Submit or Track your Manuscript LOG-IN

Effect of Mannan-oligosaccharide Supplementation on Body Growth, Fatty Acid Profile and Organ Morphology of Gilthead Seabream, Sparus aurata

PJZ_50_1_229-240

 

 

Effect of Mannan-oligosaccharide Supplementation on Body Growth, Fatty Acid Profile and Organ Morphology of Gilthead Seabream, Sparus aurata

Serap Gelibolu1,*, Yasemen Yanar2, M. Ayce Genc3 and Ercument Genc4

1Mediterranean Fisheries Research Production and Training Institute, Beymelek, Antalya, Turkey

2Department of Fishing and Fish Processing Technology, Faculty of Fisheries, Çukurova University, 01330, Adana, Turkey

3 Department of Aquaculture, Marine Science and Technology Faculty, Iskenderun Technical University, 31200, Iskenderun, Hatay, Turkey

4Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Faculty of Agriculture, Ankara University, 06200, Ankara, Turkey

ABSTRACT

This study was conducted to assess the impact of mannan-oligosaccharide (MOS) on growth performance, body physiology and tissue morphology of gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata). Treatment of fish with MOS-feed shown a significant increase in live weight and protein efficiency rates when were directly compared with mock-treated fish control. However, there was no statistically supported level of significance was observed for growth rates and feed conversion rates among groups. Improved live weight and protein efficiency rates reflected positively on the survival rate in MOS-fed fish. Interestingly, the whole body and fillet fatty acid composition shown no-correlation between treated and control groups (p>0.05). During the course of whole body examination, a positive correlation between MOS-fed and control-fed fish was observed for monounsaturated fatty acids and polyunsaturated fatty acids. However, these observations were not apparent in fillet samples. Profiling of the hepatic fatty acid clarified insignificant differences between MOS or mock treated groups for saturated fatty acids, monounsaturated fatty acids and polyunsaturated fatty acids values. Histological examination of fish that were fed on a diet supplemented with MOS shown no adverse effects on investigated organs, intestine and the liver. Taken together, it is plausible to state that a diet supplemented with MOS has positive effects on the survival rate and the fatty acids profile without any observable negative impact on body tissues and thus support the safe use of MOS in fish feed.


Article Information

Received 01 June 2016

Revised 21 August 2016

Accepted 22 November 2016

Available online 11 January 2018

Authors’ Contributions

SG, MAG and EG designed the experiment. SG performed experimental work and analyzed the data. SG, YY, MAG and EG wrote the article.

Key words

Mannan-oligosaccharide (MOS), Gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata), Growth, Fatty acid profile, Histology.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjz/2018.50.1.229.240

* Corresponding author: geliboluserap@yahoo.com

0030-9923/2018/0001-0229 $ 9.00/0

Copyright 2018 Zoological Society of Pakistan



INTRODUCTION

 

Global human population is exponentially increasing and it is expected that the world’s population will reach 9.1 billion (34 percent higher than today) by 2050. Current sources of food security are insufficient and thus warrant necessary investments and improved policies in the agricultural production systems. Aquaculture is a promising and rapidly growing sector by contributing approximately 40 percent of total fishery production, around the world (FAO). Specifically, aquaculture products yielded a total of 537.345 tons, which constitute 43.8% of the total fishing industry contribution to the food security in Turkey (TUIK, 2014).

