Effects of a Commercial Mannan-Oligosaccharide Product on Growth Performance, Intestinal Histomorphology, and Amino Acid Digestibility in White Pekin Ducks

Effects of a Commercial Mannan-Oligosaccharide Product on Growth Performance, Intestinal... SUMMARY Two identical experiments were conducted to evaluate the effects of a commercial mannan-oligosaccharides product. Both experiments included treatment of 0, 250, 500, 1000, and 2000 g/ton of a prebiotic yeast cell wall product containing mannan-oligosaccharides (YCW-MOS). Addition of YCW-MOS to duck diets decreased (P ≤ 0.0001) day 21 feed consumption about 90 g per bird, decreased (P ≤ 0.0198) day 1–21 feed conversion ratio by as much as 6 points. Productivity index at day 21 increased (P ≤ 0.0179) by as much as 31 points. There were no effects of YCW-MOS on intestinal length, weight, index, and digesta viscosity. However, the YCW-MOS-treated groups had as much as 26% greater (P = 0.0439) area of jejunal goblet cells, 12% greater quantity of jejunal goblet cells (P = 0.0350) and as much as 43% greater (P = 0.0233) numbers of ileal goblet cells than the control group. The YCW-MOS-treated group also had greater cysteine (P = 0.0057), histamine (P = 0.038), and tryptophan (P = 0.0070) ileal digestibility (6–8 points improvement) than the control group. This study demonstrated that addition of 1 kg/ton of mannan-oligosaccharides in duck feeds affects duck live performance and produces modest changes in gut morphology and amino acid digestibility. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM Over the past few decades, changing attitudes that favor the inhibited use of antibiotics in animal feeds have prompted significant research in the improvement of poultry diet formulations and nutrient utilization. Prebiotic feed additives have become one of the most popular substitute alternatives for antibiotic additives. Mannan-oligosaccharides (MOS) are one of the popular prebiotic commercial dietary supplements and have been used in poultry nutrition [1]. Commercial MOS dietary supplement products are derived from the Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast cell wall, which mainly consists of β-1,3 (30%–45% of wall mass)/1,6-glucans (5%–10% of wall mass), MOS (30%–50% of wall mass), or nucleotides [2]. Therefore, most of the commercial MOS products for animals are not 100% pure MOS [3]. Antibiotics were often used as animal growth promoters; however, MOS can also be used for this purpose. Several studies have compared the effects of antibiotics and MOS in broiler chickens, many showing no different effects between antibiotics and MOS in growth performance [4, 5]. MOS products showed improvements in chicken egg hatchability [6], intestinal morphology [7], histology [8], and immune system function [9]. MOS products also decrease bacteria population of Salmonella [10] and Campylobacter [11] in the small intestine. However, there has not been a study utilizing MOS from Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast cell wall in duck diets. Therefore, this study addresses the effectiveness of different levels of an MOS dietary supplement on the growth performance, intestinal digesta viscosity, morphology, histology, and amino acid digestibility of Pekin ducks. MATERIALS AND METHODS Birds, Housing, and Diets For a series of 2 identical studies (experiment A and experiment B), Pekin duck eggs were obtained from a commercial source [12]. The eggs were incubated and hatched at the Texas A&M University Poultry Research, Teaching and Extension Center (TAMUPRC), only visually healthy ducklings were selected. A total of 225 ducklings were allocated into 0.97 × 0.67 × 0.24 m battery cage pens, which allowed 0.03 m3/bird at initial placement. Mixed-sex day-old ducklings were randomly housed with 5 birds per battery unit. Each treatment was replicated nine times for a total of 45 ducks per treatment. In the experiments, a commercial yeast cell wall product [13] that contained MOS (YCW-MOS) was used. The birds were fed a corn–soybean meal basal diet formulation that was adapted from Zeng et al. [14] (Table 1). Table 1. Experimental Diets and Nutrient Composition. Starter Grower 1–13 d 14–21 d Ingredients (%)  Corn, yellow grain 43.24 55.06  Soybean meal,  dehulled solvent1 39.58 27.20  Wheat midds 6.00 5.99  DL methionine 0.36 0.27  L-lysine 0.01 0.08  Fat, blended A/V 5.89 7.88  Limestone 2.66 1.18  Monocalcium phosphate2 1.25 1.32  Salt 0.42 0.42  Trace mineral3 0.05 0.05  Vitamins4 0.25 0.25 Calculated nutrient composition  Crude protein, % 23.99 19.01  ME, kcal/kg 3,040 3,300  Crude fat, % 8.08 10.38  Lysine, % 1.33 1.05  Methionine, % 0.70 0.55  Cysteine, % 0.38 0.31  Tryptophan, % 0.30 0.23  Threonine, % 0.90 0.71  Arginine, % 1.61 1.22  Valine, % 1.09 0.87  Calcium, % 1.33 0.75  Phosphorus, % 0.68 0.65  Sodium, % 0.19 0.19 Analyzed composition  Crude protein, % 24.85 18.99  Lysine, % 1.07  Methionine, % 0.48 Starter Grower 1–13 d 14–21 d Ingredients (%)  Corn, yellow grain 43.24 55.06  Soybean meal,  dehulled solvent1 39.58 27.20  Wheat midds 6.00 5.99  DL methionine 0.36 0.27  L-lysine 0.01 0.08  Fat, blended A/V 5.89 7.88  Limestone 2.66 1.18  Monocalcium phosphate2 1.25 1.32  Salt 0.42 0.42  Trace mineral3 0.05 0.05  Vitamins4 0.25 0.25 Calculated nutrient composition  Crude protein, % 23.99 19.01  ME, kcal/kg 3,040 3,300  Crude fat, % 8.08 10.38  Lysine, % 1.33 1.05  Methionine, % 0.70 0.55  Cysteine, % 0.38 0.31  Tryptophan, % 0.30 0.23  Threonine, % 0.90 0.71  Arginine, % 1.61 1.22  Valine, % 1.09 0.87  Calcium, % 1.33 0.75  Phosphorus, % 0.68 0.65  Sodium, % 0.19 0.19 Analyzed composition  Crude protein, % 24.85 18.99  Lysine, % 1.07  Methionine, % 0.48 151.2% crude protein 216.4% calcium and 21.3% of phosphorus 3Trace mineral premix added at this rate yields 149.6 mg manganese, 55.0 mg zinc, 26.4 mg iron, 4.4 mg copper, 1.05 mg iodine, 0.25 mg selenium, a minimum of 6.27 mg calcium, and a maximum of 8.69 mg calcium per kg of diet. The carrier is calcium carbonate, and the premix contains less than 1% mineral oil. 4Vitamin premix added at this rate yields 11,023 IU vitamin A, 3858 IU vitamin D3, 46 IU vitamin E, 0.0165 mg B12, 5.845 mg riboflavin, 45.93 mg niacin, 20.21 mg d-pantothenic acid, 477.67 mg choline, 1.47 mg menadione, 1.75 mg folic acid, 7.17 mg peroxidase, 2.94 mg thiamine, 0.55 mg biotin per kg diet. The carrier is ground rice hulls. View Large Table 1. Experimental Diets and Nutrient Composition. Starter Grower 1–13 d 14–21 d Ingredients (%)  Corn, yellow grain 43.24 55.06  Soybean meal,  dehulled solvent1 39.58 27.20  Wheat midds 6.00 5.99  DL methionine 0.36 0.27  L-lysine 0.01 0.08  Fat, blended A/V 5.89 7.88  Limestone 2.66 1.18  Monocalcium phosphate2 1.25 1.32  Salt 0.42 0.42  Trace mineral3 0.05 0.05  Vitamins4 0.25 0.25 Calculated nutrient composition  Crude protein, % 23.99 19.01  ME, kcal/kg 3,040 3,300  Crude fat, % 8.08 10.38  Lysine, % 1.33 1.05  Methionine, % 0.70 0.55  Cysteine, % 0.38 0.31  Tryptophan, % 0.30 0.23  Threonine, % 0.90 0.71  Arginine, % 1.61 1.22  Valine, % 1.09 0.87  Calcium, % 1.33 0.75  Phosphorus, % 0.68 0.65  Sodium, % 0.19 0.19 Analyzed composition  Crude protein, % 24.85 18.99  Lysine, % 1.07  Methionine, % 0.48 Starter Grower 1–13 d 14–21 d Ingredients (%)  Corn, yellow grain 43.24 55.06  Soybean meal,  dehulled solvent1 39.58 27.20  Wheat midds 6.00 5.99  DL methionine 0.36 0.27  L-lysine 0.01 0.08  Fat, blended A/V 5.89 7.88  Limestone 2.66 1.18  Monocalcium phosphate2 1.25 1.32  Salt 0.42 0.42  Trace mineral3 0.05 0.05  Vitamins4 0.25 0.25 Calculated nutrient composition  Crude protein, % 23.99 19.01  ME, kcal/kg 3,040 3,300  Crude fat, % 8.08 10.38  Lysine, % 1.33 1.05  Methionine, % 0.70 0.55  Cysteine, % 0.38 0.31  Tryptophan, % 0.30 0.23  Threonine, % 0.90 0.71  Arginine, % 1.61 1.22  