Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-npwhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T03:31:26.517Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of supplementing varying molecular weights of chitooligosaccharide on performance, selected microbial populations and nutrient digestibility in the weaned pig

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2012

A. M. Walsh ,
T. Sweeney ,
B. Bahar ,
B. Flynn  and
J. V. O'Doherty
A. M. Walsh
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Lyons Research Farm, Newcastle, Co. Dublin, Ireland
T. Sweeney
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Lyons Research Farm, Newcastle, Co. Dublin, Ireland
B. Bahar
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Lyons Research Farm, Newcastle, Co. Dublin, Ireland
B. Flynn
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Lyons Research Farm, Newcastle, Co. Dublin, Ireland
J. V. O'Doherty*
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Lyons Research Farm, Newcastle, Co. Dublin, Ireland
*
†E-mail john.vodoherty@ucd.ie
Get access

Abstract

An experiment (complete randomised design) was conducted to investigate the effects of supplementing different molecular weights (MW) of chitooligosaccharide (COS) on pig performance, selected microbial populations and nutrient digestibility post-weaning. A total of 396 weaned piglets (24 days of age, 7.3 kg ± (s.d.) 1.7 kg live weight) were assigned to one of six dietary treatments (22 replicates/treatment) for a 33-day experimental period. The dietary treatments were as follows (1) control diet (0 ppm COS), (2) control diet plus <1 kDa COS, (3) control diet plus 3 to 5 kDa COS, (4) control diet plus 5 to 10 kDa COS, (5) control diet plus 10 to 50 kDa COS and (6) control diet plus 50 to 100 kDa COS. The COS were included at 250 ppm in the diets. There was no significant effect of dietary treatment on piglet performance during the starter period (days 0 to 18; P > 0.05). However, there were quadratic responses in both daily gain (P < 0.05) and gain to feed ratio (P < 0.05) to the increased MW of COS inclusion during the weaner period (days 18 to 33) with all COS-supplemented treatments improving daily gain and gain to feed ratio compared with the control. There was a quadratic response in faecal scoring to the increased MW of COS inclusion from days 0 to 7 (P < 0.001), days 7 to 14 (P < 0.001) and during the overall experimental period (P < 0.01) with all the COS-supplemented treatments having an improved faecal score compared with the control. During the weaner period, there was a cubic response in lactic acid bacteria and Escherichia coli populations as the MW of COS increased (P < 0.05). The 5 to 10 kDa and 10 to 50 kDa COS increased lactic acid bacteria populations compared with the control, whereas lactic acid bacteria populations decreased at 50 to 100 kDa. The 5 to 10 kDa, 10 to 50 kDa and 50 to 100 kDa COS decreased E. coli populations compared with the control. There was a cubic response in the apparent total tract digestibility of dry matter (DM; P < 0.01), organic matter (OM; P < 0.01), ash (P < 0.01), nitrogen (N; P < 0.01) and gross energy (GE; P < 0.01) to the increased MW of COS inclusion during the weaner period. The 5 to 10 kDa COS had a higher apparent total tract digestibility of DM, OM, ash, N and GE in comparison to the control, whereas the apparent total tract nutrient digestibility of these nutrients decreased at 10 to 50 kDa. The current results indicate that the MW ranges of 5 to 10 kDa and 10 to 50 kDa COS decreased E. coli numbers while increasing nutrient digestibility of the diets.

