Effect of dietary supplementation of prebiotic on growth performance, immune response and intestinal microbial load in broiler chickens

R MEESAM; A BISWAS; M NAMIT; A B MANDAL

doi:10.56093/ijans.v89i11.95876

Authors

R MEESAM ICAR-Central Avian Research Institute, Izatnagar, Uttar Pradesh 243 122 India
A BISWAS Senior Scientist, ICAR-Central Avian Research Institute, Izatnagar, Uttar Pradesh 243 122 India
M NAMIT Senior Scientist, ICAR-Central Avian Research Institute, Izatnagar, Uttar Pradesh 243 122 India
A B MANDAL Senior Scientist, ICAR-Central Avian Research Institute, Izatnagar, Uttar Pradesh 243 122 India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v89i11.95876

Keywords:

Antibiotic, Broiler, Immunity, Intestinal microflora, MOS, Performance

Abstract

The experiment was conducted to study the effect of using prebiotic (mannan oligosachharide -MOS) in place of antibiotic growth promoter (AGP) on performance, immune response and intestinal microbial load in broiler chickens. Day-old broiler chicks (192) were randomly distributed into 20 groups each of 8 chicks (4 treatments Ã— 6 replicates). Four experimental diets T1, T2, T3 and T4 were formulated to contain no additive, bacitracin methylene di-salicylate (BMD) at 20 mg/kg diet, MOS at 0.1 and 0.2%, respectively. Body weight gain (g) was increased by the feeding of diets containing 0.2% levels of MOS, but feed intake (g), feed conversion ratio (FCR) and mortality (%) did not differ significantly. Antibody (28 d), titres were significantly higher after feeding 0.1 or 0.2% MOS and antibiotic (T2) supplemented group. During d 35, the response to intra-dermally injected phyto-hemagglutinin, an index of the in vivo cell-mediated immune response, was increased in the 0.2% MOS supplemented group. Significant reduction was observed in coliforms and total plate count in cecal (28 and 42 d) and excreta (42 d) in MOS (0.1 or 0.2%) or antibiotic (T2) supplemented groups. Lactobacillus count significantly increased in cecal (28 and 42 d) and excreta (42 d) in MOS @0.1 or 0.2% supplemented groups. Thus, it can be concluded that, 0.2% MOS with basal diet has a beneficial effect for growth performance, immune response and gut health status in broiler chickens, and MOS could be a good alternative to antibiotic growth promoter.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Adil S, Tufail B, Gulam A, Salahuddin M, Raquib M and Shanaz S. 2011. Response of broiler chicken to dietary supplementation of organic acids. Journal of Central European Agriculture 12(3): 498–508. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5513/JCEA01/12.3.947

Banerjee S, Mukhopadhayay S K, Haldar S, Ganguly S, Pradhan S, Patra N C, Niyogi D and Isore D P. 2013. Effect of phytogenic growth promoter on broiler birds. Indian Journal of Veterinary Pathology 37(1): 34–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12966/jagr.05.02.2013

Baurhoo B, Phillip L and Ruiz-Feria C A. 2007. Effects of purified lignin and mannan oligosaccharides on intestinal integrity and microbial populations in the ceca and litter of broiler chickens. Poultry Science 86: 1070–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/86.6.1070

Biggs P, Parsons C M and Fahey G C. 2007. The effects of several oligosaccharides on growth performance, nutrient digestibilities, and cecal microbial populations in young chicks. Poultry Science 86(11): 2327–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2007-00427

Cheng Y C and Chen T C. 2004. Mineral utilization in layers as influenced by dietary oligofructose and inulin. Poultry Science 7: 442–45 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2004.442.445

Cheng S and Lamont S J. 1988. Genetic analysis of immune- competence measures in a white leghorn chicken line. Journal of Poultry Science 67 989 95 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0670989

Chichlowski M, Croom J, McBride B W, Daniel L, Davis G and Kaci M D. 2007. Direct-fed microbial primalc and Salinomycin modulate wholebody and intestinal oxygen consumption and intestinal mucosal cytokine production in the broiler chick. Poultry Science 86 1100–06 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/86.6.1100