Valine, % 1.09 0.87  Calcium, % 1.33 0.75  Phosphorus, % 0.68 0.65  Sodium, % 0.19 0.19 Analyzed composition  Crude protein, % 24.85 18.99  Lysine, % 1.07  Methionine, % 0.48 151.2% crude protein 216.4% calcium and 21.3% of phosphorus 3Trace mineral premix added at this rate yields 149.6 mg manganese, 55.0 mg zinc, 26.4 mg iron, 4.4 mg copper, 1.05 mg iodine, 0.25 mg selenium, a minimum of 6.27 mg calcium, and a maximum of 8.69 mg calcium per kg of diet. The carrier is calcium carbonate, and the premix contains less than 1% mineral oil. 4Vitamin premix added at this rate yields 11,023 IU vitamin A, 3858 IU vitamin D3, 46 IU vitamin E, 0.0165 mg B12, 5.845 mg riboflavin, 45.93 mg niacin, 20.21 mg d-pantothenic acid, 477.67 mg choline, 1.47 mg menadione, 1.75 mg folic acid, 7.17 mg peroxidase, 2.94 mg thiamine, 0.55 mg biotin per kg diet. The carrier is ground rice hulls. View Large The experiments consisted of 5 treatments: 0 g/ton (CON), 250 g/ton, 500 g/ton, 1 kg/ton, and 2 kg/ton of YCW-MOS. The starter (day 0–13) and grower (day 14–21) diets were pelleted and manufactured at the TAMUPRC feed mill. Each battery cage consisted of 2 feeders and 1 water tray and ad libitum supply of feed and water. Lighting was provided 24 h during first 4 d and 23 h for each day until day 21. The starting room temperature of 30°C was set 48 h before bird placement. The room temperature was then decreased to 27°C on day 7 and to 23°C on day 14. The birds were monitored at least twice daily, and there was no replacement of the birds during the experiment. These studies were conducted in accordance with an approved animal use protocol from the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at Texas A&M University. Growth Performance The body weight (BW) data were recorded at day 1, 7, 14, and 21. The feed consumption and feed conversion ratio (FCR) data were collected on day 7, 14, and 21. Productivity index (PI) was calculated by following the formula: \begin{eqnarray*} {\rm{PI\ }} &=& \left( {100 - {\rm{Mortality}}} \right) \nonumber\\ &&\times\, {\rm{\ }}\left( {\frac{{{\rm{BW}}}}{{1000}}} \right)/{\rm{Bird\ Age}}/{\rm{FCR\ }} \times {\rm{\ }}100 \end{eqnarray*} Sample Collection Jejunum and ileum were harvested from 4 birds per pen. Jejunum samples were harvested from the first liver portal vein to Meckel's diverticulum, and ileum samples were harvested from Meckel's diverticulum to the cecal junction to measure total organ length. To evaluate organ weights and indices, the jejunum and ileum weights were recorded. One bird was euthanized via CO2 for harvesting the distal section of the jejunum and ileum samples to evaluate histomorphology. From 1 bird, whole digesta from the jejunum and ileum were collected to evaluate intestinal viscosity. From 2 birds, the whole ileal digesta were collected to evaluate ileal amino acid digestibility. Viscosity The samples were evaluated as described by Lee et al. [15] with minor modifications: 1) samples were centrifuged 4,500× g for 20 min rather than 3,500× g for 10 min, 2) samples were placed in a viscometer [16] at 37.8°C rather than at 40°C, and read and measured after 20 s rather than 30 s at 5 rpm. Histology The jejunum and ileum samples were washed with phosphate-buffered saline 3 times. Then, samples were stored in 70% alcohol [17] for 24 h and were transferred into 10% buffered formalin [17] until fixed as described by Harlow and Lane [18]. The fixed samples were duplicated and placed into 2 × 2 cassettes [17]. All samples were stained with Alcian Blue pH 2.5 (mucin) at the Texas A&M University Histopathology/Immunopathology Laboratory. A NacoZoomer 2.0-HT Digital slide scanner [19] was used to evaluate the stained sections at the Gastrointestinal Laboratory, Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences at Texas A&M University. Scanned files were analyzed with NDP.view2 Viewing Software [19] to measure villi height, width, and crypt depth of the jejunum and ileum. Digestibility Titanium (IV) oxide [20] (5 g/kg) was used in grower diets as an indigestible marker to analyze amino acid digestibility. A lyophilizer [21] was used to dry-freeze ileal digesta samples. The samples were sent and analyzed by the Agricultural Experiment Station Chemical Laboratories at University of Missouri-Columbia. Following formula was used to calculate the amino acid digestibility (AAD) coefficients as described by Iyayi and Adeola [22]: \begin{eqnarray*} {\rm{AAD\ }} &=& \left\{ 1 - \Bigg( \frac{{{\rm{Titanium\ }}\left( {{\rm{IV}}} \right){\rm{Oxide\ }}\left( {{\rm{diet}}} \right)}}{{{\rm{Titanium\ }}\left( {{\rm{IV}}} \right){\rm{Oxide\ }}\left( {{\rm{ieal}}} \right)}} \right.\nonumber\\ &&\left.\times\, \frac{{{\rm{Amino\ Acid\ }}\left( {{\rm{ieal}}} \right)}}{{{\rm{Amino\ Acid\ }}\left( {{\rm{diet}}} \right)}} \Bigg) \right\} \end{eqnarray*} Statistical Analysis All pooled data of both experiment A and B were analyzed via a 5 (treatments) × 2 (experiments) factorial analysis of variance with using the Standard Least Squares procedure and completely randomized block design in the JMP Pro® 12.0.1 for Windows [23]. The data means were separated using the Least Square Means Differences Student's t-test and deemed significantly different at P ≤ 0.05. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Growth Performance Table 2 presents results of the BW per bird. Addition of YCW-MOS into diets did not influence BW significantly. YCW-MOS at 500 and 1000 g/ton resulted in significantly less (P = 0.0269) feed consumption compared to CON at day 21. Two mortalities were observed from experiment A; and 4 mortalities were observed from experiment B. The mortalities were not from treatment-related causes. Table 2 presents results of the FCR and PI. YCW-MOS at 1000 g/ton had significantly lower FCR (P = 0.0198) compared to CON and 500 g/ton at day 21. YCW-MOS at 1000 and 2000 g/ton had significantly higher (P = 0.0179) PI compared to CON and 500 g/ton at day 21. Table 2. Effect of Yeast Cell Wall Product That Contained Mannan-Oligosaccharides (YCW-MOS) on Body Weight, Feed Consumption, Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR), and Productivity Index 1–21 d in Pekin ducks. YCW-MOS (g/ton) Body weight (g) Feed consumption (g) FCR PI d1 d7 d14 d21 d7 d14 d21 d1–21 d21 0 56 273 789 1,455 210 626 1,062a 1.28b 538.33b,c 250 56 269 803 1,462 208 618 1,021a,b 1.25a,b 559.78a,b 500 55 276 795 1,444 208 621 989b 1.28b 527.50c 1,000 56 272 804 1,478 207 635 970b 1.22a 569.39a 2,000 56 270 817 1,479 210 649 1,021a,b 1.24a,b 570.89a Pooled SEM N/A 3.30 10.67 12.91 17.58 63.29 96.32 0.0162 10.91 Treatment 0.6358 0.4113 0.2375 0.9459 0.4040 0.0269 0.0198 0.0179 Experiment <0.0001 0.3625 <0.0001 0.5179 <0.0001 0.0015 <0.0001 <0.0001 Treatment × experiment 0.0504 0.5342 0.1026 0.0847 0.7599 0.4747 0.4254 0.1208 YCW-MOS (g/ton) Body weight (g) Feed consumption (g) FCR PI d1 d7 d14 d21 d7 d14 d21 d1–21 d21 0 56 273 789 1,455 210 626 1,062a 1.28b 538.33b,c 250 56 269 803 1,462 208 618 1,021a,b 1.25a,b 559.78a,b 500 55 276 795 1,444 208 621 989b 1.28b 527.50c 1,000 56 272 804 1,478 207 635 970b 1.22a 569.39a 2,000 56 270 817 1,479 210 649 1,021a,b 1.24a,b 570.89a Pooled SEM N/A 3.30 10.67 12.91 17.58 63.29 96.32 0.0162 10.91 Treatment 0.6358 0.4113 0.2375 0.9459 0.4040 0.0269 0.0198 0.0179 Experiment <0.0001 0.3625 <0.0001 0.5179 <0.0001 0.0015 <0.0001 <0.0001 Treatment × experiment 0.0504 0.5342 0.1026 0.0847 0.7599 0.4747 0.4254 0.1208 a–cMeans within a column with different superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.05). View Large Table 2. Effect of Yeast Cell Wall Product That Contained Mannan-Oligosaccharides (YCW-MOS) on Body Weight, Feed Consumption, Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR), and Productivity Index 1–21 d in Pekin ducks. YCW-MOS (g/ton) Body weight (g) Feed consumption (g) FCR PI d1 d7 d14 d21 d7 d14 d21 d1–21 d21 0 56 273 789 1,455 210 626 1,062a 1.28b 538.33b,c 250 56 269 803 1,462 208 618 1,021a,b 1.25a,b 559.78a,b 500 55 276 795 1,444 208 621 989b 1.28b 527.50c 1,000 56 272 804 1,478 207 635 970b 1.22a 569.39a 2,000 56 270 817 1,479 210 649 1,021a,b 1.24a,b 570.89a Pooled SEM N/A 3.30 10.67 12.91 17.58 63.29 96.32 0.0162 10.91 Treatment 0.6358 0.4113 0.2375 0.9459 0.4040 0.0269 0.0198 0.0179 Experiment <0.0001 0.3625 <0.0001 0.5179 <0.0001 0.0015 <0.0001 <0.0001 Treatment × experiment 0.0504 0.5342 0.1026 0.0847 0.7599 0.4747 0.4254 0.1208 YCW-MOS (g/ton) Body weight (g) Feed consumption (g) FCR PI d1 d7 d14 d21 d7 d14 d21 d1–21 d21 0 56 273 789 1,455 210 626 1,062a 1.28b 538.33b,c 250 56 269 803 1,462 208 618 1,021a,b 1.25a,b 559.78a,b 500 55 276 795 1,444 208 621 989b 1.28b 527.50c 1,000 56 272 804 1,478 207 635 970b 1.22a 569.39a 2,000 56 270 817 1,479 210 649 1,021a,b 1.24a,b 570.89a Pooled SEM N/A 3.30 10.67 12.91 17.58 63.29 96.32 0.0162 10.91 Treatment 0.6358 0.4113 0.2375 0.9459 0.4040 0.0269 0.0198 0.0179 Experiment <0.0001 0.3625 <0.0001 0.5179 <0.0001 0.0015 <0.0001 <0.0001 Treatment × experiment 0.0504 0.5342 0.1026 0.0847 0.7599 0.4747 0.4254 0.1208 a–cMeans within a column with different superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.05). View Large The growth performance data showed a slightly different trend compared to several other experiments with broiler chickens. Waldroup et al. [5] reported no difference in growth performance between the control group and 1 g/kg of YCW-MOS treated group in day 21-old broiler chickens. Yang et al. [24] found no significant differences in feed intake, weight gain, and feed conversion efficiency between control, 1 and 2 g/kg of MOS-treated groups through 1–5 weeks. Effects of YCW-MOS on growth performance were the same even with some pathogenic challenges. Lourenco et al. [9] also observed no significant difference in weight gains between control and 1 kg/ton of YCW-MOS-treated group in day 21-old broiler chickens challenged with Salmonella enteritidis. In our study, significant differences were observed in feed consumption (FC), FCR, and PI at day 21 between CON- and YCW-MOS-treated groups. The inclusion of YCW-MOS at 1000 g/ton resulted in lower feed consumption, which resulted in an improvement in FCR and PI at 21 d. Histomorphological Development in the Jejunum and Ileum There were numerous instances of experiment × treatment interactions in evaluation of the histomorphological development of the jejunum and ileum. These interactions provided little if any useful information regarding the impacts of the treatments on these parameters and were more likely the result of low sample numbers and inherent variation within such measures. The subsequent discussion will thus include only those parameters in which no interactions were observed. There were no significant differences (P = 0.1451) in jejunum villi width (Table 3). YCW-MOS at 1000 g/ton had significantly greater (P = 0.0439) jejunum goblet cell area compared to CON and 500 g/ton. YCW-MOS at 1000 g/ton had significantly greater (P = 0.0350) numbers of goblet cells in jejunum compared to 250 and 500 g/ton. Significantly greater (P = 0.0233) numbers of goblet cells in ileum were observed with YCW-MOS at 1000 g/ton compared to all other groups. Table 3. Significant Effects of Yeast Cell Wall Product That Contained Mannan-Oligosaccharides (YCW-MOS) on Intestinal Histomormology and Amino Acid Digestibility from Day 21 in Pekin ducks. Jejunum Ileum Amino acid digestibility YCW-MOS Goblet cell Goblet cell Goblet cell (g/ton) area (μm2) numbers numbers Cys His Trp 0 30.45b 125.65a,b 80.56b 65.12c 79.68b 78.62c 250 34.12a,b 113.73b,c 84.48b 67.82b,c 81.44a,b 82.45a,b,c 500 30.69b 99.71c 92.46b 70.45a,b 82.65a,b 83.71a,b 1,000 38.35a 140.36a 116.25a 72.93a 85.33a 86.88a 2,000 32.92a,b 120.50a-c 81.44b 65.68c 79.94b 80.94b,c SEM 2.11 9.09 8.38 1.590 1.344 1.418 Treatment 0.0439 0.0350 0.0233 0.0057 0.0380 0.0070 Experiment 0.0062 0.5312 0.0042 0.0078 0.0129 <0.0001 Treatment × experiment 0.4525 0.5741 0.4940 0.5166 0.6163 0.1823 Jejunum Ileum Amino acid digestibility YCW-MOS Goblet cell Goblet cell Goblet cell (g/ton) area (μm2) numbers numbers Cys His Trp 0 30.45b 125.65a,b 80.56b 65.12c 79.68b 78.62c 250 34.12a,b 113.73b,c 84.48b 67.82b,c 81.44a,b 82.45a,b,c 500 30.69b 99.71c 92.46b 70.45a,b 82.65a,b 83.71a,b 1,000 38.35a 140.36a 116.25a 72.93a 85.33a 86.88a 2,000 32.92a,b 120.50a-c 81.44b 65.68c 79.94b 80.94b,c SEM 2.11 9.09 8.38 1.590 1.344 1.418 Treatment 0.0439 0.0350 0.0233 0.0057 0.0380 0.0070 Experiment 0.0062 0.5312 0.0042 0.0078 0.0129 <0.0001 Treatment × experiment 0.4525 0.5741 0.4940 0.5166 0.6163 0.1823 a–cMeans within a column with different superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.05). View Large Table 3. Significant Effects of Yeast Cell Wall Product That Contained Mannan-Oligosaccharides (YCW-MOS) on Intestinal Histomormology and Amino Acid Digestibility from Day 21 in Pekin ducks. Jejunum Ileum Amino acid digestibility YCW-MOS Goblet cell Goblet cell Goblet cell (g/ton) area (μm2) numbers numbers Cys His Trp 0 30.45b 125.65a,b 80.56b 65.12c 79.68b 78.62c 250 34.12a,b 113.73b,c 84.48b 67.82b,c 81.44a,b 82.45a,b,c 500 30.69b 99.71c 92.46b 70.45a,b 82.65a,b 83.71a,b 1,000 38.35a 140.36a 116.25a 72.93a 85.33a 86.88a 2,000 32.92a,b 120.50a-c 81.44b 65.68c 79.94b 80.94b,c SEM 2.11 9.09 8.38 1.590 1.344 1.418 Treatment 0.0439 0.0350 0.0233 0.0057 0.0380 0.0070 Experiment 0.0062 0.5312 0.0042 0.0078 0.0129 <0.0001 Treatment × experiment 0.4525 0.5741 0.4940 0.5166 0.6163 0.1823 Jejunum Ileum Amino acid digestibility YCW-MOS Goblet cell Goblet cell Goblet cell (g/ton) area (μm2) numbers numbers Cys His Trp 0 30.45b 125.65a,b 80.56b 65.12c 79.68b 78.62c 250 34.12a,b 113.73b,c 84.48b 67.82b,c 81.44a,b 82.45a,b,c 500 30.69b 99.71c 92.46b 70.45a,b 82.65a,b 83.71a,b 1,000 38.35a 140.36a 116.25a 72.93a 85.33a 86.88a 2,000 32.92a,b 120.50a-c 81.44b 65.68c 79.94b 80.94b,c SEM 2.11 9.09 8.38 1.590 1.344 1.418 Treatment 0.0439 0.0350 0.0233 0.0057 0.0380 0.0070 Experiment 0.0062 0.5312 0.0042 0.0078 0.0129 <0.0001 Treatment × experiment 0.4525 0.5741 0.4940 0.5166 0.6163 0.1823 a–cMeans within a column with different superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.05). View Large These intestinal morphology data indicate that YCW-MOS did not have extensive significant effects on intestinal morphology. Konca et al. [25] found no significant difference in intestinal indices between 0 and 1 kg/ton of YCW-MOS in 20-wk-old turkeys without a pathogenic challenge. However, several other studies observed that YCW-MOS did influence intestinal morphology in the presence of some type immune challenge [8, 10, 26]. These results indicate that YCW-MOS may only impact intestinal morphology when there is a challenge to stimulate the host immune system. Our experiments showed no significant differences in intestinal morphology and histomorphology because no challenge was applied to directly impact the intestinal health. With regard to the impact of YCW-MOS on goblet cells, Baurhoo et al. [7] reported that broilers that consumed MOS had a significantly higher number of goblet cells. Jahanian et al. [8] reported the feeding 2 g/kg YCW-MOS resulted in significantly increased jejunum goblet cell counts. However, Lourenco et al. [9] found no significant difference in the number of goblet cells in ileum villi between their control and YCW-MOS-treated groups in day 37-old broiler chickens challenged with Salmonella enteritidis. In the present experiments, YCW-MOS had no significant effect on jejunum viscosity and morphology. YCW-MOS at 1000 g/ton significantly impacted the number of goblet cells in the jejunum and ileum. The differences noted