Effects of oligosaccharides on performance, egg quality, nutrient digestibility, antioxidant status, and immunity of laying hens: a meta-analysis

Figures & data

Figure 1. Diagram flow of article selection in the meta-analysis using SYRCLE method.

Table 1. Studies included in the meta-analyses of the effect of different sources of prebiotics on the performance, egg quality, nutrient digestibility, intestinal profile, and immunity of laying hens.

No.	References	Prebiotic (g/kg)	Form	Type	Age (week)	Length rearing (week)	Strain of laying hens
1.	Çabuk (2006)	0–0.1	Powder	MOS	54	20	Nick Brown
2.	Li et al. (2007)	0.2–0.6	Powder	FOS	25-42	31	Lohmann
3.	Yan et al. (2010)	0–0.2	Powder	COS	27-31	4	Hy-line
4.	Bozkurt, Küçükyilmaz et al. (2012)	0–0.1	Powder	MOS	36	16	Lohmann
5.	Bozkurt, Küçükyilmaz et al. (2012)	0–0.1	Powder	MOS	52	16	Lohmann
6.	Drażbo et al. (2014)	0–1.59	Powder	RFOS	18	20	Lohmann
7.	Yalçın et al. (2014)	0–0.4	Raw	MOS	39	26	Hy-line
8.	Zdunczyk et al. (2014)	0–2.08	Raw	RFOS	18	20	Lohmann
9.	Zdunczyk et al. (2019)	1.36–2.54	Raw	RFOS	33	15	Lohmann
10.	Jahanian and Ashnagar (2015)	0–0.15	Powder	MOS	55-61	6-12	Hy-line
11.	Krawczyk et al. (2015)	1.36–2.54	Powder	RFOS	32	16	Lohmann
12.	Bozkurt et al. (2016)	0–0.1	Powder	MOS	82	16	White leghorn
13.	Ghasemian and Jahanian (2016)	0–0.2	Powder	MOS	68	11	Hy-line
14.	Koiyama et al. (2018)	0–0.9	Powder	MOS	21	46	Hy-line
15.	Ding et al. (2018)	0–0.05	Powder	XOS	28	8	Lohmann
16.	Feng and Xia (2019)	0–0.6	Powder	MOS and FOS	18	26	ISA Brown
17.	Jiao et al. (2018)	0–0.3	Powder	COS	46	8	Hy-line
18.	Xu et al. (2020)	0–0.125	Powder	COS	52	10	Fengda
19.	Zhou et al. (2021)	0–0.04	Powder	XOS	50	12	Hy-line
20.	Zhou et al. (2021)	0–0.4	Powder	XOS	39	12	Hy-line
21.	Gu et al. (2022)	0–0.05	Powder	COS	80	8	Hy-line
22.	Tao et al. (2022)	0–0.04	Powder	COS	28	14	Lohmann
23.	Obianwuna et al. (2022)	0–0.6	Powder	FOS	30	4	Hy-line
24.	Wen et al. (2022)	0–0.6	Powder	XOS	50	12	Hy-line
25.	Morgan et al. (2022)	0–0.2	Powder	XOS	39	9	ISA brown

COS: chitosan oligosaccharide; FOS: fructo-oligosaccharides; MOS: mannan-oligosaccharide; RFOS: Raffinose family oligosaccharides; XOS: xylo-oligosaccharides.

Table 2. Regression linear model of the effect of different sources of prebiotics on the performance, egg quality, nutrient digestibility, and immunity of laying hens.

