Influence of autolyzed whole yeast and yeast components on broiler chickens challenged with salmonella lipopolysaccharide.

The objective of this study was to assess the effect of dietary yeast products on broiler chickens challenged with salmonella lipopolysaccharide (LPS). The chicks were divided into 8 treatments with 6 replicates and 9 birds per replicate. The treatments consisted of a positive control (PC) [without supplementation and not challenged]; negative control (NC) [without supplementation but challenged]; whole yeast and challenged; yeast cell wall and challenged; yeast glucan and challenged; yeast mannan and challenged; zinc bacitracin and challenged; and Salinomycin and challenged. Whole yeast or Yeast cell wall was included at 2.0 g/kg diet. Yeast glucan or mannan was added at 0.20 g/kg diet. Zinc bacitracin (ZNB) and Salinomycin (SAL) was included at 50 and 60 ppm, respectively. Dietary treatments had no effect (P > 0.05) on feed intake (FI) at day 10. Supplementation with yeast and its derivatives improved (P < 0.05) body weight gain (BWG) and feed conversion ratio (FCR) on day 10. On days 24 and 35, LPS challenge declined FI, BWG, FCR, and flock uniformity (day 28) in the NC group compared to the PC group. Yeast products and antibiotics improved (P < 0.05) FI, BWG, FCR, and flock uniformity in LPS-challenged birds. On day 24, spleen weight increased while bursa weight decreased in the NC group relative to the PC group; this effect was reversed (P < 0.05) by feeding all yeasts and antibiotics. On day 24, application of all the dietary treatments ameliorated the changes observed in white blood cell, lymphocyte and monocyte counts as well as albumin and immunoglobulin G of NC birds. On day 35, all yeasts additives, ZNB and SAL improved (P < 0.05) the meat yield of broilers challenged with LPS. In conclusion, supplementation of diets with yeast and its derivatives can ameliorate the negative effects of salmonella LPS challenge on broiler chicks, thus improving the performance, flock uniformity, and meat yield.

Physico-chemical properties of late-incubation egg amniotic fluid and a potential in ovo feed supplement.

OBJECTIVE: This study explored the physico-chemical properties of late-incubation egg amniotic fluid and a potential in ovo feed (IOF) supplement. METHODS: Amniotic fluid was collected from broiler breeders (Ross 308, 51 weeks and Cobb 500, 35 weeks) on day 17 after incubation. A mixture of high-quality soy protein supplement - Hamlet Protein AviStart (HPA) was serially diluted in MilliQ water to obtain solutions ranging from 150 to 9.375 mg/mL. The mixtures were heat-treated (0, 30, 60 minutes) in a waterbath (80°C) and then centrifuged to obtain supernatants. The amniotic fluid and HPA supernatants were analysed for their physico-chemical properties. RESULTS: Only viscosity and K+ were significantly (p<0.05) different in both strains. Of all essential amino acids, leucine and lysine were in the highest concentration in both strains. The osmolality, viscosity and pCO2 of the supernatants decreased (p<0.05) with decreasing HPA concentration. Heat treatment significantly (p<0.05) affected osmolality, pH, and pCO2, of the supernatants. The interactions between HPA concentration and heat treatment were significant with regards to osmolality (p<0.01), pH (p<0.01), pCO2 (p<0.05), glucose (p<0.05), lactate (p<0.01) and acid-base status (p<0.01) of HPA solutions. The Ca2+, K+, glucose, and lactate increased with increasing concentration of HPA solution. The protein content of HPA solutions decreased (p<0.05) with reduced HPA solution concentrations. The supernatant from 150 mg/mL HPA solution was richest in glutamic acid, aspartic acid, arginine and lysine. Amino acids concentrations were reduced (p<0.05) with each serial dilution but increased with longer heating. CONCLUSION: The values obtained in the primary solution (highest concentration) are close to the profiles of high-protein ingredients. This supplement, as a solution, hence, may be suitable for use as an IOF supplement and should be tested for this potential.

Review: In vivo and postmortem effects of feed antioxidants in livestock: a review of the implications on authorization of antioxidant feed additives.

The pivotal roles of regulatory jurisdictions in the feed additive sector cannot be over-emphasized. In the European Union (EU), antioxidant substances are authorized as feed additives for prolonging the shelf life of feedstuffs based on their effect for preventing lipid peroxidation. However, the efficacy of antioxidants transcends their functional use as technological additives in animal feeds. Promising research results have revealed the in vivo efficacy of dietary antioxidants for combating oxidative stress in production animals. The in vivo effect of antioxidants is significant for enhancing animal health and welfare. Similarly, postmortem effect of dietary antioxidants has been demonstrated to improve the nutritional, organoleptic and shelf-life qualities of animal products. In practice, dietary antioxidants have been traditionally used by farmers for these benefits in livestock production. However, some antioxidants particularly when supplemented in excess could act as prooxidants and exert detrimental effects on animal well-being and product quality. Presently, there is no exclusive legislation in the EU to justify the authorization of antioxidant products for these in vivo and postmortem efficacy claims. To indicate these efficacy claims and appropriate dosage on product labels, it is important to broaden the authorization status of antioxidants through the appraisal of existing EU legislations on feed additives. Such regulatory review will have major impact on the legislative categorization of antioxidants and the efficacy assessment in the technical dossier application. The present review harnesses the scientific investigations of these efficacy claims in production animals and, proposes potential categorization and appraisal of in vivo methodologies for efficacy assessment of antioxidants. This review further elucidates the implication of such regulatory review on the practical application of antioxidants as feed additives in livestock production. Effecting these regulatory changes will stimulate the innovation of more potent antioxidant products and create potential new markets that will have profound economic impacts on the feed additive industry. Based on the in vivo efficacy claims, antioxidants may have to contend with the legislative controversy of either to be considered as veterinary drugs or feed additives. In this scenario, antioxidants are not intended to diagnose or cure diseases as ascribed to veterinary products. This twisted distinction can be logically debated with reference to the stipulated status of feed additives in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003. Nonetheless, it is imperative for relevant stakeholders in the feed additive industry to lobby for the review of existing EU legislations for authorization of antioxidants for these efficacy claims.