Keywords

chitooligosaccharidepigperformancemicrobiotadigestibility

Information

Type
Nutrition
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , April 2013 , pp. 571 - 579
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Chung, Y-C, Chen, C-Y 2008. Antibacterial characteristics and activity of acid-soluble chitosan. Journal of Bioresource Technology 99, 2806–2814.Google Scholar
Demeckova, V, Tsourgiannis, CA, Brooks, PH 2003. Beneficial changes of lactobacilli, coliforms and E. coli numbers in the feces of farrowing primiparous sows, achieved by fermented liquid feed, positively affect subsequent neonatal colonization. In Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Digestive Physiology in Pigs (ed. R Ball), pp. 78–80. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.Google Scholar
Estrada, A, Drew, MD, Van Kessel, A 2001. Effect of the dietary supplementation of fructooligosaccharides and Bifidobacterium longum to early-weaned pigs on performance and fecal bacterial populations. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 81, 141–148.Google Scholar
Gardiner, GE, Campbell, AJ, O'Doherty, JV, Pierce, E, Lynch, PB, Leonard, FC, Stanton, C, Ross, RP, Lawlor, PG 2008. Effect of Ascophyllum nodosum extract on growth performance, digestibility, carcass characteristics and selected intestinal microflora populations of grower–finisher pigs. Journal of Animal Feed Science and Technology 141, 259–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, KN, Kwon, IK, Lohakare, JD, Heo, S, Chae, BJ 2007. Chito-oligosaccharides as an alternative to antimicrobials in improving performance, digestibility and microbial ecology of the gut in weanling pigs. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 20, 556–562.Google Scholar
Hayden, UL, McGuirk, SM, West, SEH, Carey, HV 1998. Psyllium improves fecal consistency and prevents enhanced secretory responses in jejunal tissues of piglets infected with ETEC. Digestive Diseases and Sciences 43, 2536–2541.Google Scholar
Helander, IM, Nurmiaho-Lassila, EL, Ahvenainen, R, Rhoades, J, Roller, S 2001. Chitosan disrupts the barrier properties of the outer membrane of Gram-negative bacteria. International Journal of Food Microbiology 71, 235–244.Google Scholar
Hojberg, O, Canibe, N, Knudsen, B, Jensen, BB 2003. Potential rates of fermentation in digesta from the gastrointestinal tract of pigs: effect of feeding fermented liquid feed. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 69, 408–418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jeon, Y-J, Park, P-J, Kim, S-K 2001. Antimicrobial effect of chitooligosaccharides produced by bioreactor. Carbohydrate Polymers 44, 71–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jin, L, Reynolds, LP, Redmer, DA, Caton, JS, Crenshaw, JD 1994. Effects of dietary fiber on intestinal growth, cell proliferation, and morphology in growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 72, 2270–2278.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, L, Dahl, J, Jensen, BB, Poulsen, HD 1999. Effects of expanding, pelleting, and grinding on Salmonella typhimurium infection, growth performance and gastrointestinal ecosystem in slaughter pigs, Publication no. 426. In The National Committee for Pig Breeding Health and Production, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Kim, S-K, Rajapakse, N 2005. Enzymatic production and biological activities of chitosan oligosaccharides (COS): a review. Journal of Carbohydrate Polymers 62, 357–368.Google Scholar
Kim, S-K, Mendis, E 2006. Bioactive compounds from marine processing byproducts – a review. Food Research International 39, 383–393.Google Scholar
Kittur, FS, Vishu Kumar, AB, Varadaraj, MC, Tharanathan, RN 2005. Chitooligosaccharides – preparation with the aid of pectinase isozyme from Aspergillus niger and their antibacterial activity. Carbohydrate Research 340, 1239–1245.Google Scholar
Krajewska, B 2004. Application of chitin- and chitosan-based materials for enzyme immobilizations: a review. Enzyme and Microbial Technology 35, 126–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leser, TD, Amenuvor, JZ, Jensen, TK, Lindecrona, RH, Boye, M, Møller, K 2002. Culture-independent analysis of gut bacteria: the pig gastrointestinal tract microbiota revisited. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 68, 673–690.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, XJ, Piao, XS, Kim, SW, Liu, P, Wang, L, Shen, YB, Jung, SC, Lee, HS 2007. Effects of chito-oligosaccharide supplementation on performance, nutrient digestibility, and serum composition in broiler chickens. Poultry Science 86, 1107–1114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, N, Chen, X-G, Park, H-J, Liu, C-G, Liu, C-S, Meng, X-H, Yu, L-J 2006. Effect of MW and concentration of chitosan on antibacterial activity of Escherichia coli. Journal of Carbohydrate Polymers 64, 60–65.Google Scholar