Response parameter	Model	N	Parameter estimates				Model statistics				p-value
			Intercept	SE	Slope	SE	AIC	RMSE	R^2	L/Q	L × Strain	L × Type	L × Phase
Performance and egg quality
HDEP, %	L	165	84.31	2.01	5.12	1.74	876	0.215	0.151	0.042	0.059	0.191	0.045
	Q				−1.20	0.54	870	0.313	0.605	0.028
Feed intake, g/d	L	157	110.6	2.93	1.11	1.13	964	3.431	0.009	0.332	0.314	0.526	0.072
FCR	L	129	2.15	0.07	−0.04	0.03	−91	0.108	0.038	0.288	0.114	0.427	0.071
Egg mass, g/d	L	90	59.41	2.93	0.85	1.89	539	3.652	0.011	0.653	0.799	0.934	<0.001
Egg weight, g	L	99	64.86	1.63	0.25	0.59	394	1.119	0.002	0.678	0.974	0.781	<0.001
Eggshell strength, N	L	83	3.98	0.14	−0.06	0.09	22.3	0.123	0.008	0.511	0.588	0.522	0.339
Eggshell thickness, µm	L	83	38.67	0.95	1.02	1.35	462	3.352	0.014	0.452	0.227	0.011	0.198
Haugh unit	L	83	82.47	1.04	2.06	1.31	420	3.011	0.443	0.123	0.009	0.219	0.231
Digestibility
DMD, %	L	20	63.22	2.11	7.88	3.46	91.4	1.226	0.582	0.949	0.125	0.109	0.254
					−2.14	0.92	84.8	1.189	0.983	0.036
OMD, %	L	10	71.8	1.59	4.90	13.04	41.1	2.863	0.086	0.718	0.718	0.718	0.909
CPD, %	L	24	49.54	6.69	16.89	7.62	116	2.794	0.446	0.793	0.014	0.006	0.006
	Q				−4.42	1.98	111	2.642	0.992	0.044
Serum antioxidant and immune status
MDA, nmol/mL	L	10	9.05	0.73	−24.33	3.02	45.4	2.417	0.024	0.426	0.111	0.070	0.111
	Q				23.94	3.16	24.3		0.953	0.002
SOD, U/mL	L	10	72.14	33.06	18.39	10.24	81.5	12.799	0.171	0.132	0.015	0.028	0.015
	Q				−121.8	31.98	64.6		0.962	0.019
IgG, ng/L	L	11	53.31	14.81	12.99	6.387	63.8	2.738	0.419	0.082	0.002	0.002	0.007
IgM, µg/mL	L	11	2.28	0.40	2.81	0.705	18.5	0.308	0.772	0.005	0.084	0.084	0.027
IgA, ng/L	L	11	40.34	5.34	22.66	7.99	62.8	3.554	0.368	0.025	0.318	0.318	0.282

N: sample size; SE: standard errors; FCR: feed conversion ratio; DMD: dry matter digestibility; HDEP: hen day egg production; OMD: organic matter digestibility; CPD: crude protein digestibility; IgA: immunoglobulin A; IgG: immunoglobulin G; IgM: immunoglobulin M; MDA: Malondialdehyde; SOD: Superoxide dismutase.

AIC: Akaike information criterion; RMSE: root mean-squared errors; R²: coefficient of determinant; L: linear model; L × Strain: p-value of interaction effect between OS levels and strain of laying hens; L × Type: P-value of interaction effect between OS levels and OS types; L × Phase: p-value of interaction effect between OS levels and laying phase.

Table 3. Interaction of the effect of different sources of prebiotics on the performance, egg quality, nutrient digestibility, and immunity of laying hens.

Response variable	N	CON vs TRT						SEM	p Value	Interaction effects
		CON (n = 49)	MOS (n = 35)	FOS (n = 20)	COS (n = 43)	RFOS (n = 10)	XOS (n = 20)			TRT × Strain	TRT × Phase
Performance and egg quality
HDEP, %	165	83.71^b	87.27^a	84.83^b	84.93^ab	84.45^b	84.93^ab	2.435	0.002	0.003	<0.001
Feed intake, g/d	157	111.0	111.5	111.7	111.7	109.0	110.9	3.816	0.752	0.300	0.111
FCR	129	2.22^a	2.11^b	2.18^a	2.15^a	2.16^a	2.14^a	0.090	0.029	0.318	<0.001
Egg mass, g/d	90	58.91	60.49	59.05	59.88	57.71	59.64	5.658	0.888	0.973	0.988
Egg weight, g	99	61.74	61.65	61.91	62.39	61.74	62.83	1.944	0.589	0.785	0.014
Eggshell strength, N	83	3.95	3.97	4.09	3.98	3.69	4.06	0.214	0.365	0.199	0.366
Eggshell thickness, µm	83	38.46^b	38.65^b	44.86^a	37.56^b	37.45^b	40.55^ab	2.224	0.004	0.068	0.020
Haugh unit	83	82.07	82.94	86.44	83.08	82.87	83.21	2.454	0.141	0.021	0.035
DM, %	20	63.77	67.73	–	64.73	63.89	64.73	2.819	0.209	0.110	0.110
OM, %	10	68.8	72.91	–	–	–	–	1.832	0.173	0.032	0.173
CP, %	24	51.31^c	55.78^b	56.22^ab	62.13^a	51.61^c	62.12^a	4.637	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
Serum antioxidant and immune status
MDA, nmol/mL	10	9.02^a	8.79^a	3.35^b	6.79^ab	–	–	1.179	0.039	0.139	0.139
SOD, U/mL	10	69.28	78.04	102.63	77.53	–	–	30.715	0.162	0.396	0.396
IgG, ng/L	11	43.75^b	–	49.78^a	53.87^a	–	–	20.853	0.017	0.057	0.027
IgM, µg/mL	11	2.22^b	–	4.01^a	3.01^a	–	–	0.385	0.032	0.065	0.047
IgA, ng/L	11	30.56	–	40.26	36.79	–	–	14.558	0.232	<0.001	0.332

