Influence of Low and High-density Diets with Yeast Supplementation on Feed Intake, Nutrient Digestibility, Egg Production and Egg Quality in Hy-line Brown Laying Hens

ABSTRACT

A total of 432 laying hens (40 weeks old) were used in a 10- weeks feeding trial. The birds were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatments with 18 replications (6 birds per replication) in a 2×2 factorial arrangement with low-density diet (LD), and high density (HD) diets supplemented with or without (0.1 %) of yeast. Laying hens feed intake during the 5^th, 6^th and 10^th weeks has significantly increased (p<0.05) in LD diet and HD diet supplemented with (0.1 %) of yeast supplementation. However, egg production and broken rate was not affected with or without yeast and density diet. The quality of egg and shell color during the 5^th, 6^th, and 7^th weeks has significantly reduced (p<0.05) by yeast supplementation with HD and LD diet. Eggshell strength was significantly improved at week 4, moreover albumin height was also significantly improved by yeast supplementation diets at week 5. During week 1 and 2 the yolk color was higher in LD diet and HD diet compared with yeast supplementation. However, eggshell strength was significantly improved on HD diets than LD diets during the 4^th and 7^th weeks. Eggshell color and albumen height were significantly decreased in laying hens fed HD or LD diets during week 5 and 6. The apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of dry matter (DM), nitrogen (N), and Energy was not affected (p<0.05) by laying hens fed with or without yeast and HD than LD diets. In summary, 0.1% of yeast supplementation proved a positive impact on feed intake and egg quality of layer chicken.

Keywords:
Brewer’s yeast; Egg production; Egg quality; Hy-line hen; Nutrient digestibility

INTRODUCTION

Nutritional supplements are known as substances that have been applied in animal meals to enhance the quality of feed and quantity of animal products. Different scientific researches were performed to determine the efficacy and mechanism of yeast action. Several yeast products have been developed and used as growth promoters in livestock feed in the past decades. Yeasts with high levels of enzymes, vitamins, and other nutrients have been shown to improve egg production (Yalcin et al., 2008; Tapingkae et al., 2017). In poultry, yeast products have been found to be more effective than other probiotics in improving the characteristics or traits of birds Resinger et al., 2012; Yasar & Desen 2014; Yasar & Yegen (2017). Moreover, yeast has a beneficial impact on the hematology of the blood, resulting in improved animal welfare (Agazzi et al., 2011). Previous studies have favorable results on broiler’s dietary supplementation with S. cerevisiae (Wallace, 1994; Newbold et al., 1995; Gao, 2008). S. cerevisiae makes beneficial changes in the gut microbial population and maintains its natural microbial flora by stimulating the growth and proliferation of beneficial bacteria (Kumar et al., 2019).

Earlier study Abdulrahman, (2013) stated that feeding broiler chicks with 0.1 % S. Cerevisiae, had reduced the strength of aflatoxins and increased the body weight. However, S. Cerevisiae has decreased the risk causing factors and increased the biochemical importance of nitrogen compounds in the animal digestive tract (Stanley et al., 1993; Ozsoy et al., 2018). Moreover, (Obeidat et al., 2018) reported that the addition of yeast with high and low fiber diets in animals and birds could test the hypothesis that the level of the fiber in the diet can affect the efficacy of yeast performance. However, few studies have determined the effect of dietary supplementation of brewer’s yeast on brown laying hens (Yousefi & Karkoodi, 2007). In contrast, some experiments indicate that there was no effect of yeast on dietary intake, feed efficiency, egg yield, and egg size in laying hens (Nursoy et al., 2004; Sacakli et al., 2013; Yalcin et al., 2014). The findings of the above experiment showed a few controversies regarding the effect of adding yeast to laying hen´s diets. Therefore, the current research has been conducted to determine the impact of LD and HD diets with or without yeast supplementation on feed intake, nutrient digestibility, egg production, and egg quality in Hy-line brown laying hens.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experiment protocol used in this research was approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee of Dankook University (DK-1-1708).

Source of brewer’s yeast

The brewer’s yeast (S. cerevisiae) was provided by platinum brewery company, Seoul, South Korea. As per Plantinum Brewery company’s information, the brewer’s yeast contained 4,240 kcal/kg DE, 53.2 % crude protein, 1.8 % crude fat (ether extract) 5.2 % ash, source of brewer’s yeast was previously described (Zhang et al., 2019).

Experimental Design, Birds and Housing

A total of 432 (Hy-line brown) laying hens (40 weeks) were used in a 10-weeks experiment. Laying Hens were randomly allotted to 1 of 4 treatments, 18 replications (6 birds per replication) in a 2×2 factorial arrangement with HD and LD diets supplemented with or without 0.1 % of brewer’s yeast (Table 1). All nutrient diets were formulated to meet or exceed the recommendation of NRC, (2012) except for LD diets, which were below NRC recommendations for brown laying hens and fed in mash form (Table 2). Each cage was provided with free access to water and feed by nipple drinkers and feeders. The laying hens were housed in an environmentally controlled and windowless room. Room temperature was maintained at 21±1°C and had a daily lighting schedule of 16 h light and eight hours dark.