Increasing demands of aquaculture have pressed the need to raise health-standards of fish industry to not only improve productivity but also to provide high-quality food products. Due to intensive production systems, there are higher stresses by the bacterial and viraldiseases with diverse and unexpected pathological outcomes. Using antibiotics, pesticides and other chemical substances for the purpose of enhanced protection and pest controls favor the development of antimicrobial resistance. However, due to global consensus on the restricted use of antibiotics, the use of natural, and environmental-friendly feed additives such as probiotics and prebiotics are receiving higher appreciations to ensure the healthy development of aquaculture (Dimitroglu et al., 2010; Genc et al., 2011; Akrami et al., 2012). One of these feed additives, prebiotics, are defined as oligosaccharide-structured, indigestible nutrient elements that have a positive effect on the host health by temporarily activating proliferation and/or activity of one or several species of microorganisms in the intestinal flora. In other words, probiotics change the flora in the favour of benign bacteria and to limit the growth of pathogens (Gibson and Roberfroid, 1995; Burr and Gatlin, 2005; Bavington and Page, 2005; Sang et al., 2011). In recent years, one of the most important types of prebiotic oligosaccharide additives being used in the feed is mannan-oligosaccharide (MOS). The MOS, obtained from the cell walls of bread yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), is glucomannoprotein, which is a natural alternative additive. The yeast cell wall is comprised of 30% mannan, 30% glucan and 12.5% protein, and carries strong antigenic stimulation effects. Main motivations for the use of MOS as a feed additive include its inhibitory impacts on pathogenic bacteria, stimulation of the immune system, potential to promote growth and to improve feed conversion (Newman, 1994; Patterson and Burkholder, 2003). Due to these positive effects, MOS has been used in diets of poultry and farm animals in order to promote health and growth in recent years (Savage, 1996b; Quigley et al., 1997; Kaufhould et al., 2000; Guclu, 2001; Heinrichs et al., 2003; Sarıkaya and Kucuk, 2009; Kahraman et al., 2010; Yalcınkaya et al., 2011). The positive impact of MOS has been tested on European bass, Dicentrachus labrax (Torrecillas et al., 2007, 2011), Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus (Samrongpan et al., 2006; Sado et al., 2008), hybrid tilapia, Oreochromis mossambicusx Oreochromis niloticus (Genc et al., 2007a), channel catfish, Ictalarus punctatus (Welker et al., 2007), African catfish, Clarias gariepinus, (Genc et al., 2006), rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss (Staykov et al., 2007; Yılmaz et al., 2007; Estrada et al., 2013), carp, Cyprinus carpio (Staykov et al., 2005; Culjak et al., 2006; Genç et al., 2013), Japanese flounder, Paralichthys olivaceus (Ye et al., 2011) European sturgeon, Huso huso (Mansour et al., 2012) and gilthead seabream, Sparus aurata (Gultepe et al., 2011). Diverse studies have concluded that MOS carry positive effects on growth performance, survival rate and live weight gain (Dimitroglou et al., 2010; Gultepe et al., 2011, 2012).

In this study, it was aimed to investigate the effects of MOS containing feed on growth, live weight gain, body composition, fatty acids profiles, and intestinal and hepatic histology of gilthead seabream, Sparus aurata.

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Feed material

Commercial bream feed (5mm, Camlı Yem Inc., İzmir, Turkey) was crushed in a hammer mill (Hammer mill, Kocamaz Tarim, İzmir, Turkey) and perior to addition of MOS the feed of one group (0% group) was separated.

The feeds for rest of groups were supplemented with 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.3% and 0.4% MOS (Sentiguard, Belgium). All feeds were homogenised by a shovel and a hand mixer (Sahin Torna, Antalya, Turkey). The homogenised mixture was pressed into 2 mm diameter pellets with a research-type pelleting machine (Beysan Makina ve Torna, Rize, Turkey) and stored in feedbags post-cooling pellets. The feed was placed in a refrigerator until use. Contents of the feed used in the study are briefly outlined in Table I.

 

Table I.- Ingredients of feed used in the trial groups (% from dry matter).

  M0 M1 M2 M3 M4
Dry matter 92.43 91.76 91.39 91.92 93.23
Ash 12.51 12.73 12.68 12.8 12.37
Protein 45.39 46.1 46.5 46.98 45.35
Lipid 20.34 19.09 19.29 19.4 20.17
Carbohydrate 14.19 13.84 12.92 12.74 15.34
Energy(Kcal/Kg) 5083 4990 4993 5023

5113

 

Experimental design and sampling period

Gilthead seabream, produced during the first period of 2013 at the Mediterranean Fisheries Research Production and Training Institute (Beymelek Hatchery) with initial weights between 4.06 g and 4.09 g were used in this study. The fish were randomly distributed between 15 experimental tanks (350L) in groups of 50 fish per tank. Before the study was commenced, fish were fed with control feed in the morning and afternoon (4% of body weight per day) for an adaptation period of two weeks. The study was conducted with 5 groups and 3 recurrences per group according to the random parcel testing pattern. In order to ensure accurate and stress-free weighing, the fish were anaesthetised with a 0.2 mL/L dose of phenoxyethanol. For all groups, feed was given two times per day (in the morning and afternoons) at 08:30 A.M. and 03:30 A.M., respectively. Fish were fed by a free feeding method until they were sated. The water parameters including pH (Hanna HI98127, Germany), temperature (Dostmann, Germany), salinity (Atago, Japan), dissolved oxygen (OxyGuard, Denmark) and the amount of consumed feed were recorded daily. The average measurements for temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH and salinity values were, 24.77 ± 0.18 °C, 11 ± 0.16 mg/L, 7.68 ± 0.04 and 37.35 ± 0.1 ppt, respectively.

Measurement and analysis

The study was conducted for fifteen weeks with measurement intervals of three weeks. Individual fish was investigated for length and weight and before termination of the study, the live weight gain (LWG), feed conversion ratio (FCR), specific growth ratio (SGR) and protein efficiency ratio (PER) were calculated as suggested by Santihna et al. (1996), Hossu et al. (2001) and Skalli and Robin (2004).

