Impacts of Dietary Protein and Prebiotic Inclusion on Liver and Spleen Gene Expression in Hy-Line Brown Caged Layers

Simple Summary

Eggs are one of the most affordable and nutritious animal proteins available, and with increasing human population, there is an increased demand for production. As feed is the main expense in poultry production, novel protein sources and feed additives need to be evaluated for their benefits for poultry health and performance. In this study, we evaluated the standard soybean-based diets against an alternate source—cottonseed meal, in the context of prebiotic addition. Prebiotics putatively improves health and production. We assessed the homeostatic and immune balance by assaying the expression of select marker genes. We find that the inclusion of yeast cell wall products as prebiotic alters homeostatic balance. Particularly, the upregulation of apoptosis—a normal cell process—suggests that these products may promote homeostatic balance.

Abstract

The ingredients of poultry feeds are chosen based on the least-cost formulation to meet nutritional requirements. However, this approach can lead to the introduction of anti-nutritional ingredients in the feed. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impacts of two diets (with or without prebiotic) on homeostatic genes in the liver and spleen of laying hens. Hy-Line Brown layers were raised either on a soybean meal or cottonseed meal-based diets with and without an added prebiotic (yeast cell wall), totaling four experimental diets. A total of 120, 63-week old layers were housed individually in a wire cage system. We investigated differences in the expression of select homeostatic marker genes in the liver and spleen of hens from each treatment. We then used the ΔΔCT and generalized linear models to assess significance. Results show that the inclusion of prebiotic yeast cell-wall (YCW) increased the expression of the BAK gene in the liver tissue for both the soybean meal (SBM) and cottonseed meal (CSM) diets. For splenic tissue, the combination of YCW with the CSM diet increased the POR gene over six log2 fold. Altogether, our results suggest altered homeostasis, which can have consequences for health and performance.

Performance of broilers fed diets supplemented with two yeast cell wall strains using two feeding strategies

Different supplements or strategies have been proposed as alternatives to the use of antibiotics at sub‐therapeutic levels in chickens. Mannan oligosaccharides and β‐glucans, yeast cell wall fractions (YCW), have been reported to beneficially influence broiler performance and health. Two differently produced yeast cell wall fractions derived from Saccharomyces cerevisiae were evaluated in this study using two different supplementation strategies offered to full‐term broilers. The birds were placed in floor pens on used pine‐shaving litter to increase potential microbial stress and mimic industry practice. The study utilized a three‐phase feeding program with a 1‐ to 21‐day starter, 21‐ to 35‐day grower and 35‐ to 42‐day finisher phases. Five dietary treatments were compared in this study. The experimental diets consisted of a control basal broiler diet; or the basal diet supplemented with the two differently produced fractions of YCW. The YCW products were supplemented at a constant 250 ppm or a decreasing concentration program (500, 250, 125 ppm) throughout the three feeding phases. Birds fed diets supplemented with either YCW products at any inclusion regimen demonstrated higher (P < 0.05) body weight (BW) in all three phases than control birds. The difference in final 42‐day BW of the YCW treatments (3041 g) averaged 165 g higher (P < 0.05) than the control group. For all YCW treatments, productivity index was higher (P < 0.05) in the grower (418) and finisher phase (441) versus control birds (389 grower and 415 finisher). These results suggested that both YCW fractions prepared from Saccharomyces cerevisiae can improve broiler performance when added at either a constant rate (250 ppm) or at a decreasing rate from 500 ppm for the starter to 125 ppm for the finisher phase.

Consumer acceptance of eggs from Hy-Line Brown layers fed soybean or soybean-free diets using cage or free-range rearing systems

Consumers have begun to awaken to the food on their plates with respect to human health and the environment, as well as animal welfare. They have become more demanding about what they buy or prefer in their food, such as soy-free, gluten-free, or organic products. The objective of this study was to evaluate consumer acceptance of eggs from hens fed soybean meal or soybean-free diets utilizing cottonseed meal and distillers' dried grains, using cage or free-range rearing systems. All eggs were stored at the sensory lab at Texas A&M University (TAMU) for a d prior to each test at 4°C. A panel of consumers (n = 60) made up of TAMU students, faculty, and staff, ages 18 to 50, were recruited to evaluate consumer acceptance based on 2 tests using scrambled and hard cooked eggs. Samples were placed in separate weigh boats labeled with 3-digit codes to avoid visual bias. Sensory ballots were based on overall like or dislike of flavor, texture, odor, and color using the 9-point hedonic scales. For scrambled eggs, flavor did not differ (P > 0.05), but texture liking was higher (P = 0.064) for scrambled eggs from the soybean-free diet (7.08) vs. scrambled eggs from the soybean meal diet (6.65). With respect to the hard cooked eggs, the consumer panel preferred the flavor of the eggs from the caged rearing system (7.11) vs. eggs from the free-range system (6.60; P = 0.014). Consumers liked the texture (P = 0.018) for eggs collected from hens fed soybean meal (6.91) vs. eggs from hens fed the soybean-free diet (6.30).

Evaluation of the performance of Hy-Line Brown laying hens fed soybean or soybean-free diets using cage or free-range rearing systems

This study evaluated egg production and quality variables of caged and free-range Hy-Line Brown laying hens fed soybean meal (SBM) and soybean-meal-free (SBMF) diets. Hens were randomly assigned to the same 2 dietary treatments within 3 location blocks. SBM and SBMF diets with equivalent calculated nutrient content were prepared based on Hy-Line Brown rearing guidelines. The SBMF diets utilized cottonseed meal, corn distillers dried grains with solubles, corn gluten meal, and wheat middlings in place of dehulled soybean meal. The experiment was conducted between August 2015 and January of 2016 within the TAMU Poultry Research Center and data analyzed over 6 consecutive 28-day periods. Data were analyzed as a split-plot with rearing systems designated whole plots and diets designated as subplots. Hens reared in the free-range rearing system peaked a couple of wk later than those hens within the more conventional indoor caged system, and cumulative production data were considerably more variable for hens raised in the free-range environment. Cumulative egg production, feed per dozen eggs and feed conversion ratio (g feed/g egg) were 92 ± 1.23 and 86 ± 1.84%, 1.45 ± 0.02 and 1.89 ± 0.05 kg, and 2.14 ± 0.04 and 2.77 ± 0.08 (P < 0.05), respectively, for the caged vs. free-range rearing systems. Cumulative egg weight, feed per dozen eggs, and feed conversion ratio were 59.9 ± 0.59 and 56.5 ± 0.60 g, 1.57 ± 0.04 and 1.77 ± 0.05 kg, and 2.24 ± 0.06 and 2.67 ± 0.08 kg (P < 0.05) for SBM and SBMF diets, respectively. Diet did not affect cumulative egg production (P > 0.05). With respect to egg quality, there were no differences in cumulative albumen height, Haugh unit, or breaking strength, but there was a significant rearing system by diet interaction for shell thickness, with the free-range hens averaging 40.77 ± 0.19 and 39.86 ± 0.31 μm (P < 0.05), respectively, for the hens fed SBM vs. SBMF diets. In conclusion, the results suggested free-range production is more variable than traditional closed-house cage systems based on standard errors, and SBMF diets containing cottonseed meal can be used in both caged and free-range production systems without affecting egg production, although one might see lower egg weights.