Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-t27h7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-16T20:13:07.398Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of different prebiotics and mode of their administration on broiler chicken performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2016

M. Bednarczyk ,
K. Stadnicka ,
I. Kozłowska ,
C. Abiuso ,
S. Tavaniello ,
A. Dankowiakowska ,
A. Sławińska  and
G. Maiorano
M. Bednarczyk
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Biochemistry and Biotechnology, UTP University of Science and Technology, Mazowiecka 28, 85-084 Bydgoszcz, Poland
K. Stadnicka
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Biochemistry and Biotechnology, UTP University of Science and Technology, Mazowiecka 28, 85-084 Bydgoszcz, Poland
I. Kozłowska
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Biochemistry and Biotechnology, UTP University of Science and Technology, Mazowiecka 28, 85-084 Bydgoszcz, Poland
C. Abiuso
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Food Sciences, University of Molise, Via F. De Sanctis, 86100 Campobasso, Italy
S. Tavaniello
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Food Sciences, University of Molise, Via F. De Sanctis, 86100 Campobasso, Italy
A. Dankowiakowska
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Biochemistry and Biotechnology, UTP University of Science and Technology, Mazowiecka 28, 85-084 Bydgoszcz, Poland
A. Sławińska
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Biochemistry and Biotechnology, UTP University of Science and Technology, Mazowiecka 28, 85-084 Bydgoszcz, Poland
G. Maiorano*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Food Sciences, University of Molise, Via F. De Sanctis, 86100 Campobasso, Italy
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

In the post-antibiotics era, prebiotics are proposed as alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters in poultry production. The goal of this study was to compare in ovo method of prebiotic delivery with in-water supplementation and with both methods combined (in ovo+in-water) in broiler chickens. Two trials were conducted. Trial 1 was carried out to optimize the doses of two prebiotics, DN (DiNovo®, extract of beta-glucans) and BI (Bi2tos, trans-galactooligosaccharides), for in ovo delivery. The estimated parameters were hatchability and bacteriological status of the newly hatched chicks. Prebiotics were dissolved in 0.2 ml of physiological saline, at the doses: 0.18, 0.88, 3.5 and 7.0 mg/embryo; control group (C) was injected in ovo with 0.2 ml of physiological saline. Trial 2 was conducted to evaluate effects of different prebiotics (DN, BI and raffinose family oligosaccharides (RFO)) delivered in ovo, in-water and in a combined way (in ovo+in-water) on broiler chickens performance. The results of the Trial 1 indicated that the optimal dose of DN and BI prebiotics delivered in ovo, that did not reduce chicks’ hatchability, was 0.88 mg/embryo (DN) and 3.5 mg/embryo (BI). Both prebiotics numerically increased number of lactobacilli and bifidobacteria in chicken feces (P>0.05). In Trial 2, all prebiotics (DN, BI and RFO) significantly increased BW gain compared with the C group (P<0.05), especially during the first 21 days of life. However, feed intake and feed conversion ratio were increased upon prebiotics delivery irrespective of method used. Injection of prebiotics in ovo combined with in-water supplementation did not express synergistic effects on broilers performance compared with in ovo injection only. Taken together, those results confirm that single in ovo prebiotics injection into the chicken embryo can successfully replace prolonged in-water supplementation post hatching.