Dry matter, crude ash and protein analyses were conducted in accord with the AOAC (1990) method whereas Bligh and Dyer (1959) method was used for lipid and fatty acid analysis. Samples placed in GC tubes were read in a GC device (Agilent Technologies 7820A GC System, USA) to determine fatty acid contents of each sample. Tissue samples taken from the liver and the anterior sections of small intestines of the fish were used in the study. Tissue samples from livers and small intestines of the fish were fixed in 10% neutral formaldehyde for 48 h before transferring to a graded alcohol (70%, 80% and 96%) series, made transparent in xylol and embedding in paraffin. Finally, 6-7 μm thick sections were cut from the paraffin block using a Leica RM 2125 RT microtome, and the sections were treated with the Haematoxylin-Eosin stain to determine the general structure of the liver. Tissue samples were examined at 40x under an Olympus BX53 microscope and recorded with an Olympus DP72 camera (Takashima and Hibiya, 1995; Pryor et al., 2003; Roberts and Smail, 2004; Genc et al., 2006). The normality and homogeneity of all data were tested using SPSS 15 (SPSS, Chicago, IL) statistical packet software. The variables were first subjected to a normality assessment and in the absence of normal distribution; the data were subjected to a non- parametric one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Finally, the data were analysed with SPSS statistics unilateral variance analysis ANOVA. The Duncan multiple comparison test was used at a significance level of P<0.05 to determine the level of significance between groups. The results were expressed in the format ‘average values ± standard error (avg. ± S.E).

 

RESULTS

 

At the end of 105 days of examination, live weight values and protein efficiency rates of the groups fed with MOS-added feed were found to be statistically lower in comparison to the control group (P<0.05). All groups were found to be similar to each other with regard to live weight gain (LWG), specific growth ratio (SGR) and feed conversion ratio (FCR) (P>0.05). However, a higher survival ratio (SR) was observed in the fish fed with MOS-added feed in comparison to the control group (Table II).

The protein ratio in fillet samples of groups fed with MOS-added feed was found to be higher and statistically different in comparison to the control group. In regard to lipid contents, a statistical difference was found between the control group and groups fed with 0.1% MOS and 0.4% MOS-added feed, respectively (P<0.05). The dry matter was found to be similar in all groups (P>0.05) and in regard to crude ash a statistical difference was found between the control group and group fed with 0.3% MOS (P<0.05) (Table III).

According to the whole body fatty acid profile, results of bream fed with MOS-added feed at the end of testing (Table IV), the fatty acids found in all groups at high levels were C16:0 (palmitic acid), C18:1n-9 (oleic acid), C18:2n-6 (linoleic acid) and C22:6n-3 (DHA).

No statistically significant difference was found between test groups for the saturated fatty acids (SFA) value (P>0.05). Monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs), polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) and ∑n-3 and ∑n-6 fatty acids were found at higher levels in bream fed with MOS-added feed compared to the control groups.

 

Table II.- Effect of mannan-oligosaccharide (MOS) on growth performance of gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata).

 

0%

0.1% MOS

0.2% MOS

0.3% MOS

0.4%MOS

IW (g)

4.09±0.03a

4.08±0.02a

4.07±0.03a

4.06±0.03a

4.06±0.02a

FW (g)

89.81±1.14b

83.48±1.16a

85.84±1.17ab

86.79±1.27a

84.28±1.26a

IL (cm)

6.83±0.02a

6.83±0.02a

6.85±0.02a

6.85±0.02a

6.84±0.02a

FL (cm)

17.26±0.07b

16.87±0.08a

17.03±0.07a

17.07±0.08ab

16.95±0.08a

LWG (g)

85.69±1.67a

79.39±1.13a

81.78±0.39a

82.73±4.24a

80.24±1.76a

SGR

2.94±0.02a

2.87±0.01a

2.90±0.00a

2.92±0.05a

2.89±0.02a

FCR

1.28±0.02a

1.30±0.01a

1.35±0.04a

1.35±0.02a

1.33±0.05a

PER

1.73±0.02b

1.68±0.01ab

1.59±0.05a

1.58±0.02a

1.66±0.06ab

SR

97.33±0.02a

100.00±0.00b

100.00±0.00b

98.67±0.67ab

99.33±0.67ab

Data are expressed as mean values ± standard error. The groups which are shown with different letters at the same line are highly different from each other (P<0.05). IW, initial weight; FW, final weight; IL, initial length; FL, final length; LWG, live weight gain; SGR, specific growth ratio; FCR, feed conversion ratio; PER, protein efficiency ratio; SR, survival ratio.