Table 1
Composition of Basal diet (as-fed basis).

Items	Brewer’s yeast
DE (kcal/kg)	4.240
Crude protein	53.2
Crude fat	1.8
Crude fiber	0.8
Ash	5.2
Moisture	6.8
Amino acids
Arginine	2.3
Histamine	1.5
Ile	236
Leucine	296
Lysine	3.20
Methionine	0.88
Cysteine	0.53
TSAA	1.20
Vitamin B complex
Thiamin	3.50
Riboflavin	4.50
Niacin	30.00
VitaminB6	2.30
Folate	0.13
Vitamin B2 (µg)	0.40
Minerals
Calcium	0.15
Potassium	1.11
K	1.48
Calcium	10.0
Magnesium	0.33
Sodium (Na)	0.08
Se, ppm	0.91

Table 2
Dietary composition of low and high nutrient density diets and their analysis.

Raw Materials	Low %	High%
Corn (7mm)	52.7	46
Rice	-	5
Wheat bran	10.99	17.33
Soybean meal (CP 45)	157.0	161.9
Corn gluten	-	0.67
Sesame Meal	2.0	1.5
DDGS (Corn, USA)	20.0	18.4
Palm Kernel Meal	1.85	-
Tallow	0.7	0.7
Limestone	11.01	9.76
MDCP	0.06	-
Salt	0.05	0.11
Methionine (99%, DL-Form)	0.05	0.06
Lysine (50%)	0.27	0.06
Vitamin premix	0.1	0.1
Choline (50%)	0.1	0.1
Mineral premix	0.1	0.1
total	100	100
Calculation Composition, %
Dry matter	89.28	89.28
moisture	0.72	0.72
Crude protein	5.70	5.70
Crude Fat	4.01	4.01
Crude Fiber	3.09	3.09
Crude ash	4.45	4.45
ME (Kcal/kg)	2770	2770
Calcium (%)	4.31	4.31
Tri-calcium phosphate	0.37	0.37
Lysine	0.76	0.76
Methionine	0.38	0.38
Cystamine	0.27	0.27
Threonine	0.58	0.58
Trypsin	0.16	0.16

• ¹
  Tricalcium phosphate contains 32% calcium and 8% phosphorus according to the NRC (1994).
• ²
  Vitamin premix provided (mg/kg diet): 25,000 IU vitamin A; 2,500 IU vitamin D3; 0 mg vitamin E; 2 mg vitamin K3; mg vitamin B; 5 mg vitamin B2; mg vitamin B6; 5 mg vitamin B2; 500 mg folic acid; 35,000 mg niacin; 0,000 mg Ca-Pantothenate and 50 mg biotin.
• ³
  Mineral premix provided (mg/kg diet): 8 mg Mn; 60 mg Zn; 25 mg Cu; 40 mg Fe; 0.3 mg Co; .5 mg I and 0.5 mg Se. ⁴calculation value

Experimental Procedures, Sampling, and Chemical Analyses

Daily records of egg production and egg broken rate, weekly records of feed intake were maintained. The egg production was expressed as an average hen-day production. Also, the quality of the egg was checked weekly from 1 to 10 wk. A total of 180 eggs (5-eggs per treatment) were randomly selected at 5 p.m. and used for quality analysis at 8 p.m. on the same day. The egg quality was determined at 8 p.m. on the day of collection. The weight of the egg was measured using an egg multi tester (Touhoku Rhythm Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). Eggshell breaking strength was determined with the eggshell force gauge (model II, Robotmation Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). A dial pipe gauge (Ozaki MFG. Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) was used to measure eggshell thickness, which was determined based on the average thickness of the rounded end, pointed end, and the middle of the egg, excluding the inner membrane. Finally, egg weight, yolk color, and Haugh unit (HU) were determined using an egg multi-tester (Touhoku Rhythm Co. Lt., Tokyo, Japan). Chromium oxide (Cr₂O₃, 2 g/kg) was added to the laying hen’s diets as an indigestible marker for days before excreta collection to determine the apparent nutrient digestibility of dry matter (DM), nitrogen (N), and energy (E). Excreta samples from each pen were pooled and stored at -20°C until the analysis. Before chemical analysis, the excreta samples were thawed and dried at 70°C for 72 h; then, they were ground fine by 1 mm screen, later stored in the refrigerator at -20°C until analysis (Mountzouris et al., 2010). DM, N, and energy were conducted under the methods established by the AOAC (2000) Chromium levels were determined via UV absorption spectrophotometry (Shimadzu, UV-1201, Japan) according to (Williams et al., 1962). The digestibility was then calculated using the following formula:

$Digestibility\left(\%\right)=\left\{1-\left[\left(Nf\times Cd\right)/\left(Nd\times Cf\right)\right]\right\}\times 100$

Where Nf: nutrient concentration in excreta (%DM), Cd: chromium concentration in the diet (%DM), Nd: nutrient concentration in the diet (%DM), and Cf: chromium concentration in excreta (%DM).

Feed samples were collected at the start of the experiment, and then ground to pass through a 1-mm screen, after nitrogen was determined (Kjeltec 2300 Nitrogen Analyzer; Foss Tecator AB, Hoeganaes, Sweden), and crude protein was calculated as N × 6.25. The gross energy was determined using a bomb colorimeter (Mode 1241; Parr Instrument Co., Molin, IL, USA.