in the present studies represent relatively minor changes in these metrics. Digestibility Results of selected ileal amino acid digestibility coefficients in ducklings are presented in Table 3. YCW-MOS at 500 and 1000 g/ton had significantly better Cys (P = 0.0057) digestibility compared to CON and 2000 g/ton. YCW-MOS at 500 and 1000 g/ton had significantly better Trp (P = 0.0070) digestibility compared to CON. YCW-MOS at 1000 g/ton had significantly better His (P = 0.0380) digestibility compared to CON and 2000 g/ton. Overall, few significant differences in amino acid digestibility were observed between CON- and YCW-MOS-treated groups. It has been reported that MOS did not significantly impact poultry nutrient digestibility. Yang et al. [24] observed no significant differences in protein, starch, fat, and soluble and insoluble non-starch polysaccharides digestibility between control and 1 and 2 g/kg of MOS-treated groups in broiler chickens. CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS There were no effects of YCW-MOS supplementation on body weight of ducklings through day 21. The addition of YCW-MOS resulted in decreased feed consumption (∼90 g/bird) and improved FCR (∼6 points) and PI (∼31 points) through day 21. The addition of YCW-MOS resulted in few changes in gut morphology and histology. Jejunal and ileal goblet cell numbers and jejunal goblet cell area were increased by YCW-MOS inclusion in the duck diets. Cysteine, histamine, and tryptophan absorption and digestibility was slightly improved by YCW-MOS. This study suggests that the 1 kg/ton of YCW-MOS could be an appropriate level for the improvements observed in this study. Footnotes Primary Audience: Nutritionists, Live production personnel, Duck producers, Feed additive producers REFERENCES 1. Spring P. , Wenk C. , Connolly A. , Kiers A. . 2015 . A review of 733 published trials on Bio-Mos®, a mannan oligosaccharide, and Actigen®, a second generation mannose rich fraction, on farm and companion animals . J. Appl. Anim. Nutr. 3 : 1 – 11 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 2. Klis F. , Boorsma A. , De Groot P. . 2006 . Cell wall construction in Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Yeast . 23 : 185 – 202 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 3. Fowler J. , Kakani R. , Haq A. , Byrd J. , Bailey C. . 2015 . Growth promoting effects of prebiotic yeast cell wall products in starter broilers under an immune stress and Clostridium perfringens challenge . J. Appl. Poult. 24 : 66 – 72 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 4. Hooge D. , Sims M. , Sefton A. , Connolly A. , Spring P. . 2003 . Effect of dietary mannan oligosaccharide, with or without bacitracin or virginiamycin, on live performance of broiler chickens at relatively high stocking density on new litter . J. Appl. Poult. Res. 12 : 461 – 467 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 5. Waldroup P. , Oviedo-Rondon E. , Fritts C. . 2003 . Comparison of bio-mos® and antibiotic feeding programs in broiler diets containing copper sulfate . Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2 : 28 – 31 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 6. Shashidhara R. , Devegowda G. . 2003 . Effect of dietary mannan oligosaccharide on broiler breeder production traits and immunity . Poult. Sci. 82 : 1319 – 1325 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 7. Baurhoo B. , Phillip L. , Ruiz-Feria C. . 2007 . Effects of purified lignin and mannan oligosaccharides on intestinal integrity and microbial populations in the ceca and litter of broiler chickens . Poult. Sci. 86 : 1070 – 1078 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 8. Jahanian E. , Mahdavi A. , Asgary S. , Jahanian R. . 2016 . Effect of dietary supplementation of mannanoligosaccharides on growth performance, ileal microbial counts, and jejunal morphology in broiler chicks exposed to aflatoxins . Livestock Sci. 190 : 123 – 130 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 9. Lourenco M. , Kuritza L. , Hayashi R. , Miglino L. , Durau J. , Pickler L. , Santin E. . 2015 . Effect of a mannanoligosaccharide-supplemented diet on intestinal mucosa T lymphocyte populations in chickens challenged with Salmonella Enteritidis . J. Appl. Poult. 24 : 15 – 22 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 10. Mostafa M. , Thabet H. , Abdelaziz M. . 2015 . Effect of bio-mos utilization in broiler chick diets on performance, microbial and histological alteration of small intestine and economic efficiency . Asian J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 7 : 323 – 334 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 11. Arsi K. , Donoghue A. , Woo-Ming A. , Blore P. , Donoghue D. . 2015 . The efficacy of selected probiotic and prebiotic combinations in reducing Campylobacter colonization in broiler chickens . J. Appl. Poult. Res. 24 : 327 – 334 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 12. Maple Leaf Farms, Leesburg, IN . 13. Safmannan-A, Saf Agri/Lesaffre Feed Additives, Milwaukee, WI . 14. Zeng Q. , Cherry P. , Doster A. , Murdoch R. , Adeola O. , Applegate T. . 2015 . Effect of dietary energy and protein content on growth and carcass traits of Pekin ducks . Poult. Sci. 94 : 384 – 394 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 15. Lee J. , Bailey C. , Cartwright A. . 2003 . β-Mannanase ameliorates viscosity-associated depression of growth in broiler chickens fed guar germ and hull fractions . Poult. Sci. 82 : 1925 – 1931 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 16. Ametek Brookfield, Middleboro, MA . 17. VWR International, Radnor, PA . 18. Harlow E. , Lane D. , 1998 . Staining tissues . Page 163 in Using Antibodies, A Laboratory Manual . Editor E. A. Greenfield . Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press , Cold Spring Harbor, NY . 19. Hamamatsu Photonics K. K, Shizuoka Pref ., Japan. 20. Sigma-aldrich, St. Louis, MO . 21. Thermovac, Island Park, NY . 22. Iyayi E. , Adeola O. . 2014 . Standardized ileal amino acid digestibility of feedstuffs in broiler chickens . Europ. Poult. Sci. 78 : e1 – 12 . 23. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC . 24. Yang Y. , Lji P. , Kocher A. , Thomson E. , Mikkelsen L. , Choct M. . 2008 . Effects of mannanoligosaccharide in broiler chicken diets on growth performance, energy utilisation, nutrient digestibility and intestinal microflora . Br. Poult. Sci. 49 : 186 – 194 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 25. Konca Y. , Kirkpinar F. , Mert S. . 2009 . Effects of mannan-oligosaccharides and live yeast in diets on the carcass, cut yields, meat composition and colour of finishing turkeys . Asian Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 22 : 550 – 556 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 26. Santos E. , Costa F. , Silva J. , Martins T. , Figueiredo-Lima D. , Macari M. , Oliveira C. , Givisiez P. . 2013 . Protective effect of mannan oligosaccharides against early colonization by Salmonella Enteritidis in chicks is improved by higher dietary threonine levels . J. Appl. Microbiol. 114 : 1158 – 1165 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Acknowledgments This study was supported through funding from CTC Bio Inc., in Seoul, South Korea. The authors also thank Maple Leaf Farms Inc., Leesburg, IN, USA for their support. © 2018 Poultry Science Association Inc. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Applied Poultry Research Oxford University Press

Effects of a Commercial Mannan-Oligosaccharide Product on Growth Performance, Intestinal Histomorphology, and Amino Acid Digestibility in White Pekin Ducks

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/effects-of-a-commercial-mannan-oligosaccharide-product-on-growth-6bP1r97ndM
Publisher
Applied Poultry Science, Inc.
