J APPL POULT RES 2008. 17:471-475. doi:10.3382/japr.2008-00023
© 2008 Poultry Science Association
Effect of Dietary Mannan Oligosaccharide from Bio-Mos or SAF-Mannan on Live Performance of Broiler Chickens
V. Benites,
R. Gilharry,
A. G. Gernat1 and
J. G. Murillo
Escuela Agricola Panamericana, Zamorano, PO Box 93, Tegucigalpa, Honduras
1 Corresponding author: agernat{at}zamorano.edu
 |
SUMMARY
|
|---|
A 42-d broiler pen trial was conducted to evaluate the effects of dietary mannan oligosaccharide (MOS) from either of 2 commercial products, Bio-Mos (Alltech Inc., Nicholasville, KY) or SAF-Mannan (S. I. LeSaffre, Cedex, France) each at 2 levels of inclusion on live performance. The MOS, derived from the outer portion of yeast cell walls, is reported to have several beneficial modes of action including 1) pathogen adsorption (agglutination); 2) improved intestinal integrity (e.g., villi height); and 3) immune modulation. Diets were fed in 3 phases, and treatments included a control, 2 Bio-Mos treatments (1.0 kg/ton in starter and 0 or 0.5 kg/ton in grower and finisher feeds), and 2 SAF-Mannan treatments (0.5 kg/ton in starter and 0 or 0.5 kg/ton in grower and finisher feeds), according to the manufacturers’ recommendations. Birds fed Bio-Mos at 1.0/0.5/0.5 (starter/grower/finisher) kg/ton diets had significantly greater BW at 42 d than birds fed control or SAF-Mannan-supplemented diets, whereas results for the Bio-Mos 1.0/0/0 kg/ton diets were intermediate. Supplementation of diets with Bio-Mos at 1.0/0.5/0.5 kg/ton may improve broiler BW at market ages compared with the unsupplemented diets. Feed consumption was lower from 0 to 21 d in the SAF-Mannan treatments compared with other treatments. No significant differences were found for feed conversion or mortality for any of the treatments. Overall, Bio-Mos had a greater effect on bird BW compared with the other variables measured.
Key Words: broiler • mannan oligosaccharide • Bio-Mos • SAF-Mannan
|
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM
|
|---|
Broiler chickens are grown commercially on litter materials such as wood shavings or sand, which expose the birds to aerobic, anaerobic, and enteric bacteria, and various other disease organisms [1]. These pathogens have been prevented or treated in the past primarily by use of antibiotics and vaccines. Consumers of chicken meat have been more vocal in calling for the elimination or reduction in the use of subtherapeutic antibiotics in feeds and as a result there have been dramatic reductions in supplementation of antibiotic growth promoters as well as increases in the number of chickens grown without antibiotics.
Several categories of alternative growth promoters have emerged that, to varying extents, have the necessary attributes of safety, efficacy, and economy. For example, prebiotics such as fructooligosaccharides, which provide nutrition for benevolent bacteria [2]; egg-derived antibodies such as those to cholecystokinen [3]; direct-fed microbials (probiotics), including competitive exclusion cultures [4]; yeast cell wall mannan oligosaccharide [5]; essential plant oils and spice extracts [6], and organic acids [7] have been investigated.
Mannan oligosaccharide (MOS; Bio-Mos [8]) is derived from the outer layer of yeast cell walls. Oligosaccharides are carbohydrates that yield 2 to 10 monosaccharides upon hydrolysis. The idea to use yeast MOS in poultry feeds evolved from the concept that certain sugars, particularly mannose, could be used to largely block the colonization of intestinal pathogens such as Salmonella species and Escherichia coli, which contain type 1 fimbriae with mannose-seeking lectins. When they bind to the MOS product, the pathogens are prevented from attaching to intestinal mannose, proliferating, and producing toxins. A second reason for developing the MOS product was because of the effectiveness of some strains of live yeast at binding and reducing intestinal pathogen counts. Several yeast companies now manufacture yeast cell wall products containing MOS (e.g., SAF-Mannan [9]).