Statistical analyses

All the data were analyzed in a 2×2 factorial using the GLM procedure of the SAS program SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC). Software package (2000). A number of 18 replications was used as the experimental unit. Supplementation of yeast and HD and LD on feed intake, nutrient digestibility, egg production, and egg quality was unaffected. The data were expressed as the standard error of the mean (SEM), and p values <0.05 were considered to statistical significance.

RESULT

Feed intake and egg production

There was no significant effect of yeast supplementation or density diet on feed intake during weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4. (Table 3). However, during the 5^th, 6^th, and 10^th week, a significant increase (p>0.05) in feed intake was seen in birds fed LD diet compared with the birds fed HD diet. The supplementation of yeast showed trends in improvement in feed intake during weeks 5 and 6 (p=0.08, 0.06, respectively). The egg production and egg broken rate were neither significantly affected by yeast supplementation nor the diet density.

Table 3
Effects of low and high -density diets and with or without brewer’s yeast supplementation on feed intake performance, egg quality and egg broken rate in laying hens

Items	LD Diet		HD Diet		SEM	p-value
	-Ye	+Ye	-Ye	+Ye		Den	Ye	Den × Ye
Feed intake (g)
Week 1	120	120	120	120	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
week 2	120	120	120	120	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Week 3	120	120	120	120	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Week 4	120	120	120	120	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Week 5	123	125	131	132	0.95	<.0001	0.08	0.54
Week 6	121	124	130	131	0.76	<.0001	0.06	0.39
Week 7	127	127	128	129	1.25	0.22	0.74	0.34
Week 8	126	126	128	129	1.55	0.12	0.59	0.91
Week 9	128	129	130	130	1.41	0.27	0.86	0.95
Week 10	125	134	133	134	0.70	<.0001	0.00	0.91
Egg production (%)
Week 1	85.91	84.33	86.11	88.29	1.67	0.27	0.22	0.85
week 2	86.51	84.33	85.71	87.70	1.30	0.12	0.33	0.93
Week 3	88.49	87.70	87.50	90.48	18.0	0.31	0.62	0.55
Week 4	86.51	84.52	86.31	86.51	1.26	0.48	0.48	0.39
Week 5	85.50	85.30	8670	88.10	1.29	0.54	0.14	0.64
Week 6	84.33	86.51	84.92	88.89	1.49	0.56	0.33	0.05
Week 7	82.94	84.13	86.71	85.32	1.26	0.53	0.13	0.65
Week 8	83.93	84.13	86.71	85.32	1.26	0.53	0.13	0.65
Week 9	85.32	85.32	87.50	86.90	1.63	0.85	0.26	0.86
Week 10	85.52	85.12	87.90	86.90	2.14	0.89	0.34	0.75
Egg broken rate (%)
Week 1	0.00	0.26	0.00	0.71	0.00	0.08	0.43	0.04
week 2	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.048	0.15	0.12	0.12	0.120
Week 3	0.00	0.24	0.24	0.24	0.15	0.95	0.17	0.95
Week 4	0.22	0.48	0.22	0.00	0.46	0.17	0.41	0.09
Week 5	0.43	0.74	0.00	0.23	0.44	0.55	0.94	0.30
Week 6	0.00	0.76	0.00	0.25	0.39	0.22	0.53	0.53
Week 7	0.00	0.98	0.24	0.48	0.45	0.20	0.42	0.78
Week 8	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Week 9	0.00	0.25	0.23	0.25	0.21	0.53	0.58	0.58
Week 10	0.00	0.00	0.21	0.00	0.10	0.32	0.32	0.32

• ¹
  Abbreviation: HD - High-density, LD - Low-density, With or without yeast (-yeast +yeast). ²Number of replicates: 18 replications (6 birds per replication). ³Standard error of means (SEM²). ⁴p-value (p<0.05).

Egg quality

The results of the egg quality with or without yeast supplementation to HD and LD diets are present in table 4. The supplementation of 0.1% yeast into the diet of laying hens significantly reduced (p<0.05) shell color during weeks 5, 6, and 7. However, a significant improvement (p<0.05) was seen in the eggshell strength during week four and albumen height during week 5 in birds fed yeast supplemented diet. During weeks 1 and 2, the yolk color was higher in the birds fed the LD diets compared with the HD diets. A significant increase in the eggshell strength (week 4) and the egg weight (week 4 and 7) was seen in the birds fed the HD diets than the LD diets whereas a significant reduction in shell color (week 5), and albumen height (week 6) was observed in thebirds fed the HD diets.

Table 4
Effects of low and high-density diets and with or without brewer’s yeast supplementation on egg quality in laying hens.