Copyright
© 2018 Poultry Science Association Inc.
ISSN
1056-6171
eISSN
1537-0437
D.O.I.
10.3382/japr/pfy017
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

SUMMARY Two identical experiments were conducted to evaluate the effects of a commercial mannan-oligosaccharides product. Both experiments included treatment of 0, 250, 500, 1000, and 2000 g/ton of a prebiotic yeast cell wall product containing mannan-oligosaccharides (YCW-MOS). Addition of YCW-MOS to duck diets decreased (P ≤ 0.0001) day 21 feed consumption about 90 g per bird, decreased (P ≤ 0.0198) day 1–21 feed conversion ratio by as much as 6 points. Productivity index at day 21 increased (P ≤ 0.0179) by as much as 31 points. There were no effects of YCW-MOS on intestinal length, weight, index, and digesta viscosity. However, the YCW-MOS-treated groups had as much as 26% greater (P = 0.0439) area of jejunal goblet cells, 12% greater quantity of jejunal goblet cells (P = 0.0350) and as much as 43% greater (P = 0.0233) numbers of ileal goblet cells than the control group. The YCW-MOS-treated group also had greater cysteine (P = 0.0057), histamine (P = 0.038), and tryptophan (P = 0.0070) ileal digestibility (6–8 points improvement) than the control group. This study demonstrated that addition of 1 kg/ton of mannan-oligosaccharides in duck feeds affects duck live performance and produces modest changes in gut morphology and amino acid digestibility. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM Over the past few decades, changing attitudes that favor the inhibited use of antibiotics in animal feeds have prompted significant research in the improvement of poultry diet formulations and nutrient utilization. Prebiotic feed additives have become one of the most popular substitute alternatives for antibiotic additives. Mannan-oligosaccharides (MOS) are one of the popular prebiotic commercial dietary supplements and have been used in poultry nutrition [1]. Commercial MOS dietary supplement products are derived from the Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast cell wall, which mainly consists of β-1,3 (30%–45% of wall mass)/1,6-glucans (5%–10% of wall mass), MOS (30%–50% of wall mass), or nucleotides [2]. Therefore, most of the commercial MOS products for animals are not 100% pure MOS [3]. Antibiotics were often used as animal growth promoters; however, MOS can also be used for this purpose. Several studies have compared the effects of antibiotics and MOS in broiler chickens, many showing no different effects between antibiotics and MOS in growth performance [4, 5]. MOS products showed improvements in chicken egg hatchability [6], intestinal morphology [7], histology [8], and immune system function [9]. MOS products also decrease bacteria population of Salmonella [10] and Campylobacter [11] in the small intestine. However, there has not been a study utilizing MOS from Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast cell wall in duck diets. Therefore, this study addresses the effectiveness of different levels of an MOS dietary supplement on the growth performance, intestinal digesta viscosity, morphology, histology, and amino acid digestibility of Pekin ducks. MATERIALS AND METHODS Birds, Housing, and Diets For a series of 2 identical studies (experiment A and experiment B), Pekin duck eggs were obtained from a commercial source [12]. The eggs were incubated and hatched at the Texas A&M University Poultry Research, Teaching and Extension Center (TAMUPRC), only visually healthy ducklings were selected. A total of 225 ducklings were allocated into 0.97 × 0.67 × 0.24 m battery cage pens, which allowed 0.03 m3/bird at initial placement. Mixed-sex day-old ducklings were randomly housed with 5 birds per battery unit. Each treatment was replicated nine times for a total of 45 ducks per treatment. In the experiments, a commercial yeast cell wall product [13] that contained MOS (YCW-MOS) was used. The birds were fed a corn–soybean meal basal diet formulation that was adapted from Zeng et al. [14] (Table 1). Table 1. Experimental Diets and Nutrient Composition. Starter Grower 1–13 d 14–21 d Ingredients (%)  Corn, yellow grain 43.24 55.06  Soybean meal,  dehulled solvent1 39.58 27.20  Wheat midds 6.00 5.99  DL methionine 0.36 0.27  L-lysine 0.01 0.08  Fat, blended A/V 5.89 7.88  Limestone 2.66 1.18  Monocalcium phosphate2 1.25 1.32  Salt 0.42 0.42  Trace mineral3 0.05 0.05  Vitamins4 0.25 0.25 Calculated nutrient composition  Crude protein, % 23.99 19.01  ME, kcal/kg 3,040 3,300  Crude fat, % 8.08 10.38  Lysine, % 1.33 1.05  Methionine, % 0.70 0.55  Cysteine, % 0.38 0.31  Tryptophan, % 0.30 0.23  Threonine, % 0.90 0.71  Arginine, % 1.61 1.22  Valine, % 1.09 0.87  Calcium, % 1.33 0.75  Phosphorus, % 0.68 0.65  Sodium, % 0.19 0.19 Analyzed composition  Crude protein, % 24.85 18.99  Lysine, % 1.07  Methionine, % 0.48 Starter Grower 1–13 d 14–21 d Ingredients (%)  Corn, yellow grain 43.24 55.06  Soybean meal,  dehulled solvent1 39.58 27.20  Wheat midds 6.00 5.99  DL methionine 0.36 0.27  L-lysine 0.01 0.08  Fat, blended A/V 5.89 7.88  Limestone 2.66 1.18  Monocalcium phosphate2 1.25 1.32  Salt 0.42 0.42  Trace mineral3 0.05 0.05  Vitamins4 0.25 0.25 Calculated nutrient composition  Crude protein, % 23.99 19.01  ME, kcal/kg 3,040 3,300  Crude fat, % 8.08 10.38  Lysine, % 1.33 1.05  Methionine, % 0.70 0.55  Cysteine, % 0.38 0.31  Tryptophan, % 0.30 0.23  Threonine, % 0.90 0.71  Arginine, % 1.61 1.22  Valine, % 1.09 0.87  Calcium, % 1.33 0.75  Phosphorus, % 0.68 0.65  Sodium, % 0.19 0.19 Analyzed composition  Crude protein, % 24.85 18.99  Lysine, % 1.07  Methionine, % 0.48 151.2% crude protein 216.4% calcium and 21.3% of phosphorus 3Trace mineral premix added at this rate yields 149.6 mg manganese, 55.0 mg zinc, 26.4 mg iron, 4.4 mg copper, 1.05 mg iodine, 0.25 mg selenium, a minimum of 6.27 mg calcium, and a maximum of 8.69 mg calcium per kg of diet. The carrier is calcium carbonate, and the premix contains less than 1% mineral oil. 4Vitamin premix added at this rate yields 11,023 IU vitamin A, 3858 IU vitamin D3, 46 IU vitamin E, 0.0165 mg B12, 5.845 mg riboflavin, 45.93 mg niacin, 20.21 mg d-pantothenic acid, 477.67 mg choline, 1.47 mg menadione, 1.75 mg folic acid, 7.17 mg peroxidase, 2.94 mg thiamine, 0.55 mg biotin per kg diet. The carrier is ground rice hulls. View Large Table 1. Experimental Diets and Nutrient Composition. Starter Grower 1–13 d 14–21 d Ingredients (%)  Corn, yellow grain 43.24 55.06  Soybean meal,  dehulled solvent1 39.58 27.20  Wheat midds 6.00 5.99  DL methionine 0.36 0.27  L-lysine 0.01 0.08  Fat, blended A/V 5.89 7.88  Limestone 2.66 1.18  Monocalcium phosphate2 1.25 1.32  Salt 0.42 0.42  Trace mineral3 0.05 0.05  Vitamins4 0.25 0.25 Calculated nutrient composition  Crude protein, % 23.99 19.01  ME, kcal/kg 3,040 3,300  Crude fat, % 8.08 10.38  Lysine, % 1.33 1.05  Methionine, % 0.70 0.55  Cysteine, % 0.38 0.31  Tryptophan, % 0.30 0.23  Threonine, % 0.90 0.71  Arginine, % 1.61 1.22  Valine, % 1.09 0.87  Calcium, % 1.33 0.75  Phosphorus, % 0.68 0.65  Sodium, % 0.19 0.19 Analyzed composition  Crude protein, % 24.85 18.99  Lysine, % 1.07  Methionine, % 0.48 Starter Grower 1–13 d 14–21 d Ingredients (%)  Corn, yellow grain 43.24 55.06  Soybean meal,  dehulled solvent1 39.58 27.20  Wheat midds 6.00 5.99  DL methionine 0.36 0.27  L-lysine 0.01 0.08  Fat, blended A/V 5.89 7.88  Limestone 2.66 1.18  Monocalcium phosphate2 1.25 1.32  Salt 0.42 0.42  Trace mineral3 0.05 0.05  Vitamins4 0.25 0.25 Calculated nutrient composition  Crude protein, % 23.99 19.01  ME, kcal/kg 3,040 3,300  Crude fat, % 8.08 10.38  Lysine, % 1.33 1.05  Methionine, % 0.70 0.55  Cysteine, % 0.38 0.31  Tryptophan, % 0.30 0.23  Threonine, % 0.90 0.71  Arginine, % 1.61 1.22  Valine, % 