N: number of data; DMD: dry matter digestibility; FCR: feed conversion ratio; HDEP: hen day egg production; OM: organic matter; CP: crude protein; IgA: immunoglobulin A; IgG: immunoglobulin G; IgM: immunoglobulin M; MDA: Malondialdehyde; OM: Organic Matter; SOD: Superoxide dismutase.

CON: control diet; COS: chitosan oligosaccharide; FOS: fructo-oligosaccharides; MOS: mannan-oligosaccharide; RFOS: Raffinose family oligosaccharides; XOS: xylo-oligosaccharides.

TRT × strain = p-value of interaction effect between TRT (type of OS) and strain of laying hens; TRT × phase = p-value of interaction effect between TRT (type of OS) and laying phase.

Çabuk M, Bozkurt M, Alcicek AH, Çatli AU, Baser KH. 2006. Effect of a dietary essential oil mixture on performance of laying hens in the summer season. South Afr J Anim Sci. 36(4):215–221. doi: 10520/EJC94503.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Li X, Liu L, Li K, Hao K, Xu C. 2007. Effect of fructooligosaccharides and antibiotics on laying performance of chickens and cholesterol content of egg yolk. Brit. Poult. Sci. 148(2):185–189.

 Google Scholar

Yan L, Lee JH, Meng QW, Ao X, Kim IH. 2010. Evaluation of dietary supplementation of delta-amino-levulinic acid and chito-oligosaccharide on production performance, egg quality and hematological characteristics in laying hens. Asian Australas J Anim Sci. 23(8):1028–1033. doi: 10.5713/ajas.2010.90639.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bozkurt M, Küçükyilmaz K, Catli AU, Cinar M, Bintas E, Cöven F. 2012. Performance, egg quality, and immune response of laying hens fed diets supplemented with mannan-Oligosaccharide or an essential oil mixture under moderate and hot environmental conditions. Poult Sci. 91(6):1379–1386. doi: 10.3382/ps.2011-02023.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Drażbo A, Mikulski D, Zduńczyk Z, Szmatowicz B, Rutkowski A, Jankowski J. 2014. Fatty acid composition, physicochemical and sensory properties of eggs from laying hens fed diets containing blue lupine seeds. Poult. Sci. 25(78):245–252. doi: 10.1399/eps.2014.61.

 Google Scholar

Yalçın S, Yalçın S, Onbaşılar İ, Eser H, Şahin A. 2014. Effects of dietary yeast cell wall on performance, egg quality and humoral immune response in laying hens. Ankara Univ Vet Fakult Derg. 61:289–294.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zdunczyk Z, Jankowski J, Rutkowski A, Sosnowska E, Drazbo A, Zdunczyk P, Juskiewicz J. 2014. The composition and enzymatic activity of gut microbiota in laying hens fed diets supplemented with blue lupine seeds. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 191(191):57–66. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2014.01.016.

 Google Scholar

Zdunczyk Z, Mikulski D, Jankowski J, Przybylska-Gornowicz B, Juskiewicz J. 2019. Gastrointestinal response of laying hens to graded dietary inclusion levels of yellow lupine seeds. Anim Feed Sci Tech. 255(255):114214. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2019.114214.