Items	LD Diet		HD Diet		SEM	p-value
	-Ye	+Ye	-Ye	+Ye		Den	Ye	Den × Ye
Week 1
Egg weight, g	63.95	61.83	63.94	62.80	0.84	0.63	0.06	0.63
Yolk color	7.15	7.10	6.80	7.0	0.06	0.04	0.00	0.32
HU	88.62	91.11	90.76	85.82	1.25	0.8	0.28	0.00
Albumen height	8.17	8.50	8.53	7.6	0.19	0.26	0.12	0.00
Shell color	10.03	10.63	8.93	11.80	0.49	0.84	0.00	0.04
Egg shell strength kg/cm2	4.16	3.65	3.66	4.10	0.13	0.78	0.72	0.02
Eggshell thickness, mm-2	46.01	45.18	44.48	46.90	0.55	0.97	0.12	0.00
Week 2
Egg weight, g	64.70	63.72	64.98	63.55	0.74	0.94	0.12	0.76
Yolk color	7.11	7.12	6..81	7.03	0.07	0.01	0.16	0.16
HU	88.04	90.29	88.40	90.29	2.21	0.40	0.22	0.80
Albumen height	8.4	8.23	8.23	8.84	0.45	0.46	0.39	0.66
Shell color	11.47	11.70	11.70	11.90	0.43	0.82	0.50	0.82
Egg shell strength kg/cm2	4.30	4.35	4.17	4.30	0.13	0.53	0.47	0.85
Eggshell thickness, mm-2	39.98	39.84	39.99	39.36	0.41	0.57	0.35	0.57
Week 3
Egg weight, g	65.40	63.06	65.54	63.0	0.75	0.97	0.00	0.91
Yolk color	6.86	7.13	6.75	7.30	0.33	0.93	0.24	0.91
HU	94.08	96.44	90.41	93.76	8.38	0.48	0.16	0.31
Albumen height	9.92	9.17	9.17	9.14	0.52	0.46	0.48	0.52
Shell color	10.67	10.60	9.87	9.90	0.33	0.05	0.77	0.77
Egg shell strength kg/cm2	3.98	4.04	3.51	3.76	0.11	0.00	0.15	0.34
Eggshell thickness, mm-2	37.66	37.20	37.46	36.47	0.39	0.23	0.08	0.51
Week 4
Egg weight, g	62.81	62.90	64.00	64.80	0.66	0.03	0.5	0.59
Yolk color	6.56	6.77	6.44	6.81	0.08	0.89	0.00	0.37
HU	84.90	86.83	87.02	85.55	0.75	0.59	0.76	0.04
Albumen height	7.37	7.70	7.81	7.72	0.72	0.82	0.31	0.11
Shell color	10.07	9.43	9.63	11.00	0.24	0.38	0.16	0.00
Egg shell strength kg/cm2	3.69	4.23	4.18	4.25	0.12	0.03	0.02	0.03
Eggshell thickness, mm-2	46.47	45.98	46.98	46.72	0.58	0.29	0.51	0.82
Week 5
Egg weight, g	63.09	63.26	62.11	62.40	0.75	0.24	0.76	0.96
Yolk color	7.01	7.10	6.41	6.99	0.08	0.00	0.00	0.01
HU	82.97	86.5	80.01	83.41	1.86	0.12	0.07	0.94
Albumen height	7.27	7.78	7.01	7.42	0.20	0.17	0.04	0.66
Shell color	10.50	10.17	10.13	8.60	0.44	0.03	0.03	0.18
Egg shell strength kg/cm2	3.83	4.01	4.15	4.08	0.21	0.30	0.65	0.44
Eggshell thickness, mm-2	38.92	38.18	39.21	37.81	0.61	0.94	0.09	0.61
Week 6
Egg weight, g	63.83	64.12	64.44	62.43	0.74	0.46	0.23	0.13
Yolk color	6.71	6.97	6.54	7.04	4.92	0.32	0.36	0.32
HU	90.27	89.17	88.05	87.88	0.92	0.07	0.6	0.61
Albumen height	8.84	8.16	8.08	7.90	0.18	0.01	0.40	0.18
Shell color	12.50	11.53	11.60	10.77	0.45	0.07	0.03	0.07
Egg shell strength kg/cm2	3.69	4.02	4.22	3.98	0.16	0.22	0.92	0.08
Eggshell thickness, mm-2	39.83	37.06	45.06	38.79	0.95	0.02	0.00	0.73
Week 7
Egg weight, g	61.50	65.93	65.12	65.80	0.67	0.02	0.00	0.01
Yolk color	6.69	6.53	6.93	6.82	0.08	0.00	0.13	0.90
HU	79.57	80.59	83.84	78.11	0.69	0.62	0.19	0.86
Albumen height	6.67	6.95	7.43	6.56	0.25	0.59	0.29	0.05
Shell color	10.37	9.93	10.63	9.10	0.37	0.47	0.01	0.18
Egg shell strength kg/cm2	4.06	3.66	3.58	3.66	0.09	0.00	0.59	0.24
Eggshell thickness, mm-2	39.30	38.44	39.0	38.73	0.59	0.81	0.48	0.57
Week 8
Egg weight, g	6.65	64.34	66.12	62.56	3.90	0.48	.64	0.69
Yolk color	6.97	7.01	6.84	6.69	13.34	0.89	0.99	0.94
HU	87.79	89.47	87.65	84.77	2.26	0.13	0.90	0.48
Albumen height	8.35	8.59	8.24	7.44	13.16	0.86	0.90	0.92
Shell color	10.53	10.27	9.27	9.60	0.39	0.06	0.71	0.71
Egg shell strength kg/cm2	3.83	3.60	4.01	3.91	13.86	0.90	0.99	0.95
Eggshell thickness, mm-2	37.67	35.13	38.12	38.1	8.42	0.86	0.90	0.92
Week 9
Egg weight, g	65.3	64.29	65.91	62.95	3.86	0.60	0.82	0.72
Yolk color	6.71	6.78	6.85	6.79	13.36	0.89	0.99	0.95
HU	89.51	84.47	87.84	83.14	1.39	0.08	0.10	0.61
Albumen height	11.57	7.55	9.29	7.30	13.02	0.85	0.91	0.98
Shell color	10.10	10.37	9.30	9.97	12.84	0.87	0.97	0.95
Egg shell strength kg/cm2	3.65	3.63	3.64	3.69	13.89	0.90	0.99	0.95
Eggshell thickness, mm-2	35.90	35.70	36.50	36.74	8.49	0.87	0.98	0.93
Week 10
Egg weight, g	64.43	66.20	64.88	62.50	3.90	0.51	0.99	0.62
Yolk color	6.86	6.83	6.30	6.89	13.37	0.88	0.97	0.94
HU	83.30	86.20	85.42	87.22	1.62	0.54	0.42	0.47
Albumen height	6.84	7.71	7.83	7.91	3.24	0.91	0.97	0.94
Shell color	8.80	9.77	9.37	11.33	12.86	0.92	0.94	0.96
Egg shell strength kg/cm2	3.47	3.88	9.94	3.76	3.87	0.90	0.98	0.94
Eggshell thickness, mm-2	36.01	35.32	36.78	36.93	8.49	0.88	0.99	0.94