Keywords

in ovoprebioticsmicroflorahatchabilityperformance traits
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 8 , August 2016 , pp. 1271 - 1279
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahmed, ST, Mun, HS, Islam, MM and Yang, CJ 2014. Effects of fermented corni fructus and fermented kelp on growth performance, meat quality, and emission of ammonia and hydrogen sulphide from broiler chicken droppings. British Poultry Science 55, 745–751.Google Scholar
Akbari, P, Braber, S, Alizadeh, A, Verheijden, KA, Schoterman, MH, Kraneveld, AD, Garssen, J and Fink-Gremmels, J 2015. Galacto-oligosaccharides protect the intestinal barrier by maintaining the tight junction network and modulating the inflammatory responses after a challenge with the mycotoxin deoxynivalenol in human Caco-2 cell monolayers and B6C3F1 mice. The Journal of Nutrition 145, 1604–1613.Google Scholar
Amit-Romach, E, Sklan, D and Uni, Z 2004. Microflora ecology of the chicken intestine using 16S ribosomal DNA primers. Poultry Science 83, 1093–1098.Google Scholar
Bednarczyk, M, Urbanowski, M, Gulewicz, P, Kasperczyk, K, Maiorano, G and Szwaczkowski, T 2011. Field and in vitro study on prebiotic effect of raffinose family oligosaccharides in chickens. Bulletin of the Veterinary Institute in Pulawy 55, 465–469.Google Scholar
Biggs, P, Parsons, CM and Fahey, GC 2007. The effects of several oligosaccharides on growth performance, nutrient digestibilities, and cecal microbial populations in young chicks. Poultry Science 86, 2327–2336.Google Scholar
Cai, Y, Song, H, Ye, J, Shao, H, Padmanabhan, R, Sutton, TC and Perez, DR 2011. Improved hatchability and efficient protection after in ovo vaccination with live-attenuated H7N2 and H9N2 avian influenza viruses. Virology Journal 8, 31.Google Scholar
Casas-Perez, IA and Edens, FW 1995. In ovo method for delivering Lactobacillus reuteri to the gastrointestinal tract of poultry. United States Patent, patent number: 5,458,875, October 17, 1995.Google Scholar
Cheled-Shoval, SL, Amit-Romach, E, Barbakov, M and Uni, Z 2011. The effect of in ovo administration of mannan oligosaccharide on small intestine development during the pre- and posthatch periods in chickens. Poultry Science 90, 2301–2310.Google Scholar
Ciesiolka, D, Gulewicz, P, Martinez-Villaluenga, C, Pilarski, R, Bednarczyk, M and Gulewicz, K 2005. Products and biopreparations from alkaloid-rich lupin in animal nutrition and ecological agriculture. Folia Biologica-Krakow 53, 59–66.Google Scholar
Deeming, DC 2005. Yolk sac, body dimensions and hatching quality of chicks, ducklings, and poults. British Poultry Science 46, 560–564.Google Scholar
Depeint, F, Tzortzis, G, Vulevic, J, I’Anson, K and Gibson, GR 2008. Prebiotic evaluation of a novel galactooligosaccharide mixture produced by the enzymatic activity of Bifidobacterium bifidum NCIMB 41171, in healthy humans: a randomized, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled intervention study. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 87, 785–791.Google Scholar
Dibner, JJ and Richards, JD 2005. Antibiotic growth promoters in agriculture: history and mode of action. Poultry Science 84, 634–643.Google Scholar
Dizaji, BR, Hejazi, S and Zakeri, A 2012. Effects of dietary supplementations of prebiotics, probiotics, synbiotics and acidifiers on growth performance and organs weights of broiler chicken. European Journal of Experimental Biology 2, 2125–2129.Google Scholar
Ebrahimnezhad, Y, Salmanzadeh, M, Aghdamshahryar, H, Beheshti, R and Rahimi, H 2011. The effects of in ovo injection of glucose on characters of hatching and parameters of blood in broiler chickens. Annals of Biological Research 2, 347–351.Google Scholar
Furuse, M and Yokota, H 1985. Effect of the gut microflora on chick growth and utilization of protein and energy at different concentrations of dietary-protein. British Poultry Science 26, 97–104.Google Scholar
Gibson, GR and Fuller, R 2000. Aspects of in vitro and in vivo research approaches directed toward identifying probiotics and prebiotics for human use. The Journal of Nutrition 130, 391S–395S.Google Scholar
Gulewicz, P, Ciesiolka, D, Frias, J, Vidal-Valverde, C, Frejnagel, S, Trojanowska, K and Gulewicz, K 2000. Simple method of isolation and purification of alpha-galactosides from legumes. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 48, 3120–3123.Google Scholar
Heim, G, Sweeney, T, O’Shea, CJ, Doyle, DN and O’Doherty, JV 2015. Effect of maternal dietary supplementation of laminarin and fucoidan, independently or in combination, on pig growth performance and aspects of intestinal health. Animal Feed Science and Technology 204, 28–41.Google Scholar