 

Table III.- Effect of mannan-oligosaccharide (MOS) on fillet dry matter, raw ash, protein and lipids ratio of gilthead seabream (%)*.

  0% 0.1% MOS 0.2% MOS 0.3% MOS 0.4% MOS
Protein

20.60±0.23a*

21.83±0.27b

21.80±0.57ab

21.01±0.38ab

21.22±0.18ab

Lipid

7.94±0.44a

7.67±0.27a

8.64±0.32ab

8.75±0.26ab

10.07±0.91b

Dry matter

31.32±0.22a

32.57±0.42a

33.28±0.90a

31.35±2.44a

34.27±0.63a

Raw ash

3.48±0.26b

3.30±0.57ab

2.56±0.30ab

2.30±0.14a

2.58±0.06ab

Data are expressed as mean values ± standard error. The groups which are shown with different letters at the same line are highly different from each other (P<0.05).

 

Table IV.- Effect of mannan-oligosaccharide (MOS) on whole body fatty acid composition of gilthead seabream.

Fatty acids (mg/g)

0 %

0.1% MOS

0.2% MOS

0.3% MOS

0.4% MOS

14:00

2.34±0.03ab

2.31±0.00a

2.39±0.03b

2.32±0.02ab

2.37±0.02ab

16:00

13.29±0.18ab

13.03±0.06b

13.10±0.03ab

13.01±0.01a

13.29±0.01ab

18:00

3.64±0.06a

3.52±0.14a

3.65±0.04a

3.63±0.01a

3.74±0.03a

∑SFA

19.27±0.27a

19.16±0.20a

19.15±0.04a

18.95±0.03a

19.40±0.00a

16:1n-7

3.68±0.04ab

3.65±0.01a

3.72±0.03ab

3.79±0.06a

3.76±0.11b

18:1n-9c

31.70±0.32a

32.37±0.13b

31.84±0.16ab

32.15±0.03ab

31.95±0.08ab

18:1n-9t

3.17±0.03a

3.28±0.02b

3.24±0.01ab

3.23±0.00ab

3.23±0.01ab

20:1n-9

0.64±0.01a

0.65±0.01ab

0.65±0.00ab

0.65±0.00ab

0.67±0.00b

∑MUFA

39.19±0.41a

39.95±0.15b

39.47±0.14ab

39.69±0.04ab

39.62±0.07ab

18:2n-6 t

14.92±0.13a

15.31±0.02bc

15.42±0.04c

15.39±0.01c

15.15±0.01b

18:3n-3

2.33±0.09a

2.40±0.01a

2.35±0.04a

2.47±0.02a

2.36±0.02a

20:2n-6

0.36±0.00a

0.40±0.02a

0.39±0.32a

0.35±0.01a

0.39±0.02a

20:3n-6

1.51±0.09a

1.53±0.14a

1.39±0.01a

1.41±0.00a

1.38±0.01a

20:4n-6

0.79±0.01a

0.79±0.01a

0.79±0.00a

0.80±0.00a

0.79±0.00a

20:3n-3

0.42±0.00a

0.40±0.01a

0.41±0.01a

0.43±0.00a

0.41±0.00a

20:5n-3

2.90±0.02a

2.89±0.03a

3.00±0.04b

2.94±0.00ab

3.00±0.01b

22:5n-3

1.96±0.02a

2.00±0.00ab

2.08±0.02c

2.08±0.00c

2.02±0.00b

22:6n-3

5.60±0.08a

5.67±0.09ab

5.94±0.10c

5.76±0.02abc

5.88±0.03bc

24:1n-9

0.00±0.00

0.00±0.00

0.00±0.00

0.00±0.00

0.00±0.00

∑PUFA

30.18±0.17a

31.42±0.04b

31.76±0.11c

31.65±0.01bc

31.40±0.02b

18:3n-3

2.33±0.09a

2.40±0.01a

2.35±0.04a

2.47±0.02a

2.36±0.02a

20:3n-3

0.42±0.00a

0.40±0.01a

0.41±0.01a

0.43±0.00a

0.41±0.00a

20:5n-3

2.90±0.02a

2.89±0.03a

3.00±0.04b

2.94±0.00ab

3.00±0.01b

22:5n-3

1.96±0.02a

2.00±0.00ab

2.08±0.02c

2.08±0.00c

2.02±0.00b

22:6n-3

5.60±0.08a

5.67±0.09ab

5.94±0.10c

5.76±0.02abc

5.88±0.03bc

∑n-3

13.23±0.15a

13.37±0.14ab

13.79±0.10c

13.68±0.00bc

13.69±0.02bc

18:2n-6 t

14.92±0.13a

15.31±0.02bc

15.42±0.04c

15.39±0.01c

15.15±0.01b

20:2n-6

0.36±0.00a

0.40±0.02a

0.39±0.32a

0.35±0.01a

0.39±0.02a

20:3n-6

1.51±0.09a

1.53±0.14a

1.39±0.01a

1.41±0.00a

1.38±0.01a

20:4n-6

0.79±0.01a

0.79±0.01a

0.79±0.00a

0.80±0.00a

0.79±0.00a

∑n-6

17.58±0.01a

18.04±0.11b

17.97±0.03b

17.96±0.00b

17.71±0.01a

n-3/n-6 rates

0.75±0.00a

0.74±0.01a

0.76±0.00b

0.76±0.00ab

0.77±0.00b

Each line on the mean±SE is expressed in different letters that show the difference is important (P<0.05). ΣSFA, total saturated fatty acid; ΣMUFA, total monounsaturated fatty acid; ΣPUFA, total polyunsaturated fatty acid.

 

Table V.- Effect of mannan-oligosaccharide (MOS) on fillet fatty acid composition of gilthead seabream.

Fatty acids (mg/g)