• ¹
  Abbreviation: HD - High-density, LD - Low-density, With or without yeast (-yeast +yeast) ²Number of replicates: 18 replications (6 birds per replication) ³Standard error of means (SEM). ⁴p-value: (p<0.05).

Apparent total tract nutrient digestibility

The effects of yeast supplementation to LD and HD diets on the ATTD of DM, N, and energy are presented in Table 5. The nutrient digestibility remained unaffected (p<0.05) in the birds fed yeast supplemented versus non -supplemented diets and between the birds fed HD versus LD diets.

Table 5
Effects of low and high-density diets and with or without brewer’s yeast supplementation on digestibility in laying hens.

Itens	Ld Diet			HD Diet		SEM	p-value
	-Ye	+Ye		-Ye	+Ye		Den	Ye	Den × Ye
DM	74.89	74.60		75.38	74.96	0.58	0.48	0.56	0.90
Nitrogen	73.31	72.81		73.76	73.45	0.53	0.49	0.31	0.63
Energy	75.49	75.13		75.78	75.61	0.58	0.52	0.66	0.87

• ¹
  Abbreviation: HD - High-density, LD - Low-density, With or without yeast (-yeast +yeast)
• ²
  Number of replicates: 18 replications (6 birds per replication)
• ³
  Standard error of means (SEM²).
• ⁴
  p-Value (p<0.05).

DISCUSSION

The present research aimed to investigate the effect of HD and LD diets, diets with or without yeast, performance on the feed intake, egg quality, and nutrient digestibility of laying hens. Previous research indicated that yeast supplementation in laying hens’ diet had a beneficial impact on feed intake (Ozsoy et al., 2018), which agrees with our study. In the present study, yeast supplementation or diet density was significantly improved on feed intake of laying hens. On the other hand, Liu et al. (2002) and Sacakli et al. (2013) stated that the inclusion of yeast culture supplementation (0.2%) had a significant effect on feed intake during the overall experiment in laying hens. In contrast, Sehu et al. (1997) and Sacakli et al. (2013) demonstrated that inactivated yeast diets at levels of 5, 10, or 15% did not affect feed intake in quails. Maybe this contradictory result between various experiments was due to the animals, variation in the amount of yeast concentration, and differences in dietary compositions. The present study revealed that dietary inclusion of yeast and density diets in laying hens had no statistical difference in egg production and broken rate. These results are consistent with those of previous studies (Ayanwale et al., 2006; Asli et al., 2007; Yousefi & Karkoodi, 2007) and egg broken rate (Day et al., 1987; Alabi et al., 2011). (Hassanein & Soliman, 2010) demonstrated that hens egg production was positively affected in higher concentration 0.4, 0.8, 1.2, and 1.6% of yeast supplementation. However, Araujo et al. (2017) and Park et al. (2020) reported that the addition of the diet of the breeder hens with the hydrolyzed yeast resulted in a 2.14% improvement in egg production and broken rate. Therefore, it may be due to the bird’s age, heat stress, inadequate nutrient problems in a feed (calcium and vitamin D3), and yeast concentration.