1.09 0.87  Calcium, % 1.33 0.75  Phosphorus, % 0.68 0.65  Sodium, % 0.19 0.19 Analyzed composition  Crude protein, % 24.85 18.99  Lysine, % 1.07  Methionine, % 0.48 151.2% crude protein 216.4% calcium and 21.3% of phosphorus 3Trace mineral premix added at this rate yields 149.6 mg manganese, 55.0 mg zinc, 26.4 mg iron, 4.4 mg copper, 1.05 mg iodine, 0.25 mg selenium, a minimum of 6.27 mg calcium, and a maximum of 8.69 mg calcium per kg of diet. The carrier is calcium carbonate, and the premix contains less than 1% mineral oil. 4Vitamin premix added at this rate yields 11,023 IU vitamin A, 3858 IU vitamin D3, 46 IU vitamin E, 0.0165 mg B12, 5.845 mg riboflavin, 45.93 mg niacin, 20.21 mg d-pantothenic acid, 477.67 mg choline, 1.47 mg menadione, 1.75 mg folic acid, 7.17 mg peroxidase, 2.94 mg thiamine, 0.55 mg biotin per kg diet. The carrier is ground rice hulls. View Large The experiments consisted of 5 treatments: 0 g/ton (CON), 250 g/ton, 500 g/ton, 1 kg/ton, and 2 kg/ton of YCW-MOS. The starter (day 0–13) and grower (day 14–21) diets were pelleted and manufactured at the TAMUPRC feed mill. Each battery cage consisted of 2 feeders and 1 water tray and ad libitum supply of feed and water. Lighting was provided 24 h during first 4 d and 23 h for each day until day 21. The starting room temperature of 30°C was set 48 h before bird placement. The room temperature was then decreased to 27°C on day 7 and to 23°C on day 14. The birds were monitored at least twice daily, and there was no replacement of the birds during the experiment. These studies were conducted in accordance with an approved animal use protocol from the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at Texas A&M University. Growth Performance The body weight (BW) data were recorded at day 1, 7, 14, and 21. The feed consumption and feed conversion ratio (FCR) data were collected on day 7, 14, and 21. Productivity index (PI) was calculated by following the formula: \begin{eqnarray*} {\rm{PI\ }} &=& \left( {100 - {\rm{Mortality}}} \right) \nonumber\\ &&\times\, {\rm{\ }}\left( {\frac{{{\rm{BW}}}}{{1000}}} \right)/{\rm{Bird\ Age}}/{\rm{FCR\ }} \times {\rm{\ }}100 \end{eqnarray*} Sample Collection Jejunum and ileum were harvested from 4 birds per pen. Jejunum samples were harvested from the first liver portal vein to Meckel's diverticulum, and ileum samples were harvested from Meckel's diverticulum to the cecal junction to measure total organ length. To evaluate organ weights and indices, the jejunum and ileum weights were recorded. One bird was euthanized via CO2 for harvesting the distal section of the jejunum and ileum samples to evaluate histomorphology. From 1 bird, whole digesta from the jejunum and ileum were collected to evaluate intestinal viscosity. From 2 birds, the whole ileal digesta were collected to evaluate ileal amino acid digestibility. Viscosity The samples were evaluated as described by Lee et al. [15] with minor modifications: 1) samples were centrifuged 4,500× g for 20 min rather than 3,500× g for 10 min, 2) samples were placed in a viscometer [16] at 37.8°C rather than at 40°C, and read and measured after 20 s rather than 30 s at 5 rpm. Histology The jejunum and ileum samples were washed with phosphate-buffered saline 3 times. Then, samples were stored in 70% alcohol [17] for 24 h and were transferred into 10% buffered formalin [17] until fixed as described by Harlow and Lane [18]. The fixed samples were duplicated and placed into 2 × 2 cassettes [17]. All samples were stained with Alcian Blue pH 2.5 (mucin) at the Texas A&M University Histopathology/Immunopathology Laboratory. A NacoZoomer 2.0-HT Digital slide scanner [19] was used to evaluate the stained sections at the Gastrointestinal Laboratory, Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences at Texas A&M University. Scanned files were analyzed with NDP.view2 Viewing Software [19] to measure villi height, width, and crypt depth of the jejunum and ileum. Digestibility Titanium (IV) oxide [20] (5 g/kg) was used in grower diets as an indigestible marker to analyze amino acid digestibility. A lyophilizer [21] was used to dry-freeze ileal digesta samples. The samples were sent and analyzed by the Agricultural Experiment Station Chemical Laboratories at University of Missouri-Columbia. Following formula was used to calculate the amino acid digestibility (AAD) coefficients as described by Iyayi and Adeola [22]: \begin{eqnarray*} {\rm{AAD\ }} &=& \left\{ 1 - \Bigg( \frac{{{\rm{Titanium\ }}\left( {{\rm{IV}}} \right){\rm{Oxide\ }}\left( {{\rm{diet}}} \right)}}{{{\rm{Titanium\ }}\left( {{\rm{IV}}} \right){\rm{Oxide\ }}\left( {{\rm{ieal}}} \right)}} \right.\nonumber\\ &&\left.\times\, \frac{{{\rm{Amino\ Acid\ }}\left( {{\rm{ieal}}} \right)}}{{{\rm{Amino\ Acid\ }}\left( {{\rm{diet}}} \right)}} \Bigg) \right\} \end{eqnarray*} Statistical Analysis All pooled data of both experiment A and B were analyzed via a 5 (treatments) × 2 (experiments) factorial analysis of variance with using the Standard Least Squares procedure and completely randomized block design in the JMP Pro® 12.0.1 for Windows [23]. The data means were separated using the Least Square Means Differences Student's t-test and deemed significantly different at P ≤ 0.05. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Growth Performance Table 2 presents results of the BW per bird. Addition of YCW-MOS into diets did not influence BW significantly. YCW-MOS at 500 and 1000 g/ton resulted in significantly less (P = 0.0269) feed consumption compared to CON at day 21. Two mortalities were observed from experiment A; and 4 mortalities were observed from experiment B. The mortalities were not from treatment-related causes. Table 2 presents results of the FCR and PI. YCW-MOS at 1000 g/ton had significantly lower FCR (P = 0.0198) compared to CON and 500 g/ton at day 21. YCW-MOS at 1000 and 2000 g/ton had significantly higher (P = 0.0179) PI compared to CON and 500 g/ton at day 21. Table 2. Effect of Yeast Cell Wall Product That Contained Mannan-Oligosaccharides (YCW-MOS) on Body Weight, Feed Consumption, Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR), and Productivity Index 1–21 d in Pekin ducks. YCW-MOS (g/ton) Body weight (g) Feed consumption (g) FCR PI d1 d7 d14 d21 d7 d14 d21 d1–21 d21 0 56 273 789 1,455 210 626 1,062a 1.28b 538.33b,c 250 56 269 803 1,462 208 618 1,021a,b 1.25a,b 559.78a,b 500 55 276 795 1,444 208 621 989b 1.28b 527.50c 1,000 56 272 804 1,478 207 635 970b 1.22a 569.39a 2,000 56 270 817 1,479 210 649 1,021a,b 1.24a,b 570.89a Pooled SEM N/A 3.30 10.67 12.91 17.58 63.29 96.32 0.0162 10.91 Treatment 0.6358 0.4113 0.2375 0.9459 0.4040 0.0269 0.0198 0.0179 Experiment <0.0001 0.3625 <0.0001 0.5179 <0.0001 0.0015 <0.0001 <0.0001 Treatment × experiment 0.0504 0.5342 0.1026 0.0847 0.7599 0.4747 0.4254 0.1208 YCW-MOS (g/ton) Body weight (g) Feed consumption (g) FCR PI d1 d7 d14 d21 d7 d14 d21 d1–21 d21 0 56 273 789 1,455 210 626 1,062a 1.28b 538.33b,c 250 56 269 803 1,462 208 618 1,021a,b 1.25a,b 559.78a,b 500 55 276 795 1,444 208 621 989b 1.28b 527.50c 1,000 56 272 804 1,478 207 635 970b 1.22a 569.39a 2,000 56 270 817 1,479 210 649 1,021a,b 1.24a,b 570.89a Pooled SEM N/A 3.30 10.67 12.91 17.58 63.29 96.32 0.0162 10.91 Treatment 0.6358 0.4113 0.2375 0.9459 0.4040 0.0269 0.0198 0.0179 Experiment <0.0001 0.3625 <0.0001 0.5179 <0.0001 0.0015 <0.0001 <0.0001 Treatment × experiment 0.0504 0.5342 0.1026 0.0847 0.7599 0.4747 0.4254 0.1208 a–cMeans within a column with different superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.05). View Large Table 2. Effect of Yeast Cell Wall Product That Contained Mannan-Oligosaccharides (YCW-MOS) on Body Weight, Feed Consumption, Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR), and