0%

0.1% MOS

0.2% MOS

0.3% MOS

0.4% MOS

14:00

2.62±0.02a

2.74±0.03ab

2.79±0.01b

2.73±0.05ab

2.79±0.04b

16:00

13.19±0.08a

13.15±0.03a

13.22±0.22a

13.31±0.06a

13.23±0.19a

18:00

3.32±0.05a

3.22±0.02a

3.22±0.04a

3.33±0.02a

3.34±0.07a

∑SFA

19.13±0.15a

19.11±0.04a

19.23±0.25a

19.37±0.09a

19.36±0.28a

16:1n-7

4.03±0.04a

4.28±0.04c

4.23±0.05bc

4.07±0.06ab

4.11±0.03ab

18:1n-9c

31.46±0.45a

32.78±0.47b

31.44±0.05a

31.99±0.03ab

32.18±0.30ab

18:1n-9t

2.68±0.03a

2.73±0.06a

2.72±0.05a

2.69±0.04a

2.81±0.01a

20:1n-9

2.29±0.02c

2.24±0.02bc

2.18±0.00ab

2.21±0.02ab

2.15±0.02a

22:1n-9

0.38±0.00ab

0.37±0.00a

0.36±0.01a

0.40±0.00b

0.37±0.01ab

∑MUFA

40.15±0.14c

41.01±0.03d

40.09±0.06bc

39.74±0.11a

39.79±0.12ab

18:2n-6 t

14.55±0.02a

14.71±0.05a

14.89±0.20a

14.78±0.07a

14.84±0.05a

18:3n-3

6.94±0.04b

6.88±0.07ab

6.84±0.0ab

6.81±0.03ab

6.72±0.05a

20:2n-6

0.29±0.00b

0.26±0.00a

0.30±0.00b

0.29±0.00b

0.28±0.00ab

20:3n-6

0.65±0.00b

0.64±0.01b

0.62±0.01ab

0.63±0.00b

0.59±0.01a

20:4n-6

0.20±0.00b

0.19±0.00ab

0.18±0.00ab

0.18±0.00ab

0.17±0.00a

20:3n-3

0.42±0.00a

0.44±0.00a

0.42±0.01a

0.43±0.00a

0.43±0.00a

20:5n-3

2.87±0.01ab

2.75±0.02a

2.91±0.06b

2.91±0.04b

2.87±0.05ab

22:5n-3

2.02±0.02a

3.09±0.04b

3.09±0.00b

2.04±0.04a

2.15±0.08a

22:6n-3

5.74±0.07ab

5.45±0.07a

5.85±0.08b

6.08±0.05b

5.93±0.18b

24:1n-9

0.23±0.00a

0.23±0.01a

0.23±0.00a

0.24±0.00a

0.23±0.00a

∑PUFA

34.30±0.17a

35.05±0.26bc

35.72±0.09c

34.80±0.18ab

34.66±0.29ab

18:3n-3

6.94±0.04b

6.88±0.07ab

6.84±0.0ab

6.81±0.03ab

6.72±0.05a

20:3n-3

0.42±0.00a

0.44±0.00a

0.42±0.01a

0.43±0.00a

0.43±0.00a

20:5n-3

2.87±0.01ab

2.75±0.02a

2.91±0.06b

2.91±0.04b

2.87±0.05ab

22:5n-3

2.02±0.02a

3.09±0.04b

3.09±0.00b

2.04±0.04a

2.15±0.08a

22:6n-3

5.74±0.07ab

5.45±0.07a

5.85±0.08b

6.08±0.05b

5.93±0.18b

∑n-3

17.99±0.21a

18.61±0.19bc

19.12±0.16c

18.29±0.11ab

18.12±0.24ab

18:2n-6 t

14.55±0.02a

14.71±0.05a

14.89±0.20a

14.78±0.07a

14.84±0.05a

20:2n-6

0.29±0.00b

0.26±0.00a

0.30±0.00b

0.29±0.00b

0.28±0.00ab

20:3n-6

0.65±0.00b

0.64±0.01b

0.62±0.01ab

0.63±0.00b

0.59±0.01a

20:4n-6

0.20±0.00b

0.19±0.00ab

0.18±0.00ab

0.18±0.00ab

0.17±0.00a

∑n-6

15.71±0.03a

15.81±0.07a

15.99±0.18a

15.89±0.07a

15.89±0.05a

n-3/n-6 rates

1.14±0.01a

1.17±0.00ab

1.19±0.02b

1.15±0.00a

1.14±0.01a

Each line on the mean±SE is expressed in different letters that show the difference is important (P<0.05). ΣSFA, total saturated fatty acid; ΣMUFA, total monounsaturated fatty acid; ΣPUFA, total polyunsaturated fatty acid.

 

According to fillet sample fatty acid profile results (Table V), the dominant fatty acids in all groups were C16:0 (palmitic acid), C18:1n-9 (oleic acid), C18:2n-6 (linoleic acid), C22:6n-3 (DHA) and C18:3n3 (linolenic acid).

SFA values in the groups were found similar to each other (P>0.05). PUFAs and ∑n-3 fatty acids were found at higher levels in fish fed with 0.1% and 0.2% MOS-added feed, while the MUFA level was found higher in fish fed with 0.1% MOS-added feed (P<0.05).

According to the hepatic fatty acids profiling (Table VI), fatty acids found at high levels in all groups were C16:0 (palmitic acid), C18:00 (stearic acid), C18:1n-9 (oleic acid), C18:2n-6 (linoleic acid), C18:3n-6 (alfa-linolenic acid) and C22:6n-3 (DHA).

 

Table VI.- Effect of mannan-oligosaccharide (MOS) on liver fatty acid composition of gilthead seabream.

Fatty acids (mg/g)