In the present study, yeast supplementation with LD and HD diets had a significant reduction during the 5^th to the 7^th wk in eggshell color in laying hens, which is in agreement with the previous study (Odabasis et al., 2007). On the other hand, in longitudinal research on the effect of brown laying hen´s eggshell color, no difference was observed between the eggshell color during weeks 35 to 75. Still, on the 25th wk, the eggshell color significantly increased compared to all other age groups (Samiullah et al., 2014). However, Hutt (1949) and Wei et al. (1992) suggested that hens’ ages and generations might cause less pigmentation on individual eggs. Also, the eggshell strength and albumen height were significantly increased by the inclusion of yeast supplementation diet in this study. A similar result was observed by (EL-Kaiaty et al., 2019). Also, (Alabi et al., 2011) reported that a yeast supplementation diet had a positive impact on eggshell strength and albumen height. In contrast, (Hosseini et al., 2006) stated that there were no positive effects of yeast supplementation on hen’s eggshell strength. However, Park et al. (2020) indicated that yeast supplementation did not have a significant effect on eggshell breaking strength. The significant improvement in egg strength may be due to calcium absorption, age of birds, and yeast concentration in the feed. In this present study, the yolk color was higher on birds fed LD compared with HD diets. Similarly, the previous report showed that yolk color was significantly affected by a high concentration of yeast supplementation reported by (Parvu & Paraschivescu, 2014). Moreover, (Martinez et al., 2010) showed that yolk color was not affected by yeast products (S. cerevisiae). That may be due to the different nutrients in feed such as yeast and corn and soybeans. In the present study, eggshell strength and egg weight was significantly higher on bird’s fed HD than LD diet. These results are consistent with those of other researches (Swain et al., 2011). Previously Wu et al. (2007) stated that the high nutrient density diet has significant improvement in egg weight. On the other hand, Jalal et al. (2006) and Hayam et al., (2015) stated with contradictory statements that high nutritional density diet intake of laying hens had no significant effect on egg weight. Therefore, the results of the present study may be due to the age of the chickens and the concentration of yeast.

The significantly reduced eggshell color and albumen height was observed in birds fed the HD diets. Similar results were observed in the previous reports of Koiyama et al. (2017) and Shi et al. (2009). The albumen height was not affected by HD or LD diets (Lu et al., 2019). (Menezes et al., 2012) showed that the laying hens age and room temperature had an effect on albumen height; hens age at 35 weeks (5.836 mm) compared with 50 weeks (4.487 mm). Our results may be due to the laying period (phase) of the chickens and the physiological changes in the egg composition.

In the current research, dietary yeast supplementation had no significant effect on nutrient digestibility of DM, Nitrogen, and Energy with HD or LD diets. The outcome of the study can moderately explain the lack of effect of yeast supplemented on production performance. Similarly, Park et al. (2020) showed that (S. cerevisiae) did not have a significant effect on nutrient digestibility of DM. The inclusion of yeast supplementation diets did not affect the nutrient digestibility of nitrogen in laying hens (Cai et al., 2014). Also, the nutrient digestibility of DM or energy was not affected by yeast culture supplementation (from 500 to 75,000 mg/kg) on weaning pigs and chicken (Van -Heugten et al., 2003; Gao et al., 2008; Morales-López et al., 2010; Cai et al., 2014). (Chademana & Offer, 1990; Haddad & Goussous, 2005; Dias et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2019) reported that supplementation of yeast culture can improve nutrient digestibility in sheep and lambs. However, Park et al. (2020) reported that brewer’s yeast supplement can linearly increase nutrient digestibility of DM and N in laying hens. This variation happened due to the amount of the yeast, experimental animals, and yeast density diets.

CONCLUSION

The present study will be the base of future research. The inclusion of yeast supplementation to HD and LD diets of laying hens has improved feed intake and egg quality. However, egg production and nutrient digestion were not affected by yeast supplementation in HD and LD diets. Therefore, further research with HD and LD diets with various levels of yeast supplementation is needed to understand laying hens on performance.