Productivity Index 1–21 d in Pekin ducks. YCW-MOS (g/ton) Body weight (g) Feed consumption (g) FCR PI d1 d7 d14 d21 d7 d14 d21 d1–21 d21 0 56 273 789 1,455 210 626 1,062a 1.28b 538.33b,c 250 56 269 803 1,462 208 618 1,021a,b 1.25a,b 559.78a,b 500 55 276 795 1,444 208 621 989b 1.28b 527.50c 1,000 56 272 804 1,478 207 635 970b 1.22a 569.39a 2,000 56 270 817 1,479 210 649 1,021a,b 1.24a,b 570.89a Pooled SEM N/A 3.30 10.67 12.91 17.58 63.29 96.32 0.0162 10.91 Treatment 0.6358 0.4113 0.2375 0.9459 0.4040 0.0269 0.0198 0.0179 Experiment <0.0001 0.3625 <0.0001 0.5179 <0.0001 0.0015 <0.0001 <0.0001 Treatment × experiment 0.0504 0.5342 0.1026 0.0847 0.7599 0.4747 0.4254 0.1208 YCW-MOS (g/ton) Body weight (g) Feed consumption (g) FCR PI d1 d7 d14 d21 d7 d14 d21 d1–21 d21 0 56 273 789 1,455 210 626 1,062a 1.28b 538.33b,c 250 56 269 803 1,462 208 618 1,021a,b 1.25a,b 559.78a,b 500 55 276 795 1,444 208 621 989b 1.28b 527.50c 1,000 56 272 804 1,478 207 635 970b 1.22a 569.39a 2,000 56 270 817 1,479 210 649 1,021a,b 1.24a,b 570.89a Pooled SEM N/A 3.30 10.67 12.91 17.58 63.29 96.32 0.0162 10.91 Treatment 0.6358 0.4113 0.2375 0.9459 0.4040 0.0269 0.0198 0.0179 Experiment <0.0001 0.3625 <0.0001 0.5179 <0.0001 0.0015 <0.0001 <0.0001 Treatment × experiment 0.0504 0.5342 0.1026 0.0847 0.7599 0.4747 0.4254 0.1208 a–cMeans within a column with different superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.05). View Large The growth performance data showed a slightly different trend compared to several other experiments with broiler chickens. Waldroup et al. [5] reported no difference in growth performance between the control group and 1 g/kg of YCW-MOS treated group in day 21-old broiler chickens. Yang et al. [24] found no significant differences in feed intake, weight gain, and feed conversion efficiency between control, 1 and 2 g/kg of MOS-treated groups through 1–5 weeks. Effects of YCW-MOS on growth performance were the same even with some pathogenic challenges. Lourenco et al. [9] also observed no significant difference in weight gains between control and 1 kg/ton of YCW-MOS-treated group in day 21-old broiler chickens challenged with Salmonella enteritidis. In our study, significant differences were observed in feed consumption (FC), FCR, and PI at day 21 between CON- and YCW-MOS-treated groups. The inclusion of YCW-MOS at 1000 g/ton resulted in lower feed consumption, which resulted in an improvement in FCR and PI at 21 d. Histomorphological Development in the Jejunum and Ileum There were numerous instances of experiment × treatment interactions in evaluation of the histomorphological development of the jejunum and ileum. These interactions provided little if any useful information regarding the impacts of the treatments on these parameters and were more likely the result of low sample numbers and inherent variation within such measures. The subsequent discussion will thus include only those parameters in which no interactions were observed. There were no significant differences (P = 0.1451) in jejunum villi width (Table 3). YCW-MOS at 1000 g/ton had significantly greater (P = 0.0439) jejunum goblet cell area compared to CON and 500 g/ton. YCW-MOS at 1000 g/ton had significantly greater (P = 0.0350) numbers of goblet cells in jejunum compared to 250 and 500 g/ton. Significantly greater (P = 0.0233) numbers of goblet cells in ileum were observed with YCW-MOS at 1000 g/ton compared to all other groups. Table 3. Significant Effects of Yeast Cell Wall Product That Contained Mannan-Oligosaccharides (YCW-MOS) on Intestinal Histomormology and Amino Acid Digestibility from Day 21 in Pekin ducks. Jejunum Ileum Amino acid digestibility YCW-MOS Goblet cell Goblet cell Goblet cell (g/ton) area (μm2) numbers numbers Cys His Trp 0 30.45b 125.65a,b 80.56b 65.12c 79.68b 78.62c 250 34.12a,b 113.73b,c 84.48b 67.82b,c 81.44a,b 82.45a,b,c 500 30.69b 99.71c 92.46b 70.45a,b 82.65a,b 83.71a,b 1,000 38.35a 140.36a 116.25a 72.93a 85.33a 86.88a 2,000 32.92a,b 120.50a-c 81.44b 65.68c 79.94b 80.94b,c SEM 2.11 9.09 8.38 1.590 1.344 1.418 Treatment 0.0439 0.0350 0.0233 0.0057 0.0380 0.0070 Experiment 0.0062 0.5312 0.0042 0.0078 0.0129 <0.0001 Treatment × experiment 0.4525 0.5741 0.4940 0.5166 0.6163 0.1823 Jejunum Ileum Amino acid digestibility YCW-MOS Goblet cell Goblet cell Goblet cell (g/ton) area (μm2) numbers numbers Cys His Trp 0 30.45b 125.65a,b 80.56b 65.12c 79.68b 78.62c 250 34.12a,b 113.73b,c 84.48b 67.82b,c 81.44a,b 82.45a,b,c 500 30.69b 99.71c 92.46b 70.45a,b 82.65a,b 83.71a,b 1,000 38.35a 140.36a 116.25a 72.93a 85.33a 86.88a 2,000 32.92a,b 120.50a-c 81.44b 65.68c 79.94b 80.94b,c SEM 2.11 9.09 8.38 1.590 1.344 1.418 Treatment 0.0439 0.0350 0.0233 0.0057 0.0380 0.0070 Experiment 0.0062 0.5312 0.0042 0.0078 0.0129 <0.0001 Treatment × experiment 0.4525 0.5741 0.4940 0.5166 0.6163 0.1823 a–cMeans within a column with different superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.05). View Large Table 3. Significant Effects of Yeast Cell Wall Product That Contained Mannan-Oligosaccharides (YCW-MOS) on Intestinal Histomormology and Amino Acid Digestibility from Day 21 in Pekin ducks. Jejunum Ileum Amino acid digestibility YCW-MOS Goblet cell Goblet cell Goblet cell (g/ton) area (μm2) numbers numbers Cys His Trp 0 30.45b 125.65a,b 80.56b 65.12c 79.68b 78.62c 250 34.12a,b 113.73b,c 84.48b 67.82b,c 81.44a,b 82.45a,b,c 500 30.69b 99.71c 92.46b 70.45a,b 82.65a,b 83.71a,b 1,000 38.35a 140.36a 116.25a 72.93a 85.33a 86.88a 2,000 32.92a,b 120.50a-c 81.44b 65.68c 79.94b 80.94b,c SEM 2.11 9.09 8.38 1.590 1.344 1.418 Treatment 0.0439 0.0350 0.0233 0.0057 0.0380 0.0070 Experiment 0.0062 0.5312 0.0042 0.0078 0.0129 <0.0001 Treatment × experiment 0.4525 0.5741 0.4940 0.5166 0.6163 0.1823 Jejunum Ileum Amino acid digestibility YCW-MOS Goblet cell Goblet cell Goblet cell (g/ton) area (μm2) numbers numbers Cys His Trp 0 30.45b 125.65a,b 80.56b 65.12c 79.68b 78.62c 250 34.12a,b 113.73b,c 84.48b 67.82b,c 81.44a,b 82.45a,b,c 500 30.69b 99.71c 92.46b 70.45a,b 82.65a,b 83.71a,b 1,000 38.35a 140.36a 116.25a 72.93a 85.33a 86.88a 2,000 32.92a,b 120.50a-c 81.44b 65.68c 79.94b 80.94b,c SEM 2.11 9.09 8.38 1.590 1.344 1.418 Treatment 0.0439 0.0350 0.0233 0.0057 0.0380 0.0070 Experiment 0.0062 0.5312 0.0042 0.0078 0.0129 <0.0001 Treatment × experiment 0.4525 0.5741 0.4940 0.5166 0.6163 0.1823 a–cMeans within a column with different superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.05). View Large These intestinal morphology data indicate that YCW-MOS did not have extensive significant effects on intestinal morphology. Konca et al. [25] found no significant difference in intestinal indices between 0 and 1 kg/ton of YCW-MOS in 20-wk-old turkeys without a pathogenic challenge. However, several other studies observed that YCW-MOS did influence intestinal morphology in the presence of some type immune challenge [8, 10, 26]. These results indicate that YCW-MOS may only impact intestinal morphology when there is a challenge to stimulate the host immune system. Our experiments showed no significant differences in intestinal morphology and histomorphology because no challenge was applied to directly impact the intestinal health. With regard to the impact of YCW-MOS on goblet cells, Baurhoo et al. [7] reported that broilers that consumed MOS had a significantly higher number of goblet cells. Jahanian et al. [8] reported the feeding 2 g/kg YCW-MOS resulted in significantly increased jejunum goblet cell counts. However, Lourenco et al. [9] found no significant difference in the number of goblet cells in ileum villi between their control and YCW-MOS-treated groups in day 37-old broiler chickens challenged with Salmonella enteritidis. In the present experiments, YCW-MOS had no significant effect on jejunum viscosity and morphology. YCW-MOS at 1000 g/ton significantly impacted the number of goblet cells in the jejunum and ileum. The differences noted in the present studies represent relatively minor changes in these metrics. Digestibility Results of selected ileal amino acid digestibility coefficients in ducklings are presented in Table 3. YCW-MOS at 500 and 1000 g/ton had significantly better Cys (P = 0.0057) digestibility compared to CON and 2000 g/ton. YCW-MOS at 500 and 1000 g/ton had significantly better Trp (P = 0.0070) digestibility compared to CON. YCW-MOS at 1000 g/ton had significantly better His (P = 0.0380) digestibility compared to CON and 2000 g/ton. Overall, few significant differences in amino acid digestibility were observed between CON- and YCW-MOS-treated groups. It has been reported that MOS did not significantly impact poultry nutrient digestibility. Yang et al. [24] observed no significant differences in protein, starch, fat, and soluble and insoluble non-starch polysaccharides digestibility between control and 1 and 2 g/kg of MOS-treated groups in broiler chickens. CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS There were no effects of YCW-MOS supplementation on body weight of ducklings through day 21. The addition of YCW-MOS resulted in decreased feed consumption (∼90 g/bird) and improved FCR (∼6 points) and PI (∼31 points) through day 21. The addition of YCW-MOS resulted in few changes in gut morphology and histology. Jejunal and ileal goblet cell numbers and jejunal goblet cell area were increased by YCW-MOS inclusion in the duck diets. Cysteine, histamine, and tryptophan absorption and digestibility was slightly improved by YCW-MOS. This study suggests that the 1 kg/ton of YCW-MOS could be an appropriate level for the improvements observed in this study. Footnotes Primary Audience: Nutritionists, Live production personnel, Duck producers, Feed additive producers REFERENCES 1. Spring P. , Wenk C. , Connolly A. , Kiers A. . 2015 . A review of 733 published trials on Bio-Mos®, a mannan oligosaccharide, and Actigen®, a second generation mannose rich fraction, on farm and companion animals . J. Appl. Anim. Nutr. 3 : 1 – 11 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 2. Klis F. , Boorsma A. , De Groot P. . 2006 . Cell wall construction in Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Yeast . 23 : 185 – 202 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 3. Fowler J. , Kakani R. , Haq A. , Byrd J. , Bailey C. . 2015 . Growth promoting effects of prebiotic yeast cell wall products in starter broilers under an immune stress and Clostridium perfringens challenge . J. Appl. Poult. 24 : 66 – 72 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 4. Hooge D. , Sims M. , Sefton A. , Connolly A. , Spring P. . 2003 . Effect of dietary mannan oligosaccharide, with or without bacitracin or virginiamycin, on live performance of broiler chickens at relatively high stocking density on new litter . J. Appl. Poult. Res. 12 : 461 – 467 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 5. Waldroup P. , Oviedo-Rondon E. , Fritts C. . 2003 . Comparison of bio-mos® and antibiotic feeding programs in broiler diets containing copper sulfate . Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2 : 28 – 31 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 6. Shashidhara R. , Devegowda G. . 2003 . Effect of dietary mannan oligosaccharide on broiler breeder production traits and immunity . Poult. Sci. 82 : 1319 – 1325 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 7. Baurhoo B. , Phillip L. , Ruiz-Feria C. . 2007 . Effects of purified lignin and mannan oligosaccharides on intestinal integrity and microbial populations in the ceca and litter of broiler chickens . Poult. Sci. 86 : 1070 – 1078 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 8. Jahanian E. , Mahdavi A. , Asgary S. , Jahanian R. . 2016 . Effect of dietary supplementation of mannanoligosaccharides on growth performance, ileal microbial counts, and jejunal morphology in broiler chicks exposed to aflatoxins . Livestock Sci. 190 : 123 – 130 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 9. Lourenco M. , Kuritza L. , Hayashi R. , Miglino L. , Durau J. , Pickler L. , Santin E. . 2015 . Effect of a mannanoligosaccharide-supplemented diet on intestinal mucosa T lymphocyte populations in chickens challenged with Salmonella Enteritidis . J. Appl. Poult. 24 : 15 – 22 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 10. Mostafa M. , Thabet H. , Abdelaziz M. . 2015 . Effect of bio-mos utilization in broiler chick diets on performance, microbial and histological alteration of small intestine and economic efficiency . Asian J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 7 : 323 – 334 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 11. Arsi K. , Donoghue A. , Woo-Ming A. , Blore P. , Donoghue D. . 2015 . The efficacy of selected probiotic and prebiotic combinations in reducing Campylobacter colonization in broiler chickens . J. Appl. Poult. Res. 24 : 327 – 334 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 12. Maple Leaf Farms, Leesburg, IN . 13. Safmannan-A, Saf Agri/Lesaffre Feed Additives, Milwaukee, WI . 14. Zeng Q. , Cherry P. , Doster A. , Murdoch R. , Adeola O. , Applegate T. . 2015 . Effect of dietary energy and protein content on growth and carcass traits of Pekin ducks . Poult. Sci. 94 : 384 – 394 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 15. Lee J. , Bailey C. , Cartwright A. . 2003 . β-Mannanase ameliorates viscosity-associated depression of growth in broiler chickens fed guar germ and hull fractions . Poult. Sci. 82 : 1925 – 1931 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 16. Ametek Brookfield, Middleboro, MA . 17. VWR International, Radnor, PA . 18. Harlow E. , Lane D. , 1998 . Staining tissues . Page 163 in Using Antibodies, A Laboratory Manual . Editor E. A. Greenfield . Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press , Cold Spring Harbor, NY . 19. Hamamatsu Photonics K. K, Shizuoka Pref ., Japan. 20. Sigma-aldrich, St. Louis, MO . 21. Thermovac, Island Park, NY . 22. Iyayi E. , Adeola O. . 2014 . Standardized ileal amino acid digestibility of feedstuffs in broiler chickens . Europ. Poult. Sci. 78 : e1 – 12 . 23. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC . 24. Yang Y. , Lji P. , Kocher A. , Thomson E. , Mikkelsen L. , Choct M. . 2008 . Effects of mannanoligosaccharide in broiler chicken diets on growth performance, energy utilisation, nutrient digestibility and intestinal microflora . Br. Poult. Sci. 49 : 186 – 194 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 25. Konca Y. , Kirkpinar F. , Mert S. . 2009 . Effects of mannan-oligosaccharides and live yeast in diets on the carcass, cut yields, meat composition and colour of finishing turkeys . Asian Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 22 : 550 – 556 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 26. Santos E. , Costa F. , Silva J. , Martins T. , Figueiredo-Lima D. , Macari M. , Oliveira C. , Givisiez P. . 2013 . Protective effect of mannan oligosaccharides against early colonization by Salmonella Enteritidis in chicks is improved by higher dietary threonine levels . J. Appl. Microbiol. 114 : 1158 – 1165 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Acknowledgments This study was supported through funding from CTC Bio Inc., in Seoul, South Korea. The authors also thank Maple Leaf Farms Inc., Leesburg, IN, USA for their support. © 2018 Poultry Science Association Inc. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices)

Journal

Journal of Applied Poultry ResearchOxford University Press

Published: May 11, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off