The objective of this feeding trial was to evaluate the effects of supplementing broiler chicken diets with 1 of 2 commercial MOS products, Bio-Mos or SAF-Mannan, at 2 levels of inclusion each, on live performance to market age. In the 3-phase feeding program, a control diet containing no MOS product was used as a basis to detect any improvements due to the presence of MOS at various levels in the other diets.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS
|
|---|
A total of 2,835 one-day-old Hubbard Hi-Y x Hubbard male broiler chicks [10] obtained from a commercial hatchery were placed in litter pens in an open-sided, naturally ventilated broiler house using a daily photoperiod of 24 h of light. Each of the 45 pens (1.5 x 3.5 m) contained 63 chicks initially housed at a stocking density of 12 birds/m2. Five dietary treatments (5 separate batches) were randomly assigned within each of 9 blocks in a randomized complete block design. The entire house was heated by gas space heaters, and each pen contained a bell waterer and a tube feeder. Experimental diets and water were provided ad libitum.
The 5 dietary treatments (T) were T1, standard broiler basal diets (3-phase) without any MOS supplement as a control; T2, basal diets plus Bio-Mos in starter, grower, and finisher feeds at 1.0, 0.5, and 0.5 kg/ton, respectively; T3, basal diet plus Bio-Mos at 1.0 kg/ton in the starter phase only; T4, basal diets plus SAF-Mannan at 0.5 kg/ton in starter, grower, and finisher feeds; and T5, basal diets plus SAF-Mannan at 0.5 kg/ton in the starter phase only (Table 1
). Typical chemical compositions of Bio-Mos [8] and SAF-Mannan [9] are shown in (Table 2). The manufacturers’ recommended inclusion rates in starter, grower, and finisher feeds, respectively, are 1.0, 0.5, and 0.5 kg/ton for Bio-Mos and 0.50 to 0.25 kg/ton for SAF-Mannan. Body weight, feed consumption, and mortality-adjusted FCR were determined by pen at 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42 d of age. Mortality was recorded daily.
Data were analyzed by ANOVA using the GLM procedures of SAS [11]. Percentage data were subjected to arc sine square root of the percentage transformation, and treatment means were separated by least significant difference. A probability of P 
0.05 was required for statement of significance.
|
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
|
|---|
BW
By 21 to 42 d, broiler chicks in the T2 Bio-Mos treatment had significantly (P = 0.005) greater BW compared with T1, T4, and T5, with the other Bio-Mos regimen (T3) giving an intermediate result (Table 3). Hooge [12] found from a meta-analysis (holo-analysis) of broiler chicken pen trials conducted between 1993 and 2003 with Bio-Mos that BW was improved by an average of 1.61% compared with the control. Improvements in BW for birds in T2 (Bio-Mos in all phases) vs. T1 (control) in our trial were 2.79% at 21 d, 2.63% at 28 d, 3.30% at 35 d, and 2.34% at 42 d.
BW Gain and Feed Consumption
Treatment 2, which provided recommended levels of Bio-Mos, gave significantly (P = 0.011) greater average gain per bird during the d 14 to 21 period than T1, T4, and T5 (SAF-Mannan treatments), with T3 being intermediate (Table 4). Treatment differences during other periods were not significantly different for average BW gain. The cumulative feed consumption per broiler chicken at each age (Table 5) did not differ by treatment except at 21 d when T1, T2, and T3 (Bio-Mos treatments) birds averaged significantly (P = 0.003) greater intakes than T4 and T5 (SAF-Mannan treatments) birds.