Duncan D B. 1955. Multiple range test and multiple F tests. Biometrics 11 1–42 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3001478

Elrayeh, Sanhouri and Gultekin. 2012. Effects of inulin and � glucan supplementation in broiler diets on growth performance, serum cholesterol, intestinal length, and immune system. Turkish Journal of Veterinary Animal Science 4: 388– 94 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3906/vet-1010-504

Ferket P R. 2004. Alternatives to antibiotics in poultry production: Responses, practical experience and recommendations. Nutritional biotechnology in the feed and food industries. British Poultry Science 45 56–57

Gajewska J, Riedel J, Bucka A, Zabik J, and Michalczuk M. 2012. Influence of prebiotics and butyric acid on the composition of intestinal microflora of broiler chickens. Annals of Warsaw University of Life Sciences-Sggw Animal 51 47–53

Ghahri H, Toloei T and Soleimani H. 2013. Efficacy of antibiotic, probiotic, prebiotic and synbiotic on growth performance, organ weights, intestinal histomorphology and immune response in broiler chickens. Global Journal of Animal Science Research 1(1): 23–38.

Gibson G R, Probert H M, Van Loo J A E and Roberfroid M B. 2004. Dietary modulation of the human colonic microbiota: Updating the concept of prebiotics. Nutrition Research Review 17 257–79 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1079/NRR200479

Houshmand M, Azhar K, Zulkifli I, Bejo M H and Kamyab A. 2012. Effects of prebiotic, protein level, and stocking density on performance, immunity, and stress indicators of broilers. Poultry Science 91(2): 393–401. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-01050

Huang M K, Choi Y J, Houde R, Lee J W, Lee B and Zhao X. 2004. Effects of Lactobacilli and an acidophilic fungus on the production performance and immune responses in broiler chickens. Poultry Science 83(5): 788–95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/83.5.788

Kamran Z, Mirzaa M A, Ahmad S, Samad H A, Sohail M U and Sadulahb M. 2013. Performance of broiler chickens fed MOS as alternatives to antibiotics from one to twenty-two days of age. Journal Animal Plant Science 23(5): 1482–85.

Kim G B, Seo Y M, Kim C H and Paik I A. 2010. Effect of dietary prebiotic supplementation on the performance, intestinal microflora and immune response of broilers. Poultry Scienc 90(1): 75–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-00732

Mohan B, Kadirvel R, Bhaskaran M and Natarajan A. 1996. Effect of probiotic supplementation on serum/ yolk cholesterol and on egg shell thickness in layers. British Poultry Science 36 779–803 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00071669508417824

Patterson J and Burkholder K. 2003. Application of prebiotics and probiotics in poultry production. Poultry Science 82: 627– 31 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/82.4.627

Sabiha M K. 2005. Influence of dietary supplementation of surfeit vitamin E and selenium on the performance, immune response and meat quality of broiler quails. PhD Thesis, Deemed University, IVRI, Izatnagar, UP.

Shahir M H, Saeed O A and Tellez G 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(2): 70–75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2014.70.75

Siegel P B and Gross W B. 1980. Production and persistence of antibodies in chicken to sheep erythrocytes. 1. Directional selection. Poultry Science 59 1–5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0590001

Smith D L, Harris A D, Johnson J A, Silbergeld E K, Glenn J and Morris. 2002. Animal antibiotic use has an early but important impact on the emergence of antibiotic resistance in human commensal bacteria. National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99: 6434–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.082188899

Willis W L and Reid L. 2008. Investigating the effects of dietary probiotic feeding regimens on broiler chicken production and Campylobacter jejuni presence. Poultry Science 87(4): 606–11 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2006-00458

Yang Y, Iji P A and Choct M. 2009. Dietary modulation of gut microflora in broiler chickens: a review of the role of six kinds of alternatives to in-feed antibiotics. Journal of Poultry Science 65 97–114 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933909000087