Liu, P, Piao, XS, Kim, SW, Wang, L, Shen, YB, Lee, HS, Li, SY 2008. Effects of chito-oligosaccharide supplementation on the growth performance, nutrient digestibility, intestinal morphology, and fecal shedding of Escherichia coli and Lactobacillus in weaning pigs. Journal of Animal Science 86, 2609–2618.Google Scholar
McCarthy, JF, Bowland, JP, Aherne, FX 1977. Influence of method upon the determination of apparent digestibility in the pig. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 57, 131–135.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, LL, Naughton, PJ, Hedemann, MS, Jensen, BB 2004. Effects of physical properties of feed on microbial ecology and survival of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium in the pig gastrointestinal tract. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 70, 3485–3492.Google Scholar
Miller, BG, Newby, TJ, Stokes, CR, Bourne, FG 1984. Influence of diet on postweaning malabsorption and diarrhoea in the pig. Research in Veterinary Science 36, 187–193.Google Scholar
Muralidhara, KS, Sheggeby, GG, Elliker, PR, England, DC, Sandine, WE 1977. Effect of feeding lactobacilli on the coliform and Lactobacillus flora of intestinal tissue and feces from piglets. Journal Of Food Protection 40, 288–295.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC) 1998. Nutrient requirements of swine, 10th revised edition, pp. 111–141. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
No, HK, Young Park, N, Ho Lee, S, Meyers, SP 2002. Antibacterial activity of chitosans and chitosan oligomers with different molecular weights. International Journal of Food Microbiology 74, 65–72.Google Scholar
O'Doherty, JV, Dillon, S, Figat, S, Callan, JJ, Sweeney, T 2010. The effects of lactose inclusion and seaweed extract derived from Laminaria spp. on performance, digestibility of diet components and microbial populations in newly weaned pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 157, 173–180.Google Scholar
Pierce, KM, Callan, JJ, McCarthy, P, O'Doherty, JV 2005. Performance of weanling pigs offered low or high lactose diets supplemented with avilamycin or inulin. Animal Science 80, 313–318.Google Scholar
Pierce, KM, Callan, JJ, McCarthy, P, O'Doherty, JV 2007. The interaction between lactose level and crude protein concentration on piglet post-weaning performance, nitrogen metabolism, selected faecal microbial populations and faecal volatile fatty acid concentrations. Animal Feed Science and Technology 132, 267–282.Google Scholar
Pierce, KM, Sweeney, T, Brophy, PO, Callan, JJ, Fitzpatrick, E, McCarthy, P, O'Doherty, JV 2006. The effect of lactose and inulin on intestinal morphology, selected microbial populations and volatile fatty acid concentrations in the gastro-intestinal tract of the weanling pig. Animal Science 82, 311–318.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, HS, Holtug, K, Mortensen, PB 1988. Degradation of amino acids to short-chain fatty acids in humans: an in vitro study. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 23, 178–182.Google Scholar
Rinaudo, M, Milas, M, Dung, PL 1993. Characterization of chitosan. Influence of ionic strength and degree of acetylation on chain expansion. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 15, 281–285.Google Scholar
Salanitro, JP, Blake, IG, Muirhead, PA 1977. Isolation and identification of fecal bacteria from adult swine. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 33, 79–84.Google Scholar
SAS 2004. SAS users guide. SAS Institue Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Sauvant, D, Perez, JM, Tran, G 2004. Table of composition and nutritional value of feed materials. Pigs, poultry, cattle, sheep, goats, rabbits, horses, fish. Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Sudarshan, NR, Hoover, DG, Knorr, D 1992. Antibacterial action of chitosan. Food Biotechnology 6, 257–272.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB, Lewis, BA 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walsh, AM, Sweeney, T, Bahar, B, Flynn, B, O'Doherty, JV 2012. The effects of chitooligosaccharide supplementation on intestinal morphology, selected microbial populations, volatile fatty acid concentrations and immune gene expression in the weaned pig. Animal 6, 1620–1626.Google Scholar
Wang, JP, Yoo, JS, Kim, HJ, Lee, JH, Kim, IH 2009. Nutrient digestibility, blood profiles and fecal microbiota are influenced by chitooligosaccharide supplementation of growing pigs. Livestock Science 125, 298–303.Google Scholar
Zhou, TX, Chen, YJ, Yoo, JS, Huang, Y, Lee, JH, Jang, HD, Shin, SO, Kim, HJ, Cho, JH, Kim, IH 2009. Effects of chitooligosaccharide supplementation on performance, blood characteristics, relative organ weight, and meat quality in broiler chickens. Poultry Science 88, 593–600.Google Scholar