REFERENCE

• Abdulrahman MM. Effects of feeding dry fat and yeast culture on broiler chicken performance. Turk. Journal of Veterinary Animal Science 2013;37:31-37.
• Agazzi A, Ferroni M, Fanelli A, Maroccolo S, Invernizzi G, Dell Orto V, et al. Evaluation of the effects of live yeast supplementation on apparent digestibility of high-fiber diet in mature horses using the acid insoluble ash marker modified method. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 2011;31(1):13-18.
• Alabi OJ, Shiwoya EL, Ayaniuwale BA, Mbajiorgu CA, Ngambi JW, Egena SSA. Effects of dried baker's yeast inclusion in rice huks -based diets on performace and egg quality parameters in laying hens. Indian Journal of Animal Research 2011;46:56-60.
• AOAC. Official methods of analysis. 17th ed. Gaithersburg (MD): Association of Official Analytical Chememists; 2000.
• Araujo LF, Bonato M, Barbalho R, Araujo CSS, Zorzetto PS, Granghelli CA, et al. Evaluating hydrolyzed yeast in the diet of broiler breeder hens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 2017;27:65-70
• Asli MM, Hosseni SA, Lotfollahian H, Shriantmadari F. Effects of probiotics, yeast vitamin E and vitamin C supplements on performance and immune response of laying hen environmental temperature. International Journal of Poultry Science 2000;6(12):895-900.
• Ayanwale BA, Kpe M, Ayanwale VA. The effects of supplementing saccharomyces cerevisiae in the diets on egg laying and egg quality characteristics of pullets. International Journal of Poultry Science 2006;5:759-763.
• Cai L, Park YS, Seong SI, Yoo SW, Kim IH. Effects of rare earth elements enriched yeast on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, meat quality, relative organ weight, and excreta microflora in broiler chickens. Livestock Science 2014;172:43-49.
• Chademana I, Offer NW. The effect of dietary inclusion of yeast culture on digestion in the sheep. Animal Production 1990;50:483-489.
• Day EJ, Dilworth BC, Omar S. Effect of varying levels of phosphorus and live yeast culture in caged layer diets. Poultry Science 1987;66:1402-1410.
• Dias ALG, Freitas JA, Micai B, Azevedo RA, Greco LF, Santos JEP. Effect of supplemental yeast culture and dietary starch content on rumen fermentation and digestion in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 2017;101:201-221.
• El-Kaiaty AM, Badran AM, Bayoumi AA, Abeir A, Eshera, O, El-Sayed A. Effect of dietary yeast supplementation on productive performance, eggshell quality and lipid profile of laying hens. Egyptian Poultry Science Journal 2019;39(2):567-578.
• Gao J, Zhang HJ, Yu SH, Wu SG, Yoon I, Quigley J, et al. Effects of yeast culture in broiler diets on performance and immunomodulatory functions. Poultry Science 2008;87:1377-1384.
• Haddad SG, Goussous SN. Effect of yeast culture supplementation on nutrient intake, digestibility and growth performance of awassi lambs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 2005;118:343-348.
• Hassanein SM, Soliman NK. Effect of probiotic (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) adding to diets on intestinal microflora and performance of Hy-Line layings hens. Journal of American Science 2010;6(11):159-169.
• Hayam MA, Abo El-Maaty, Ismail FSA, Rabie MH, Aswad A.Q. Effects of feeding high-nutrient-density diets on performance of bovans white hens reared under summer conditions in Egypt. Journal of Animal and Poultry Production 2015;1:597-608.
• Hosseini SA, Lotfollahian H, Kamyab A, Mahdavi A. Study on the effect of yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae SC47) utilization on the commercial layer hen's performance. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 2006;9(12):2346-2349.
• Hutt FB. Variations in color of the shell. In: Hutt FB. Genetics of the fowl. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company;1949. p.380-386.
• Jalal MA, Scheideler SE, Marx D. Effect of bird cage space and dietary metabolizable energy level on production parameters in laying hens. Poultry Science 2006;85:306-311.
• Koiyama NTG, Utimi NBP, Santos BRL, Bonato MA, Barbalho R, Gameiro AH, et al. Effect of yeast cell wall supplementation in laying hen feed on economic viability, egg production, and egg quality. The Journal of Applied Poultry Research 2017;27:116-123.
• Kumar SP, Yadav G, Chandra DS, Sahu R, Kumar PS, Maurya DK, et al. Effect of dietary supplementation of yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) onperformance and hemato-biochemical status of broilers. Indian Journal of Poultry Science 2019;54(1):15-19.
• Liu Z, Qi G, Yoon I. Effect of yeast culture on production parameters and intestinal microflora in laying hens. Abstracts of the 91st Annual Meeting; 2002; Newark: Poultry Science Association; 2002. p.89.
• Lu J, Qu L, Shen MM, Wang XG, Guo J, Hu YP et al. Effects of high-dose selenium-enriched yeast on laying performance, egg quality, clinical blood parameters, organ development, and selenium deposition in laying hens. Poultry Science 2019;98(6):2522-2530.
• Martinez BF, Contreras AA, Ernesto AG. Use of Saccharomyces cerevisiae cell walls in diets for two genetic strains of laying hens reared in floor and cages. International Journal of Poultry Science 2010;9:105-108.
• Menezes PC, Lima ER, Medeiros JP, Oliveira WNK, Evnecio-Neto J. Egg quality of laying hens in different conditions of storage, ages and housing densities. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 2012;41:2064-2069.
• Morales-Lopez R, Auclair E, Van Immerseel F, Ducatelle R, García F, Brufau J. Effects of different yeast cell wall supplements added to maize-or wheat-based diets for broiler chickens. British Poultry Science 2010;51:399-408.
• Mountzouris KC, Tsirtsikos P, Palamidi I, Arvaniti A, Mohnl M, Schatzmayr G, et al. Effects of probiotic inclusion levels in broiler nutrition on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, plasma immunoglobulins, and caecal microflora composition. Poultry Science 2010;89:58-67.