0 %

0.1% MOS

0.2% MOS

0.3% MOS

0.4%MOS

14:00

1.67±0.12a

1.72±0.14a

1.65±0.01a

1.78±0.09a

1.76±0.12a

16:00

12.97±0.41a

13.11±0.41a

12.34±0.13a

12.44±0.58a

12.65±0.62a

18:00

5.56±0.04a

5.65±0.29a

5.47±0.22a

5.23±0.37a

5.80±0.35a

∑SFA

20.20±0.28a

20.48±0.30a

19.45±0.28a

19.45±0.81a

20.20±0.84a

16:1n-7

2.69±0.03a

2.70±0.10a

2.66±0.03a

2.80±0.06a

2.75±0.08a

18:1n-9c

33.10±0.97a

32.55±0.58a

32.15±0.35a

31.37±0.36a

33.43±1.42a

18:1n-9t

3.71±0.06b

3.65±0.06ab

3.70±0.04b

3.49±0.01a

3.70±0.07b

20:1n-9

0.41±0.01a

0.39±0.07a

0.47±0.03a

0.39±0.03a

0.47±0.07a

∑MUFA

39.92±1.04a

39.29±0.53a

38.99±0.38a

38.05±0.36a

40.52±1.39a

18:2n-6 t

14.08±0.63a

14.53±0.44a

14.91±0.16a

15.51±0.04a

14.19±1.06a

18:3n-3

2.19±0.04c

1.82±0.16ab

2.03±0.03abc

1.66±0.14a

2.06±0.08bc

18:3n-6

5.12±0.32a

5.04±0.08a

5.20±0.17a

5.36±0.09a

5.02±0.35a

20:2n-6

0.50±0.01a

0.51±0.03a

0.48±0.02a

0.46±0.05a

0.51±0.10a

20:3n-6

0.61±0.08a

1.30±0.16b

1.19±0.05b

1.31±0.09b

1.11±0.08b

20:4n-6

1.14±0.04b

1.14±0.11b

0.48±0.01a

1.12±0.06b

0.49±0.00a

20:3n-3

0.74±0.24ab

0.61±0.08a

1.12±0.01b

0.62±0.16a

1.11±0.02b

20:5n-3

2.40±0.09a

2.69±0.22a

2.65±0.02a

2.78±0.10a

2.43±0.15a

22:5n-3

3.01±0.21a

2.98±0.11a

2.98±0.12a

3.35±0.21a

2.79±0.13a

22:6n-3

7.24±0.04a

9.04±0.42b

8.05±0.20a

9.59±0.39b

7.44±0.28a

∑PUFA

37.05±1.45a

39.69±0.65ab

39.13±0.47ab

41.80±0.18b

37.19±1.95a

18:3n-3

2.19±0.04c

1.82±0.16ab

2.03±0.03abc

1.66±0.14a

2.06±0.08bc

20:3n-3

0.74±0.24ab

0.61±0.08a

1.12±0.01b

0.62±0.16a

1.11±0.02b

20:5n-3

2.40±0.09a

2.69±0.22a

2.65±0.02a

2.78±0.10a

2.43±0.15a

22:5n-3

3.01±0.21a

2.98±0.11a

2.98±0.12a

3.35±0.21a

2.79±0.13a

22:6n-3

7.24±0.04a

9.04±0.42b

8.05±0.20a

9.59±0.39b

7.44±0.28a

∑n-3

15.59±0.50a

17.15±0.40bc

16.21±0.26ab

18.03±0.13c

15.23±0.47a

18:3n-6

5.12±0.32a

5.04±0.08a

5.20±0.17a

5.36±0.09a

5.02±0.35a

18:2n-6 t

14.08±0.63a

14.53±0.44a

14.91±0.16a

15.51±0.04a

14.19±1.06a

20:2n-6

0.50±0.01a

0.51±0.03a

0.48±0.02a

0.46±0.05a

0.51±0.10a

20:3n-6

0.61±0.08a

1.30±0.16b

1.19±0.05b

1.31±0.09b

1.11±0.08b

20:4n-6

1.14±0.04b

1.14±0.11b

0.48±0.01a

1.12±0.06b

0.49±0.00a

∑n-6

21.46±0.95a

22.53±0.55a

22.91±0.26a

23.77±0.15a

21.95±1.49a

n-3/n-6 rates

0.72±0.01a

0.76±0.02a

0.70±0.00a

0.75±0.01a

0.70±0.03a

Each line on the mean±SE is expressed in different letters that show the difference is important (P<0.05). ΣSFA, total saturated fatty acid; ΣMUFA, total monounsaturated fatty acid; ΣPUFA, total polyunsaturated fatty acid.

 