Hincha, DK, Zuther, E and Heyer, AG 2003. The preservation of liposomes by raffinose family oligosaccharides during drying is mediated by effects on fusion and lipid phase transitions. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1612, 172–177.Google Scholar
Huyghebaert, G, Ducatelle, R and Van Immerseel, F 2011. An update on alternatives to antimicrobial growth promoters for broilers. Veterinary Journal 187, 182–188.Google Scholar
Jaskari, J, Kontula, P, Siitonen, A, Jousimies-Somer, H, Mattila-Sandholm, T and Poutanen, K 1998. Oat beta-glucan and xylan hydrolysates as selective substrates for Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus strains. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 49, 175–181.Google Scholar
Jozefiak, D, Kaczmarek, S and Rutkowski, A 2008. A note on the effects of selected prebiotics on the performance and ileal microbiota of broiler chickens. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 17, 392–397.Google Scholar
Jung, SJ, Houde, R, Baurhoo, B, Zhao, X and Lee, BH 2008. Effects of galacto-oligosaccharides and a Bifidobacteria lactis-based probiotic strain on the growth performance and fecal microflora of broiler chickens. Poultry Science 87, 1694–1699.Google Scholar
Kabir, SML 2009. The role of probiotics in the poultry industry. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 10, 3531–3546.Google Scholar
Kuhlwein, H, Merrifield, DL, Rawling, MD, Foey, AD and Davies, SJ 2014. Effects of dietary beta-(1,3)(1,6)-D-glucan supplementation on growth performance, intestinal morphology and haemato-immunological profile of mirror carp (Cyprinus carpio L.). Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 98, 279–289.Google Scholar
Lynch, MB, Sweeney, T, Callan, JJ, O’Sullivan, JT and O’Doherty, JV 2010. The effect of dietary Laminaria derived laminarin and fucoidan on intestinal microflora and volatile fatty acid concentration in pigs. Livestock Science 133, 157–160.Google Scholar
Madej, JP and Bednarczyk, M 2016. Effect of in ovo-delivered prebiotics and synbiotics on the morphology and specific immune cell composition in the gut-associated lymphoid tissue. Poultry Science 95, 19–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Madej, JP, Stefaniak, T and Bednarczyk, M 2015. Effect of in ovo-delivered prebiotics and synbiotics on lymphoid-organs’ morphology in chickens. Poultry Science 94, 1209–1219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maiorano, G, Sobolewska, A, Cianciullo, D, Walasik, K, Elminowska-Wenda, G, Slawinska, A, Tavaniello, S, Zylinska, J, Bardowski, J and Bednarczyk, M 2012. Influence of in ovo prebiotic and synbiotic administration on meat quality of broiler chickens. Poultry Science 91, 2963–2969.Google Scholar
Midilli, M, Alp, M, Kocabagli, N, Muglali, OH, Turan, N, Yilmaz, H and Cakir, S 2008. Effects of dietary probiotic and prebiotic supplementation on growth performance and serum IgG concentration of broilers. South African Journal of Animal Science 38, 21–27.Google Scholar
Moghaddam, AA, Borji, M and Komazani, D 2014. Hatchability rate and embryonic growth of broiler chicks following in ovo injection royal jelly. British Poultry Science 55, 391–397.Google Scholar
Mountzouris, KC, Tsitrsikos, P, Palamidi, I, Arvaniti, A, Mohnl, M, Schatzmayr, G and Fegeros, K 2010. Effects of probiotic inclusion levels in broiler nutrition on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, plasma immunoglobulins, and cecal microflora composition. Poultry Science 89, 58–67.Google Scholar
Murphy, P, Dal Bello, F, O’Doherty, J, Arendt, EK, Sweeney, T and Coffey, A 2013. Analysis of bacterial community shifts in the gastrointestinal tract of pigs fed diets supplemented with beta-glucan from Laminaria digitata, Laminaria hyperborea and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Animal 7, 1079–1087.Google Scholar
O’Doherty, JV, Dillon, S, Figat, S, Callan, JJ and Sweeney, T 2010. The effects of lactose inclusion and seaweed extract derived from Laminaria spp. on performance, digestibility of diet components and microbial populations in newly weaned pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 157, 173–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedrosa, AA 2009. Which came first: the egg or its microbiota? The Poultry Informed Professional 109, 1–5.Google Scholar
Pilarski, R, Bednarczyk, M, Lisowski, M, Rutkowski, A, Bernacki, Z, Wardenska, M and Gulewicz, K 2005. Assessment of the effect of alpha-galactosides injected during embryogenesis on selected chicken traits. Folia Biologica (Krakow) 53, 13–20.Google Scholar