• National Research Council, NRC. Nutrient requirements of swine, 11th rev. edition. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press. 2012.
• Newbold CJ, Wallace RJ, Chen XB, Mcintosh FM. Different strains of (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) differ in their effects on ruminal bacterial numbers in vitro and in sheep. Journal of Animal Science, 1995;73:1811-1818.
• NRC. Nutrient requirements of poultry. 9th ed. Washington: National Academy Press; 1994.
• Nursoy H, Kaplan O, Oguz N, Yilmaz O. Effects of varying levels of live yeast culture on yield and some parameters in laying hen diets. Indian Veterinary Journal 2004;81:59-62.
• Obeidat B, Mahamoud KZ, Obeidat MD, Ata M, Kridli RT, Haddad SG, et al. The effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae supplementation on intake nutrient digestibility, and rumen fluid pH in Awassi female lambs. Veterinary World 2018;11:1015-1020.
• Odabasis AZ, Miles RD, Balaban MO, Portier KM. Changes in brown eggshell color as the hen eggs. Poultry Science 2007;86:356-363.
• Ozsoy B, Karadagoglu O, Yakan A, Onk K, Çelik E, Sahin T. The role of yeast culture (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) on performance, egg yolk fatty acid composition, and fecal microflora of laying hens. Brazilian Journal of Animal Science 2018;47:e20170159.
• Park JH, Sureshkumar S, Kim IH. Egg production, egg quality, nutrient digestibility, and excreta microflora of laying hens fed with a diet containing brewer's yeast hydrolysate. Journal of Applied Animal Research 2020;48:(1):492-498,
• Parvu M, Paraschivescu MT. Feeding rhodotorula rubra yeast in egg yolk pigmentation (II). Romanian Biotechnological Letters 2014;19:6.
• Reisinger N, Ganner A, Masching S, Schatzmayr G, Applegate TJ. Efficacy of a yeast derivative on broiler performance, intestinal morphology and blood profile. Livestock Science 2012;143:195-200.
• Sacakli P, Ergun A, Koksal BH, Ozsoy B, Cantekin Z. Effects of inactivated brewer's yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) on egg production, serum antibody titres and cholesterol levels in laying hens. Veterinarija ir Zootechnika 2013;61: 83.
• Samiullah S, Roberts JR, Chousalkar K. Eggshell color in brown-egg laying hens -a review. Poultry Science 2015;94:2566-2575.
• Sehu A, Yalcin S, Karakas F. Bildircin rasyonlarina katilan ekmek mayasinin büyüme ve karkas randimanina etkisi. Turkish Journal of Veterinary Animal Science 1997;21:221-226.
• Shi SR, Wang KH, Dou TC, Yang HM. Egg weight affects some quality traits of chicken eggs. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment 2009;7:432-434.
• Stanley VG, Ojo R, Woldesenbet S, Hutchinson DH, Kubena L. The use of (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) to suppress the effects of aflatoxicosis in broiler chicks. Poultry Science1993;72(10):1867-1872.
• Swain BK, Naik PK, Chakurkar EB, Singh NP. Effect of probiotic and yeast supplementation on performance, egg quality characteristics and economics of production in Vanaraja layers. Indian Journal of Poultry Science 2011;46:313-315.
• Tapingkae W, Panyachai K, Yachai M, Doan HV. Effects of dietary red yeast (Sporidiobolus pararoseus) on production performance and egg quality of laying hens. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 2017;102(1):337-344.
• Van- Heugten E, Funderburke DW, Dorton KL. Growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and fecal microflora in weanling pigs fed live yeast. Journal of Animal Science 2003;81:1004-1012.
• Wallace RJ. Ruminal microbiology, biotechnology and ruminant nutrition: progress and problems. Journal of Animal Science 1994;72:2992-3003.
• Wei RJ, Bitgood J, Dentine MR. Inheritance of tinted eggshell colors in white-shell stocks. Poultry Science, 1992;71:406-418.
• Williams CH, David DJ, Lismaa O. The determination of chromic oxide in faeces samples by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Journal of Agricultural Science 1962;59:381-385.
• Wu G, Bryant MM, Gunawardana P, Roland-Sr DA, Effect of nutrient density on performance, egg components, egg solids, egg quality, and profits in eight commercial leghorn strains during phase one. Poultry Science 2007;86:691-697.
• Yalcin S, Ozsoy B, Erol H, Yalcin S. Yeast culture supplementation to laying hen diets containing soybean meal or sunflower seed meal and its effect on performance, egg quality traits and blood chemistry. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 2008;17:229-236.
• Yalçin S, Yalçin S, Onbasilar I, Eser H, Sahin A. Effects of dietary yeast cell wall on performance, egg quality and humoral immune response in laying hens. Ankara Universitesi Veteriner Fakultesi Dergisi 2014;61:(6) 289-294.
• Yasar S, Desen DE. Efficacy of a feed probiotic bacteria (Enterococcus faecium NCIMB 10415), spore (Bacillus subtilis ATCC PTA-6737) and yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) in Japanese quails. Bulletin UASVM Animal Science and Biotechnology 2014;71:63-70.
• Yasar S, Yegen MK. Yeast fermented additive enhances broiler growth. Brazilian Journal of Animal Science 2017;46(10):814-820.
• Yousefi M, Karkoodi K. Effect of probiotic Thepax and (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) supplementation on performance and egg quality of laying hens. Int. Journal of Poultry Science 2007;6:52-54.
• Zhang JC, Chen P, Zhang C, Khalil MM, Zhang NY, Qi DS, Sun LH. Yeast culture promotes the production of aged laying hens by improving intestinal digestive enzyme activities and the intestinal health status. Poultry Science 2019;99(4):2026-2032.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  22 Oct 2021
• Date of issue
  2021

History

• Received
  17 Dec 2020
• Accepted
  11 May 2021