation.
Table 7.
Carcass and cut yields of broiler chickens subjected to different dietary energy levels, with or without guanidinoacetic acid supplementation.
| Relative Weight (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | RC (%) | Breast (%) | Thigh (%) | Drumstick (%) | Back + Wings (%) | Abdominal Fat (%) |
| Positive control | 79.69 | 34.36 | 8.91 | 10.83 | 22.12 | 0.63 |
| Negative control | 79.62 | 34.26 | 8.71 | 10.77 | 22.40 | 0.55 |
| NC + AGA | 80.12 | 36.45 | 8.81 | 10.72 | 21.20 | 0.72 |
| p value | 0.847 | 0.088 | 0.855 | 0.970 | 0.123 | 0.322 |
| CV (%) | 2.88 | 7.79 | 7.54 | 8.04 | 6.30 | 29.49 |
Positive control: Diet containing metabolizable energy levels according to Rostagno et al. [13]. NC—Negative control: Diet containing metabolizable energy levels reduced by 75 kcal/kg compared to PC levels. AGA—guanidinoacetic acid. RC—carcass yield.
Table 8.
Serum biochemical analysis of broiler chickens subjected to different dietary energy levels, with or without guanidinoacetic acid supplementation.
Table 8.
Serum biochemical analysis of broiler chickens subjected to different dietary energy levels, with or without guanidinoacetic acid supplementation.
| Biochemical Data (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | Glucose (mg/dL) | Cholesterol (mg/dL) | TG (mg/dL) | Uric Acid (mg/dL) | Total Proteins (g/dL) | Creatinine (mg/dL) |
| Positive control | 237.12 b | 170.00 a | 73.12 a | 4.71 | 4.17 a | 0.39 ab |
| Negative control | 216.37 b | 173.50 a | 72.62 a | 3.97 | 3.40 a | 0.42 a |
| NC + AGA | 414.37 a | 84.50 b | 46.62 b | 3.53 | 2.67 b | 0.31 b |
| p value | <0.001 | 0.013 | 0.005 | 0.061 | <0.001 | 0.056 |
| CV (%) | 28.58 | 50.28 | 31.24 | 31.03 | 25.75 | 21.17 |
Positive control: Diet containing metabolizable energy levels according to Rostagno et al. [13]. NC—Negative control: Diet containing metabolizable energy levels reduced by 75 kcal/kg compared to PC levels. AGA—guanidinoacetic acid. Means followed by different letters in the same column within each experiment indicate significant differences, according to Tukey test at a 0.05 significance level. TG—Triglycerides.
Table 9.
Proximate composition and lipid peroxidation of breast muscle of broiler chickens subjected to different dietary energy levels, with or without guanidinoacetic acid supplementation.
Table 9.
Proximate composition and lipid peroxidation of breast muscle of broiler chickens subjected to different dietary energy levels, with or without guanidinoacetic acid supplementation.
| Meat Quality | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | Dry Matter (%) | Crude Protein (%) | Fat (%) | Ash (%) | TBARS (mg of MDA/g) |
| Positive control | 28.08 | 81.89 b | 4.17 a | 4.91 | 4.108 b |
| Negative control | 27.25 | 83.59 ab | 3.47 b | 5.04 | 5.854 ab |
| NC + AGA | 27.63 | 85.24 a | 4.11 ab | 5.02 | 6.673 a |
| p value | 0.839 | <0.001 | 0.032 | 0.133 | 0.027 |
| CV (%) | 6.45 | 1.55 | 8.15 | 4.02 | 15.55 |
Positive control: Diet containing metabolizable energy levels according to Rostagno et al. [13]. NC—Negative control: Diet containing metabolizable energy levels reduced by 75 kcal/kg compared to PC levels. AGA—guanidinoacetic acid. Means followed by different letters in the same column within each experiment indicate significant differences, according to Tukey test at a 0.05 significance level. TBARS—Thiobarbituric Acid Reactive Substances.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Valentini, F.D.A.; Pagnussatt, H.; Picoli, F.; Griebler, L.; Milarch, C.d.F.; Calderano, A.A.; Tavernari, F.d.C.; Petrolli, T.G. Validation of the Energy Matrix of Guanidinoacetic Acid for Broiler Chickens: Effects on Performance, Carcass Traits, and Meat Quality. Poultry 2025, 4, 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/poultry4030030
AMA Style
Valentini FDA, Pagnussatt H, Picoli F, Griebler L, Milarch CdF, Calderano AA, Tavernari FdC, Petrolli TG. Validation of the Energy Matrix of Guanidinoacetic Acid for Broiler Chickens: Effects on Performance, Carcass Traits, and Meat Quality. Poultry. 2025; 4(3):30. https://doi.org/10.3390/poultry4030030
Chicago/Turabian StyleValentini, Fernanda Danieli Antoniazzi, Heloísa Pagnussatt, Fernanda Picoli, Letieri Griebler, Carine de Freitas Milarch, Arele Arlindo Calderano, Fernando de Castro Tavernari, and Tiago Goulart Petrolli. 2025. "Validation of the Energy Matrix of Guanidinoacetic Acid for Broiler Chickens: Effects on Performance, Carcass Traits, and Meat Quality" Poultry 4, no. 3: 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/poultry4030030
APA StyleValentini, F. D. A., Pagnussatt, H., Picoli, F., Griebler, L., Milarch, C. d. F., Calderano, A. A., Tavernari, F. d. C., & Petrolli, T. G. (2025). Validation of the Energy Matrix of Guanidinoacetic Acid for Broiler Chickens: Effects on Performance, Carcass Traits, and Meat Quality. Poultry, 4(3), 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/poultry4030030