Plowiec, A, Slawinska, A, Siwek, MZ and Bednarczyk, MF 2015. Effect of in ovo administration of inulin and Lactococcus lactis on immune-related gene expression in broiler chickens. American Journal of Veterinary Research 76, 975–982.Google Scholar
Pruszynska-Oszmalek, E, Kolodziejski, PA, Stadnicka, K, Sassek, M, Chalupka, D, Kuston, B, Nogowski, L, Mackowiak, P, Maiorano, G, Jankowski, J and Bednarczyk, M 2015. In ovo injection of prebiotics and synbiotics affects the digestive potency of the pancreas in growing chickens. Poultry Science 94, 1909–1916.Google Scholar
Roberfroid, M 2007. Prebiotics: the concept revisited. The Journal of Nutrition 137, 830S–837S.Google Scholar
Salmanzadeh, M 2012. The effects of in-ovo injection of glucose on hatchability, hatching weight and subsequent performance of newly-hatched chicks. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 14, 137–140.Google Scholar
Schneitz, C 2005. Competitive exclusion in poultry-30 years of research. Food Control 16, 657–667.Google Scholar
Shahir, MH, Afsarian, O, Ghasemi, S and Tellez, G 2014. Effects of dietary inclusion of probiotic or prebiotic on growth performance, organ weight, blood parameters and antibody titers against influenza and newcastle in broiler chickens. International Journal of Poultry Science 13, 70–75.Google Scholar
Slawinska, A, Siwek, M, Zylinska, J, Bardowski, J, Brzezinska, J, Gulewicz, KA, Nowak, M, Urbanowski, M, Plowiec, A and Bednarczyk, M 2014b. Influence of synbiotics delivered in ovo on immune organs development and structure. Folia Biologica (Krakow) 62, 277–285.Google Scholar
Slawinska, A, Siwek, MZ and Bednarczyk, MF 2014a. Effects of synbiotics injected in ovo on regulation of immune-related gene expression in adult chickens. American Journal of Veterinary Research 75, 997–1003.Google Scholar
Sprenger, N and Keller, F 2000. Allocation of raffinose family oligosaccharides to transport and storage pools in Ajuga reptans: the roles of two distinct galactinol synthases. The Plant Journal 21, 249–258.Google Scholar
Sweeney, T, Dillon, S, Fanning, J, Egan, J, O’Shea, CJ, Figat, S, Gutierrez, JJM, Mannion, C, Leonard, F and O’Doherty, JV 2011. Evaluation of seaweed-derived polysaccharides on indices of gastrointestinal fermentation and selected populations of microbiota in newly weaned pigs challenged with Salmonella Typhimurium. Animal Feed Science and Technology 165, 85–94.Google Scholar
Torres, DPM, Goncalves, MP, Teixeira, JA and Rodrigues, LR 2010. Galacto-oligosaccharides: production, properties, applications, and significance as prebiotics. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 9, 438–454.Google Scholar
Tzortzis, G 2009. Functional properties of the second generation prebiotic Galacto-oligosaccharide (B-GOS). Agro Food Industry Hi-Tech 20, 43–46.Google Scholar
Tzortzis, G, Goulas, AK, Gee, JM and Gibson, GR 2005. A novel galactooligosaccharide mixture increases the bifidobacterial population numbers in a continuous in vitro fermentation system and in the proximal colonic contents of pigs in vivo. Journal of Nutrition 135, 1726–1731.Google Scholar
Uni, Z, Ferket, PR, Tako, E and Kedar, O 2005. In ovo feeding improves energy status of late-term chicken embryos. Poultry Science 84, 764–770.Google Scholar
Varasteh, S, Braber, S, Akbari, P, Garssen, J and Fink-Gremmels, J 2015. Differences in susceptibility to heat stress along the chicken intestine and the protective effects of galacto-oligosaccharides. PLoS One 10, e0138975.Google Scholar
Vetvicka, V and Oliveira, C 2014. Beta(1-3)(1-6)-D-glucans modulate immune status in pigs: potential importance for efficiency of commercial farming. Annals of Translational Medicine 2, 16.Google Scholar
Villaluenga, CM, Wardenska, M, Pilarski, R, Bednarczyk, M and Gulewicz, K 2004. Utilization of the chicken embryo model for assessment of biological activity of different oligosaccharides. Folia Biologica (Krakow) 52, 135–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waldroup, PW, Fritts, CA and Fengland, Y 2003. Utilization of Bio-Mos® mannan oligosaccharide and Bioplex® copper in broiler diets. International Journal of Poultry Science 2, 44–52.Google Scholar
Zdunczyk, Z, Jankowski, J, Rutkowski, A, Sosnowska, E, Drazbo, A, Zdunczyk, P and Juskiewicz, J 2014. The composition and enzymatic activity of gut microbiota in laying hens fed diets supplemented with blue lupine seeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 191, 57–66.Google Scholar
Zhang, R, Zhao, Y, Sun, Y, Lu, X and Yang, X 2013. Isolation, characterization, and hepatoprotective effects of the raffinose family oligosaccharides from Rehmannia glutinosa Libosch. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 61, 7786–7793.Google Scholar