While no statistical difference was observed between trial groups with reference to SFA and MUFA values (P>0.05), the PUFA value was found to be at higher levels in groups fed with MOS-added compared to the 0% group. ∑n-3 fatty acids were found at the highest level in the group fed with 0.3%MOS-added feed (P<0.05). No difference was observed between groups in regards to ∑n-6 fatty acid levels (P>0.05).


 

According to the results of the examination of tissue slides from liver, as an organ deemed to have high vitality in histologic sections, the lipid vacuolisation levels of liver tissues representing different groups, which can be deemed typical for fish in aquaculture conditions, were found to be normal. The presence of villus-like extensions, crypts, intestinal internal epithelia cells and a small number of goblet cells confirm the status of small intestines, and all are at the levels and in the order sufficient to ensure healthy absorption, and no anomaly was caused in gilthead seabream fed with MOS-added feed (Fig. 1).

 

DISCUSSION

 

Results presented in this study confirm previous investigations performed by Dimitroglou et al. (2010) where bream fed with MOS-added feed showed no effect on LWG, SGR, FCR and PER (P>0.05). These results are aligned with the LWG, SGR and FCR results of this study. However, on the other hands, Torrecillas et al. (2011) found that feeding European seabass, Dicentrachus labrax, feed with the Bio-Mos additive (0.4% and 0.6% Bio-Mos), a commercial preparation, caused a positive effect. In addition, Gultepe et al. (2011) reported that gilthead seabream, Sparus aurata fed diet with the Bio-Mos additive, a commercial preparation, increased growth performance. Akrami et al. (2012) and Dimitroglou et al. (2011b) reported that MOS did not affect the FCR and PER values in Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar and Genc et al. (2013) reported the same with regard to carp, Cyprinus caprio. Piccolo et al. (2013) reported that in a similar manner, MOS does not affect the FCR, SGR and PER values in sharpsnout seabream, Diplodus puntazzo. Similar to the results of this study, it was reported that addition of MOS in the feed increases the survival rate in European seabass, Dicentrachus labrax (Burriel, 2006), rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss (Staykov et al., 2007), gilthead seabream, Sparus aurata (Gultepe et al., 2011), Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus (Samrongpan et al., 2006) and catfish, Ictalarus punctatus (Bogut et al., 2000).

