The document discusses prebiotics, which are non-digestible food ingredients that beneficially affect the host by selectively stimulating the growth and/or activity of certain bacteria in the colon. Common prebiotics include inulin, fructooligosaccharides, galactooligosaccharides, and mannooligosaccharides. Studies show that supplementing prebiotics in poultry feed increases beneficial bacteria like Bifidobacteria and Lactobacilli, improves gut health and immunity, reduces pathogenic bacteria, and enhances meat quality. The optimal levels of prebiotic supplementation are 0.25% fructooligosaccharides or 0.05% mannooligosaccharides.

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.