3.2.1 Birds and Housing
All procedures used in this study were approved by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Four hundred and thirty-two Ross x Ross 708 broiler chicks were used in this study. Chicks were hatched in the department hatchery (Department of Animal Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln).
At day 18 of incubation, eggs were candled and placed in 8 hatching trays. When the majority of chicks had hatched, all chicks in the upper four trays were held without feed or water for 12 h (group A). At this time, chicks in the other trays (group B) were provided with feed (four different diets; one diet per tray) and water for 12 h. Dietary treatments were corn-SBM, corn-SBM + Tylan® 409, corn-SBM + Bio-Mos® 10, and corn-SBM + NuPro® 11
9 Tylan® 40; Elanco Animal Health, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN 46285, USA
. After being removed from the hatching trays, chicks were individually weighed and wing banded. Chick in group A were assigned to 4 dietary treatments in a completely randomized design and housed either in batter cages or floor pens, while chicks in group B were randomly assigned to floor pens or battery cages with the same treatment as hatchery. Each treatment was replicated 6 times with 9 chicks per replicate in either floor pens with used litter or battery cages, resulting in 48 replicate pens (24 battery cages + 24 floor pens) (Table 3.6.1). Floor chicks and cage chicks were allowed a space of 2408 sq. cm / bird and 755 sq. cm/ bird respectively at the time of placement. The lighting program was 24 hr of light during the entire period. The study was conducted from August 10, 2010, to August 31, 2010 (21 d).
10 BioMos® : Alltech Inc., 3031 Catnip Hill Pike, Nicholasville, KY 40356. USA.
11 NuPro® : Alltech Inc., 3031 Catnip Hill Pike, Nicholasville, KY 40356. USA
3.2.2 Diets
A corn- SBM basal diet was formulated to meet or exceed broiler requirements during the starter phase according to National Research Council (NRC, 1994). Composition and analysis is given in Table 3.6.2. All of the feed additives Tylan 4012, Bio-Mos® 13, and NuPro® 14
were mixed into the basal diet at the rate of 630 mg/ kg, 2 g / kg (0.2%), and 20 g / kg (2%) respectively. Chicks were allowed ad libitum access to feed and water throughout the study with the exception of the fasted, delayed placement treatment group.
3.2.3 Measurements
Pen weights were obtained, at 7 d, 14 d, and 21 d. Weight gain for each bird was calculated as the difference between the final and the initial average body weights for each period. Feed intake was measured at 7d, 14d, and 21 d. Feed to gain ratio was calculated by dividing average feed intake per bird per week by corresponding weight gain. Feed intake for cage chicks was corrected for feed wastage by subtracting the amount of wasted feed from the total feed provided for each cage during this week Mortality was recorded daily throughout the trial.
12 Tylan® 40; Elanco Animal Health, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN 46285, USA.
13 BioMos® : Alltech Inc., 3031 Catnip Hill Pike, Nicholasville, KY 40356. USA.
14 NuPro® : Alltech Inc., 3031 Catnip Hill Pike, Nicholasville, KY 40356. USA.
3.2.4 Statistical Analysis
Data (feed intake, body weight, and feed:gain ratio) were analyzed as repeated measures using the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS (SAS 9.2, 2008). The experimental design of this study was a split-plot design with the hatching trays being the whole plot experimental units and each dietary treatment by feeding program by housing system replicate being the split plot experimental units. Data were tested for the main effects of feeding program (early feeding vs. fasting) and housing system (cages vs. floor pens).
Furthermore, the 3-way interaction of dietary treatment, housing system, and time; the 2-way interaction of dietary treatment and housing system; the 2-2-way interaction of housing system and time; and the 2-way interaction of dietary treatment and time were examined.
It was not possible to test dietary treatment main effects due to lack of replications inside the hatcher. Dietary treatment by feeding program interaction was considered the whole plot error for testing the feeding program while the residual was used for testing the rest of the main effects and interactions. Repeated measures analysis was used to measure housing system effect over time and the possible housing system by time interactions.
Repeated measures were also utilized to identify possible covariance patterns in the repeated measurements and to determine the appropriate model to describe the time and measurement relationship. The appropriate covariance pattern for model fit was selected based on the smallest AIC and BIC values (information criteria) which were obtained from several covariance pattern models. These covariance patterns included: first-order autoregressive (AR (1)), compound symmetry (CS), Toeplitz (TOEP), first-order ante dependence (ANTE (1)), and unstructured (UN).
Mortality data are count data that follow Poisson distribution and were analyzed by Proc Glimmix and the relative rates were generated to compare treatment groups.
3.3 Results
Production data LS means, main, and interaction effects are shown in Table 3.6.3.
Feed intake data showed that the three-way interaction of dietary treatment, housing system, and time , the two-way interaction between dietary treatment and housing system, and the two-way interaction between dietary treatment and time were not significant. However, there was a significant housing system by time interaction effect on feed intake of broilers. Looking at the simple effects, cage chicks consumed more feed than floor chicks during the first week (p ≤ 0.0004) as well as during the third week of study (p ≤ 0.0001) (Figure 3.7.1). The difference in feed intake was not significant during the second week (p ≤ 0.857). Moreover, cage chicks were found to be higher (p≤
0.0001) than floor chicks in cumulative feed intake during the entire period of study.
When examining the main effects of feeding program on feed intake, the fed group had higher (p ≤ 0.0143) feed intake than the fasted group.
As with feed intake, the three-way interaction of dietary treatment, housing system, and time , the interaction between dietary treatment and housing system, and the two-way interaction between dietary treatment and time were not significant for body weight.
Housing system by time interaction was found to be significant. Examining the simple effects revealed that the body weight was not significantly different between cage and
floor chicks at day 0, 14, and 21. However, cage chicks had higher (p ≤ 0.023) body weight at day 7 compared to floor chicks (Figure 3.7.2). There was a significant main effect of feeding program on body weight in which the fed group had greater (p ≤ 0.002) body weight than the fasted group.
A significant housing system by time interaction was found for feed:gain ratio of broilers. During the first week, no significant difference was found between cage and floor chicks. However, during the second week the difference was approaching
significance (p ≤ 0.075) and became significant ( p≤ 0.0001) during the third week with the cage chicks having higher feed:gain ratio in both weeks (Figure 3.7.3). In addition, cage chicks had higher (p ≤ 0.0001) cumulative feed:gain ratio (0-21 d). None of the 3-way interaction of dietary treatment, housing system, and time, the two-3-way interaction between dietary treatment and housing system, and the two-way interaction between dietary treatment and time was significant. Also, the main effect of feeding program was not significant for feed:gain ratio.
Mortality rates were not significantly affected by feeding program or housing system.
The mean numbers of live chicks for the fed and fasted group were 7.72 and 8.38 respectively with a relative rate of fed over fasted group being 0.92. The mean numbers of live chicks for the cage and floor chicks were 7.88 and 8.20 respectively with a relative rate of cage over floor group being 0.96. Dietary treatment by housing system interaction was not significant for mortality.
3.4 Discussion
In the current study, the 12 h feed restriction resulted in lower feed intake for the fasted group compared to the fed group. The reduced feed intake may be due to a short-term delay in GI tract development caused by early fasting. It is well known that early feed restriction has adverse effects on the development of the GI tract (Maiorka et al., 2003). Chicks raised in the battery cages consumed more feed than those raised in the floor pens during 0-7, 14-21, and 0-21 d. The increased intake during 0-7 d for the cage chicks may be attributed to a better intestinal health compared to floor chicks. Increased feed wastage was observed during the last week of study (14-21 d) in the battery cages.
Feed intake for cage chicks was corrected for feed wastage by subtracting the amount of wasted feed from the total feed provided for each cage during this week; however, it was not possible to collect all the wasted feed since small amounts of feed were found to be mixed with fecal material. The increased feed intake for the cage chicks during 14-21 d could be due to some feed wastage and as a result increased the cumulative feed intake (0-21 d). The fed group had greater body weight than the fasted group. The impaired growth performance for the fasted group may be due to retardation in the development of important organs such as GI tract and the immune system of the chick. Early feeding has been shown to trigger the growth of the GI tract and immune system (Uni et al., 1998;
Dibner et al., 1998). Chicks housed in floor pens had decreased body weights at day 7 compared to those brooded in battery cages. The reduction in body weight of the floor chicks was probably due to the exposure to pathogens present in the used litter. It has been documented that a used litter contains a high load of pathogens (Kelley et al., 1995).
After 7 days, no differences were found between floor and cage chicks in body weight.
The compensatory growth shown by floor chicks after 7 days could be due to a developed resistance to pathogens and/or advancement in the developing immune system. The cage chicks had increased feed:gain ratio compared to the floor chicks during 14-21 d and 0-21 d in our study. The inferior feed:gain ratio of the cage chicks was probably due to
increased feed wastage as stated earlier. Our results showed no difference in mortality between the fed and the fasted group. A short period of feed restriction (12 h) did not appear to influence broiler mortality during the first three weeks of life. It was concluded that a short period of fasting (12 h) during delayed placement may depress early growth performance and reduce feed intake of broilers throughout the starter period. Brooding broiler chicks in cages to 21 days might enhance the growth up to 7 days but with poorer feed:gain ratio thereafter compared to chicks reared in floor pens on used litter.
3.5 Literature Cited
Alltech, 2011. Alltech brands. Available at URL:
http://www.alltech.com/en/about/brands/Pages/OurBrands.aspx.
Accessed March, 16, 2011.
Batal, A.B and C.M. Parsons. 2002. Effect of fasting versus feeding oasis after hatching on nutrient utilization in chicks. Poult. Sci., 81: 853-859.
Baurhoo, B. Ferket ,R.R. and Zhao, X. 2009. 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.
Poult. Sci. 88:2262–2272.
Baurhoo, B., A. Letellier, X. Zhao, and C. A. Ruiz-Feria. 2007a. Ceca populations of lactobacilli and bifidobacteria and Escherichia coli populations after in vivo Escherichia coli challenge in birds fed diets with purified lignin or mannanoligosaccharides. Poult.
Sci. 86:2509–2516.
Baurhoo, B., L. Phillip, and C.A. Ruiz-Feria. 2007b. 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.
Benites, V. R. Gilharry, A. G. Gernat, and J. G. Murillo. 2008. Effect of Dietary
Mannan Oligosaccharide from Bio-Mos or SAF-Mannan on Live Performance of Broiler Chickens. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 17:471–475.
Corrier, D.E., A. Hinton, Jr., B. Hargis and J.R. DeLoach. 1992. Effect of used litter from floor pens of adult broilers on Salmonella colonization of broiler chicks. Avian Dis., 36: 897-902.
Dibner, J.J., C.D. Knight, M.L. Kitchell, C.A. Atwell, A.C. Downs and F.J. Ivey, 1998.
Early feeding and development of the immune system in neonatal poultry. J. Appl. Poult.
Res., 7: 425-436.
Dibner, J.J., and J.D. Richards. 2005. Antibiotic growth promoters in agriculture: history and mode of action. Poult Sci 84: 634–643.
Fanguy, R.C., L.K. Misera, K.V. Vo, L.C. Blohowaik and W. Kreuger, 1980. Effect of delayed placement on mortality and growth performance of commercial broilers. Poult.
Sci., 59: 1215 1220.
Fouad, Manal A., Abeer H. Abdel Razek and El Sayed M. Badawy. 2008. Broilers Welfare and Economics under Two Management Alternatives on Commercial Scale. Int.
J. Poult. Sci 7 (12): 1167-1173.
Gonzales, E., N. Kondo, É.S.P.B. Saldanha, M.M. Loddy, C. Careghi and E. Decuypere, 2003. Performance and physiological parameters of broiler chickens subjected to fasting on the neonatal period. Poult. Sci., 82: 1250-1256.
Gómez-Verduzco, Gabriela, Arturo Cortes-Cuevas, Carlos López-Coello,Ernesto Ávila-González, and Gerardo M Nava. 2009. Dietary supplementation of
mannan-oligosaccharide enhances neonatal immune responses in chickens during natural exposure to Eimeria spp. Acta Vet Scand. 51(1): 11.
Griggs, J.P and J. P. Jacob. 2005. Alternatives to Antibiotics for Organic Poultry Production. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 14:750–756.
Hooge, D.M., M.D. Sims, A.E. Sefton, A. Connolly and P. Spring, 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.
Hypes, W.A., G.H. Carpenter, R.A. Peterson and W.T. Jones, 1994. Productive
performance of conventional floor-reared broilers Vs high density cage brooded broilers.
J. Appl. Poult. Res., 3: 238-243.
Janardhana, V., M. M. Broadway, M. P. Bruce, J. W. Lowenthal, M. S. Geier, R. H.
Hughes, and A. G. D. Bean. 2009. Prebiotics modulate immune responses in gut-associated lymphoid tissue of chickens. J. Nutr. 139:1404–1409.
Kelley, T. R., O. Pancorbo, W. Merka, S. Thompson, M. Cabrera, and H. Barnhart, 1995.
Bacterial pathogens and indicators in poultry litter during re-utilization. J. Appl. Poult.
Res. 4:366–373.
Kim, G.B., Seo, Y.M , Kim ,C.H, and Paik,I.K . 2011. Effect of dietary prebiotic supplementation on the performance, intestinal microflora, and immune response of broilers. Poult. Sci. 90:75–82.
Maiorka, A., E. Santin, F. Dahlke, I.C. Boleli, R.L. Furlan and M. Macari, 2003. Post hatching water and feed deprivation affect the gastrointestinal tract and intestinal mucosa development of broiler chicks. J.Appl. Poult. Res., 12: 483-492.
Mohamed, M.A., H.M.A. Hassan and E.M.A. El-Barkouky, 2008. Effect of mannan oligosaccharide on performance and carcass characteristics of broiler chicks. J. Agri. Soc.
Sci., 4: 13–17.
National Research Council. 1994. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry. (9th Ed.) National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
Nollet, L., G. Huyghebaert, and P. Spring. 2007. Effect of Dietary Mannan Oligosaccharide (Bio-Mos) on Live Performance of Broiler Chickens Given an
Anticoccidial Vaccine (Paracox) Followed by a Mild Coccidial Challenge. J. Appl. Poult.
Res. 16:397–403.
Noy, Y., and D. Sklan, D. 1999. Different types of early feeding and performance in chicks and poults. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 8:16-24.
Oyofo, B. A., R. E. Droleskey, J. O. Norman, H. H. Mollenhauer, R. L. Ziprin, D. E.
Corrier, and J. R. DeLoach. 1989. Inhibition by mannose of in vitro colonization of chicken small intestine by Salmonella typhimurium. Poult. Sci. 68:1351–1356.
Reece, F.N., J.W. Dcaton, J.D. May, and K.N. May. 1971. Cage versus floor rearing of broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 501786-1790.
Rutz, F.; Anciuti, M. A.; Rech, J. L.; Gonçalves, F. M.; Delgado, A. D.; Rosa, E. R.;
Zauk, N.; Ribeiro, C. L. G.; Silva, R. R. da. 2004. Performance and carcass traits of broilers fed diets containing yeast extract (NuProTM). Proceedings of the 16th Australian Poultry Science Symposium, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, 9-11 February 2004.
Santos, F. B. O., Sheldon, B. W., Santos, A. A. Jr., Ferket, P. R. 2008. Influence of Housing System, Grain Type, and Particle Size on Salmonella Colonization and
Shedding of Broilers Fed Triticale or Corn-Soybean Meal Diets. Poult. Sci. 87: 405-420 SAS Institute. 2008. SAS User’s Guide. Statistics. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, N. C.
Shivakumar, M. C., H.N. Narasimhamurthy, and H.V.L.N. Swamy. 2009a. Effect of feeding NuPro® at different time intervals on the performance of commercial broilers.
Poult. Sci. 88: 144.
Shivakumar, M. C., H.N. Narasimhamurthy, and H.V.L.N. Swamy . 2009b. Effect of feeding NuPro® at different time intervals on immunity and meat quality of commercial broilers. Poult. Sci. 88: 144.
Sims, M.D., K.A. Dawson, K.E. Newman, P. Spring, D.M. Hooger. (2004). Effects of dietary mannan oligosac- charide, bacitracin methylene disalicylate, or both on theLive Performance and Intestinal Microbiology of Turkeys. Poult. Sci. 83:1148–1154.
Spring, P., C.Wenk, K. A. Dawson, and K. E. Newman. 2000. The effects of dietary mannan oligosaccharides on cecal parameters and the concentrations of enteric bacteria in the ceca of Salmonella challenged broiler chicks. Poult. Sci. 79:205–211.
Sun, X., A. McElroy, K. E. Webb Jr., A. E. Sefton, and C. Novak. 2005. Broiler performance and intestinal alterations when fed drug-free diets. Poult. Sci. 84:1294–
1302.
Thanissery, R., McReynolds, J.L., Conner, D.E., Macklin, K.S., Curtis,P.A., and Fasina,Y.O. 2010. Evaluation of the efficacy of NuPro yeast extract in reducing intestinal Clostridium perfringens levels in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 89:2380–2388.
Torok, V. A. R. J. Hughes, K. Ophel-Keller, M. Ali, and R. MacAlpine. 2009. Influence of different litter materials on cecal microbiota colonization in broiler chickens
Poult. Sci. 88(12):2474 - 2481.
Uni, Z., S. Ganot, and D. Sklan. 1998. Posthatch development of mucosal function in the broiler small intestine. Poult. Sci. 77:75–82.
Vieira, S.L. and E.T. Moran E. (1999) Effect of delayed placement and used litter on broiler yields. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 8: 75-81.
Wang, Z., S. Cerrate, C. Coto, P. Sacakli, F. Yan, F.G.P. Costa and P.W. Waldroup, 2009. Evaluation of Nupro yeast product in diets for broilers. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 8: 515-520.
Willis WL, Murray C, Talbott C. 2002. Campylobacter isolation trends of cage versus floor broiler chickens: a one-year study. Poult Sci. 81:629–631
Yi, G.F., G.L. Allee, C.D. Knight, J.J Dibner. 2005. Impact of glutamine and oasis hatchling supplement on growth performance, small intestinal morphology, and immune response of B.V.broiler vaccinated and challenged with Eimeria maxima. Poult. Sci. 84:
283.
Zdunczyk, Z., J. Juskiewicz, J. Jankowski, E. Biedrzycka, and A. Koncicki. 2005.
Metabolic responses of the gastrointestinal tract of turkeys to diets with different levels of mannan-oligosaccharide. Poult. Sci. 84:903–909.
3.6 Tables
Table 3.6.1 Description of the experimental treatments
Diets
Number of replications in Floor pens
Total reps/ Trt
Number of replications In battery cages
Total reps/ Trt Fasted group (A)1 Fed group (B)1 - Fasted group (A) Fed group (B) -
1 3 3 6 3 3 6
2 3 3 6 3 3 6
3 3 3 6 3 3 6
4 3 3 6 3 3 6
1A= Hatch +12 hrs feed restriction, B= Hatch + feed access immediately
The feed restricted chicks were fed the 4 diets after 12 hr of holding when they were housed in battery cages and floor pens
Table 3.6.2 Composition of the basal diet
Item Percentage
Ingredient (%)
Corn 50.6
Soybean meal-48 33.2
Distiller grain with soluble 10.0
Animal-veg fat 3.00
1Crude protein (%) in dry weight basis as analyzed by Midwest Labs. Midwest Laboratories, Inc. 13611 B Street, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
56 Table 3.6.3: Production data LS means, main, and interaction effects
Variable Feed Intake (g/bird/day) Body Weight (g) Feed: Gain Ratio
0-7 7-14 14-21 0-21 0 7 14 21 0-7 7-14 14-21 0-21
Hosing System
Battery Cages 18.5 46.2 97.0 53.9 43.1 150.2 398.4 762.5 1.23 1.31 1.87 1.58
Floor Pens 16.2 46.0 82.4 48.2 43.1 140.5 397.0 768.2 1.16 1.25 1.56 1.39
p-values 0.0004 0.857 ˂ .0001 ˂ .0001 0.92 0.023 0.874 0.686 0.200 0.075 ˂ .0001 ˂ .0001
SEM 0.61 1.31 3.20 1.13 0.43 4.18 8.64 14.16 0.05 0.02 0.07 0.03
Main effects Feeding Program
Fed Group 52.3 339.6 1.41
Fasted Group 49.9 336.2 1.38
p-values 0.0143 0.002 0.550
SEM 0.682 0.654 0.03
Interaction Effects ( p-values) Feed Intake Body Weight Feed:Gain Ratio
Dietary Treatment*Housing System*Time 0.306 0.522 0.453
Dietary Treatment* Housing System 0.291 0.168 0.855
Housing System*Time 0.001 0.015 0.008
Dietary Treatment* time 0.254 0.436 0.174
3.7 Figures
Figure 3.7.1: Effect of housing system on feed intake
a-b Values with no common superscripts differ significantly (p ≤ 0.05)
Figure 3.7.2: Effect of housing system on body weight
a-b Values with no common superscripts differ significantly (p ≤ 0.05)
Figure 3.7.3: Effect of housing system on feed:gain ratio
a-b Values with no common superscripts differ significantly (p ≤ 0.05)
Chapter 4: Effects of Hatching Supplements on the Performance and Gut Health of