title: Effects of diets containing different concentrations of mannanoligosaccharide or antibiotics on growth performance, intestinal development, cecal and litter microbial populations, and carcass parameters of broilers.
abstract: The effects of 2 levels of mannanoligosaccharide (MOS) in feed were compared with antibiotic growth promoters on growth performance, intestinal morphology, cecal and litter microbial populations, and carcass parameters in broilers raised in a sanitary environment. Dietary treatments included: 1) antibiotic growth promoter-free diet (control), 2) VIRG (diet 1 + 16.5 mg/kg of virginiamycin), 3) BACT (diet 1 + 55 mg/kg of bacitracin), 4) LMOS (diet 1 + 0.2% MOS), and 5) HMOS (diet 1 + 0.5% MOS). Birds were randomly assigned to 3 replicate pens/treatment (n = 55/pen). Body weight and feed intake were recorded weekly throughout 38 d. At d 14, 24, and 34, a 1-cm segment of duodenum, jejunum, and ileum was used in morphological analysis (n = 9 birds/d per treatment). At the same bird ages, cecal contents were assayed for lactobacilli, bifidobacteria, Salmonella, Campylobacter, and Escherichia coli, whereas litter was analyzed for Salmonella, Campylobacter, and E. coli. Carcass yields (breast fillet and tenders, thigh, drumstick, and wing) were determined at d 38. Body weight, feed conversion, and carcass yields did not differ among treatments. In contrast to birds fed VIRG or BACT, LMOS and HMOS consistently increased (P < 0.05) villi height and goblet cell number per villus in all intestinal segments at d 24 and 34. Bifidobacteria concentrations were higher (P < 0.05) in LMOS- and HMOS-fed birds at all time points. Birds and litter from all treatments were free of Salmonella. At d 14 and 24, cecal E. coli and Campylobacter counts were not different among treatments. In comparison to birds fed control, at d 34, BACT, LMOS, and HMOS significantly reduced (P < 0.05) cecal E. coli concentrations, whereas Campylobacter counts were reduced (P < 0.05) by VIRG, BACT, and LMOS. Litter bacterial counts were not altered by dietary treatments. In conclusion, under conditions of this study, MOS conferred intestinal health benefits to chickens by improving its morphological development and microbial ecology. But, there were no additional benefits of the higher MOS dosage.
authors.affiliation: McGill University, Department of Animal Science, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, H9X 3V9, Québec, Canada.
authors.forename: B
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Baurhoo
authors.forename: P R
authors.initials: PR
authors.lastname: Ferket
authors.forename: X
authors.initials: X
authors.lastname: Zhao
mesh_terms: D000821:Animal Feed / Q000032:analysis; D000818:Animals; D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents / Q000494:pharmacology; D001414:Bacitracin / Q000494:pharmacology*; D001419:Bacteria / Q000145:classification / Q000187:drug effects / Q000302:isolation & purification; D001823:Body Composition / Q000187:drug effects; D002645:Chickens / Q000254:growth & development*; D004032:Diet / Q000662:veterinary; D005430:Floors and Floorcoverings; D005766:Gastrointestinal Contents / Q000382:microbiology*; D006799:Housing, Animal; D007422:Intestines / Q000254:growth & development*; D008297:Male; D008351:Mannans / Q000494:pharmacology*; D014769:Virginiamycin / Q000494:pharmacology*
chemical_list: D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents; D008351:Mannans; D014769:Virginiamycin; D001414:Bacitracin