 Google Scholar

Jahanian R, Ashnagar M. 2015. Effect of dietary supplementation of mannan-oligosaccharides on performance, blood metabolites, ileal nutrient digestibility, and gut microflora in Escherichia coli-challenged laying hens. Poult Sci. 94(9):2165–2172. doi: 10.3382/ps/pev180.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Krawczyk M, Przywitowski M, Mikulski D. 2015. Effect of yellow lupine (L. luteus) on the egg yolk fatty acid profile, the physicochemical and sensory properties of eggs, and laying hen performance. Poult Sci. 94(6):1360–1367. doi: 10.3382/ps/pev092.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bozkurt M, Bintaş E, Kırkan Ş, Akşit H, Küçükyılmaz K, Erbaş G, Çabuk M, Akşit D, Parın U, Ege G, et al. 2016. Comparative evaluation of dietary supplementation with mannan oligosaccharide and oregano essential oil in forced molted and fully fed laying hens between 82 and 106 weeks of age. Poult Sci. 95(11):2576–2591. doi: 10.3382/ps/pew140.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ghasemian M, Jahanian R. 2016. Dietary mannan-oligosaccharides supplementation could affect performance, immunocompetence, serum lipid metabolites, intestinal bacterial populations, and ileal nutrient digestibility in aged laying hens. Anim. Feed Sci. and Tech. 213(213):81–89. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.12.012.

 Google Scholar

Koiyama NT, Utimi NB, Santos BR, Bonato MA, Barbalho R, Gameiro AH, Araújo CS, Araújo LF. 2018. Effect of yeast cell wall supplementation in laying hen feed on economic viability, egg production, and egg quality. J. of Appl. Poult. Res. 27(1):116–123. doi: 10.3382/japr/pfx052.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ding XM, Li DD, Bai SP, Wang JP, Zeng QF, Su ZW, Xuan Y, Zhang KY. 2018. Effect of dietary xylo-oligosaccharides on intestinal characteristics, gut microbiota, cecal short-chain fatty acids, and plasma immune parameters of laying hens. Poult Sci. 97(3):874–881. doi: 10.3382/ps/pex372.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Feng Z, Xia Z. 2019. Effects of dietary fructo-oligosaccharides on laying performance and serum biochemical parameters of yellow broiler breeder hens. E3S Web Conf. 131:01081. doi: 10.1051/e3sconf/201913101081.

 Google Scholar

Jiao Y, Jha R, Zhang WL, Kim IH. 2018. Effects of chito-oligosaccharide supplementation on egg production, egg quality and blood profiles in laying hens. IJAR. 53(0):1199–1204. doi: 10.18805/ijar.B-881.

 Google Scholar

Xu Q, Azzam MM, Zou X, Dong X. 2020. Effects of chito-oligosaccharide supplementation on laying performance, egg quality, blood biochemistry, antioxidant capacity and immunity of laying hens during the late laying period. Italian J. of Anim. Sci. 19(1):1180–1187. doi: 10.1080/1828051X.2020.1827991.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhou JM, Zhang HJ, Wu SG, Qiu K, Fu Y, Qi GH, Wang J. 2021. Supplemental Xylooligosaccharide Modulates Intestinal Mucosal Barrier and Cecal Microbiota in Laying Hens Fed Oxidized Fish Oil. Front Microbiol. 2021;12(2):1–15. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.635333.

 Google Scholar

Gu YF, Chen YP, Jin R, Wang C, Wen C, Zhou YM. 2022. Dietary chito-oligosaccharide supplementation alleviates intestinal barrier damage, and oxidative and immunological stress in lipopolysaccharide-challenged laying hens. Poult Sci. 101(4):101701. doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2022.101701.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tao W, Jin F, Fan Q, Zhao N, Wang G, Du E, Chen F, Guo W, Huang S, Chen M, et al. 2022. Effects of chitosan oligosaccharide on production performance, egg quality and ovarian function in laying hens with fatty liver syndrome. Anim. 12(18):2465. doi: 10.3390/ani12182465.

 Google Scholar

Obianwuna UE, Chang XY, Wang J, Zhang HJ, Qi GH, Qiu K, Wu SG. 2022. Dietary fructo-oligosaccharides effectively facilitate the production of high-quality eggs via improving the physiological status of laying hens. Foods. 11(13):1828. doi: 10.3390/foods1113.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wen F, Wang F, Li P, Shi H, Liu N. 2022. Effect of xylo-oligosaccharides on reproduction, lipid metabolism, and adipokines of hens during the late egg‐laying period. Anim Biosci. 35(11):1744–1751. doi: 10.5713/ab.22.0049.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Morgan NK, Wallace A, Bedford MR, González-Ortiz G. 2022. Impact of fermentable fiber, xylo-oligosaccharides and xylanase on laying hen productive performance and nutrient utilization. Poult Sci. 101(12):102210. doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2022.102210.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.