Mortality-Adjusted FCR
The FCR adjusted for mortality (weight of dead birds added to the total weight for that pen) are presented in Table 6. There were no significant differences among treatments for this parameter. The mortality-adjusted FCR from 0 to 21 d approached significance (P = 0.088) with the T2 (Bio-Mos and SAF-Mannan in starter feed) mean being least, 1.49, and the T1 (control) mean being greatest, 1.53. Hooge [12] reported, based on a meta-analysis of 24 broiler pen trials (34 comparisons), that Bio-Mos decreased FCR by an average of 1.99% (–0.0422) compared with the controls. Similarly, Rosen [13] found from statistical evaluation of 82 comparisons with negative control diets that Bio-Mos diets reduced FCR by 0.0391. The SAF-Mannan used as a dietary supplement was determined by Middelbos et al. [14] to improve apparent total-tract nutrient digestibility of cannulated adult dogs (P < 0.05), and there was a tendency for the yeast cell wall product to improve apparent ileal nutrient digestibility (P = 0.09).
Cumulative Mortality
The cumulative mortality percentages at each age are given in Table 7. Overall, mortality was relatively low at 42 d and ranged from 2.12% in T4 and T5 (SAF-Mannan treatments) to 3.90% in T3 (Bio-Mos in starter only). However, there were no significant treatment differences for cumulative mortality at any age.
|
CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
|
|---|
- Diets supplemented with Bio-Mos at 1.0, 0.5, and 0.5 kg/ton in starter, grower, and finisher feeds, respectively, significantly increased BW at 21, 28, 35, and 42 d compared with results for the control or SAF-Mannan treatments (0.5, 0.5, 0.5 kg/ton or 0.5 kg/ton in starter feed only).
- None of the treatments affected feed consumption, FCR, or mortality.
|
REFERENCES AND NOTES
|
|---|
- Macklin, K. S., J. B. Hess, S. F. Bilgili, and R. A. Norton. 2005. Bacterial levels of pine shavings and sand used as poultry litter. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 14:238–245.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Ammerman, E., C. Quarles, and P. V. Twining Jr. 1989. Evaluation of fructooligosaccharides on performance and carcass yield of male broilers. Poult. Sci. 68(Suppl. 1):167. (Abstr.)
- Hooge, D. M. 1998. Studies show benefits of cholecystokinen antibodies. Feedstuffs 70 (45):19.
- Donoghue, D. J., and A. M. Donoghue. 2002. New evidence that specific probiotics may reduce intestinal food borne pathogen colonization and improve bird performance. Pages 89–92 in Proc. Arkansas Nutr. Conf., Fayetteville. The Poultry Federation, Little Rock, AR.
- Kumprecht, I., P. Zobac, V. Siske, and A. E. Sefton. 1997. Effects of dietary mannanoligosaccharide level on live weight and feed efficiency of broilers. Poult. Sci. 76(Suppl. 1):132. (Abstr.)
- Hooge, D. M. 2001. Natural feed additive containing essential oils and spice extracts enhances broiler performance. http://www.feedinfo.com, Scientific Reviews section, dated Nov. 21.
- Fiene, S. P. 2007. Applications of organic acid in feed and water. Pages 125–131 in Multi-State Poultry Feeding and Nutrition Conference, and Novus International Inc.’s Technical Symposium, Indianapolis, IN. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
- Bio-Mos Product Specifications. 1997. Bio-Mos Poultry Dossier. Alltech Inc., Nicholasville, KY.
- Saf-Agric Inc. 2007. SAF-Mannan Product Information Sheet. www.saf-agri.com/english/inomos.htm Accessed Aug. 17, 2007.
- Hubbard Hi-Y x Hubbard are trademarks of Hubbard Farms, Walpole, NH.
- SAS Institute. 2003. SAS/STAT User’s Guide: Statistics. SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC.
- Hooge, D. M. 2004. Meta-analysis of broiler chicken pen trials evaluating dietary manna oligosaccharide, 1993–2003. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 3:163–174.
- Rosen, G. D. 2007. Holo-analysis of the efficacy of Bio-Mos in broiler nutrition. Br. Poult. Sci. 48:21–26.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- Middelbos, I. S., M. R. Godoy, N. D. Fastinger, and G. C. Fahey Jr. 2007. A dose-response evaluation of spray dried yeast cell wall supplementation of diets fed to adult dogs: Effects on nutrient digestibility, immune indices, and fecal microbial populations. J. Anim. Sci. 85:3022–3032.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
TOP
SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM
