poultry prebiotics

1. PREBIOTICS

2. • Prebiotic is a selectively fermented ingredient that
allows specific changes, both in the composition and/or
activity in the gastrointestinal microbiota that confers
benefits upon host wellbeing and health (Gibson et al.,
2004).
• Common prebiotics in use include inulins,
fructooligosaccharides (FOS), galacto-oligosaccharides
(GOS), soya-oligosaccharides, xylo-oligosaccharides,
pyrodextrins, isomalto-oligosaccharides and lactulose.
• The majority of studies carried out to date have focused
on inulin, FOS, MOS and GOS (Macfarlane et al., 2008).

3. Regurgitates crop
contents & feeds
chicks
Reduced flora,
Sterile crops !!

4. Characteristics of a prebiotic:
Neither hydrolysed nor absorbed.
Selective substrate for one / limited number of
bacteria
Should have known structure
Should be palatable as food ingredient

5. Mechanism of action of prebiotic:
Modulation of gut microbiota:
- Increases Bifidobacterium and Lactobacilli
- Ferment Non-digestible CHO to SCFA
- Reduce clostridium, Bacteroides, enterococci &
enterobacter sps

6. Intestinal morphology:
- ↑es no.of epithelial cells
- ↑es length and width of colonic crypts.
- Also alters epithelial cell junction bonding
structures.
- ↑es mucus secretion (Lactococci)
Lowering gut pH:
Inhibits certain growth of pathogens by increasing
the conc. of lactic acid and thereby decreasing pH in
the lower gut.

7. Phytic acid:
- stimulatory effect on Zinc and iron absorption.
- ↑ed phytate hydrolysis – enhanced breakdown of
phytate.
- SCFA forms soluble ligands with cations to
prevent formation of insoluble mineral phytates.
Preventing colonization:
Gram –Ve bacteria adhere to the intestinal cells of
host with type 1 fimbriae – enables pathogen to
cause disease.
Yeoman et al.(2012)

9. - Mannose binds the type 1 fimbriae – carry’s
through the git without colonization.
Stimulation of the immune system:
- Beneficial effects on gut associated lymphoid
tissue (GALT) and mucosal immune system (MALT).
- Increase in secretory IgG & IgA
- Butyrate suppresses cytokine induced and
constitutive expression of NFKB in HT29 cell lines.
- Bind to G-coupled receptors on immune cells with
in GALT.

10. Lipid metabolism:
• Reduction in the activities - hepatic lipogenesis
enzymes;
- FAS,
- Malic enzyme,
- ATP citrate lyase,
- Acetyl -coA carboxylase,
- Glucose -6-phosphate 1-dehydrogenase.

11.  Fructo-oligosaccharides and manna –
oligosaccharides are most studied prebiotics.
Fructo-oligosaccharides (Inulin):
Short form of oligofructose
Present in Onion, Garlic, Wheat, Chikory
(Cichorium intybus), Jerusalem Artichoke
(Helianthus tuberosus), banana.
Not easily digested due to β (2-1) fructosyl –
fructose units (osidic bond).

12. Manufacturing procedures of prebiotics:
1. Direct extraction from plants.
2. Controlled enzyamatic hydrolysis of High – DP –
polysaccherides.
3. Enzymatic – catalysed syntesis via microbeal
action of simple sugars.

13. Chicory plant
Jerusalem
artichoke

14. - Selectively fermented by Bifidobacteria &
stimulates growth of Bifidobacteria
- ↑es Butyrogenic effect
- Stimulates growth of epithelial cells & mucosa.

15. Mannanoligosaccharides (MOS):
- Synthesized from cell wall of Saccharomyces
cerevisiae
- Mannose – bind to receptors of bacteria & carried
out.

17. Galacto-oligosaccharides:
- Produced from lactose.
- 2 – 8 saccheride units with 1 terminal glucose.
- Synthesized by β – galactosidase enzymes.
- 1.) Glucosyltransferases – more yield
2.) Glycohydrolases

18. Author Methodology Conclusion
Sobolewska
et al.2017
- 5000 eggs were
Injected.
- SYN1 L. salivarius
IBB3154 + Bi2tos, Clasado Ltd.
(2 mg prebiotic
+105 bacteria/egg), and
- SYN2 L. plantarum + lupin
RFOs (2 mg prebiotic
+105 bacteria/egg).
- Control 0.9% Nacl
- Increased the day old bodyweight in
both groups (P<0.05)
- Villi in ileum are wider & deeper crypts
in Syn 2 group than SYN1 in day old.
- On 42nd day no differences b/W 2
groups.
- In jejenum on day 1 wider villi &
deeper crypts were observed in SYN1
group.
- No observable diff in BWG & FCR on
42nd d.

19. Author Methodology Conclusion
Tavaniello et
al.2018
4 groups injected in ovo with
0.2 mL solution
containing:
1) 3.5 mg/embryo BI (Bi2tos,
transgalactooligosaccharides);
2) 0.88 mg/embryo DN
(DiNovo, extract of Laminaria
spp.);
3)1.9 mg/embryo RFO
(raffinose family
oligosaccharides) and
4) 0.2 mL physiological
saline (C).
- All prebiotics increased breast muscle weight
and yield (P < 0.01).
- Intestinal pH was low in T3 group
- Saturated fatty acid (SFA), polyunsaturated
fatty acid (PUFA) and n-3 fatty acids
contents were higher (P < 0.01), and
monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA) level
was lower (P < 0.01) in prebiotic groups
compared with C group.
- BWG & carcass yield were higher in T3
group

20. Author Methodology Conclusion
Naila Chand
et al. 2016
Group A - control; group B
was contaminated with
Eimeria tenella, while groups
C and D were infected with E.
tenella and treated with MOS
(0.8 g/kg feed) and
anticoccidial drug, amprolium
hydrochloride (12 g/
100 l water), respectively.
- BWG were higher in MOS + E.tenella
(2150) vs Amprolium + E.tenella
(2057)
- FI higher in MOS + E.tenella (3279) vs
Amprolium + E.tenella (3171)
- FCR MOS + E.tenella 1.5 vs 1.54
Amprolium + E.tenella
Kim et
al.2011
6 groups
control, avilamycin (6 mg/
kg), 0.25% FOS, 0.5% FOS,
0.025% MOS, and 0.05%
MOS. Each
- Clostridium perfringens and E. coli
decreased with 0.25% FOS, 0.05% MOS, or
avilamycin, and lactobacilli increased in the
0.25% FOS and 0.25% MOS treatment
groups.
- Except for 0.5% FOS group bwg were higher
in all other groups.
- No diff in FI & FCR.

21. Conclusion:
Supplementation of prebiotics have beneficial
effects
- At 0.25% of FOS & MOS have more pronounced
effects
- Increases the intestinal beneficial bacteria like
Lactobacilli & Bifidobacteria increases epithelial
cells.
- Increases immunity
- Reduces the colonisation of pathogenic bacteria &
improves meat quality.

22. References:
1) Sobolewska, A., Bogucka, J., Dankowiakowska, A., Elminowska-
Wenda, G., Stadnicka, K., & Bednarczyk, M. (2017). The impact of
synbiotic administration through in ovo technology on the
microstructure of a broiler chicken small intestine tissue on the 1
st and 42 nd day of rearing. Journal of animal science and
biotechnology, 8(1), 61.
2) Tavaniello, S., Maiorano, G., Stadnicka, K., Mucci, R., Bogucka, J.,
& Bednarczyk, M. (2018). Prebiotics offered to broiler chicken
exert positive effect on meat quality traits irrespective of delivery
route. Poultry Science.
3) Kim, G. B., Seo, Y. M., Kim, C. H., & Paik, I. K. (2011). Effect of
dietary prebiotic supplementation on the performance, intestinal
microflora, and immune response of broilers. Poultry
Science, 90(1), 75-82.

23. 4. Mirza, R. A. (2018). Probiotics and Prebiotics
for the Health of Poultry. In Probiotics and
Prebiotics in Animal Health and Food Safety (pp.
127-154). Springer, Cham.