It has been reported earlier that addition of MOS in the feed fail to cause any difference in raw protein level in African catfish, Clarias gariepinus (Genc et al., 2006) and fresh water lobster, Astacus leptodactylus (Mazlum et al., 2011) (P>0.05). It was reported that addition of 4.5% MOS in the feed caused an increase in the raw protein level in the flesh of rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss (Yilmaz et al., 2007), and that the amount of the MOS additive in the feed increases (1.5%, 3%, 4.5%), the raw protein level in hybrid tilapia, Oreochromis mossambicus x Oreochromis niloticus also increases (Genc et al., 2007a). Similar to the results of this study in regards to dry matter content, it was reported that MOS addition to the feed did not exhibit a statistical difference between trial groups in fresh water lobster, Astacus leptodactylus (Mazlum et al., 2011), while studies on African catfish, Clarias gariepinus (Genc et al., 2006), rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss (Yilmaz et al., 2007) and hybrid tilapia, Oreochromis mossambicus x Oreochromis niloticus (Genc et al., 2007a) have found that MOS addition in the feed exhibit a statistical difference between trial groups in regard to dry matter content. Previous studies on hybrid tilapia, Oreochromis mossambicus x Oreochromis niloticus (Genc et al., 2007a), rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss (Yılmaz et al., 2007), African catfish, Clarias gariepinus (Genc et al., 2006) and carp, Cyprinus caprio (Genc et al., 2013) also reported that the addition of MOS to the feed did not exhibit any statistical difference between the trial groups in regard to crude ash content (P>0.05). Up-to-date, no complete similarity has been found between studies on various fish species in regard to MOS effects on fish growth performance (Genc et al., 2011). However, it is believed that differences in effects of MOS on growth originate from differences in species, differences in initial weights, trial time and trial condition, the level of MOS use and differences in the MOS source.

Results for whole body dominant fatty acids based the conclusion of this study are similar to other studies related to sea fish (Torrecillas et al., 2007). The SFA values we found as a result of this study were lower than the values reported by Torrecillas et al. (2007) while the MUFA values were found to be higher. The reason for the MUFA values found in this study was higher compared to oleic acid value, whereas the reason for the lower SFA value is the lower palmitic acid value. Similar to the fillet dominant fatty acids, other studies on sea fish including Grigorakis et al. (2002), Pinto et al. (2007) and Lenas et al. (2011) reported the same fatty acids as dominant. The SFA and MUFA values found in this study are close to the SFA and MUFA values reported in the Lenas et al. (2011) study. In rabbits it has been reported that MOS increased the MUFA and PUFA values in a similar fashion as was investigated in this study (Bovera et al., 2012), while it was also reported that MOS increases the MUFA value in Japanese quail (Bonos et al., 2010). The MUFA and PUFA values found by Piccolo et al. (2013) in their MOS-added feed group in their study on sharpsnout seabream (Diplodus puntazzo) were close to the values found in this study. When compared with the SFA values in whole body and fillet samples, the SFA value in the liver was found to be higher. Similarly, the PUFA values in the liver were found to be higher than the PUFA values found in whole body and fillet samples. It is seen that the SFA, MUFA and PUFA values found in this study are congruent with the SFA, MUFA and PUFA values observed by Guerrero et al. (2011), wherein hepatic fatty acid profiles of 12 different sea fish species were examined. In their study on hepatic fatty acids in Gilthead seabream, Nogueira et al. (2013) found SFA, MUFA and PUFA values close to the results of this study. As can be ascertained from the studies mentioned above, the amount and profiles of fatty acids in fish can change according to species, size, age, gender and body section of the fish, as well as type and volume of feed, feeding pattern, geographical region, reproduction status, environmental conditions and the season (Nettleton, 1985; Ackman, 1989; Saito et al., 1999; Lenas et al., 2011). Therefore, results of studies conducted under different trial conditions and on different fish species will naturally provide different conclusions.

The intestinal and hepatic histological results of this study were found to be congruent with the results of Genc et al. (2006). In fact, many studies reported that feeding with MOS-added feed has no negative effect on intestinal and hepatic tissue histology (Genç et al., 2007a) regarding the addition of 0%, 1.5%, 3% and 4.5% MOS in feed for hybrid tilapia, Oreochromis mossambicus x Oreochromis niloticus, Genç et al. (2013) restuls regarding the addition of 0%, 1.5%, 3% and 4.5% MOS in feed for carp fingerlings, Cyprinus caprio, Genç et al. (2007b) study regarding green tiger prawn, Penaeus semisulcatus and Yılmaz et al. (2007) study regarding rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss. The histologic findings of this study are congruent with findings in these studies in the literature. In conclusion, it was certified that the addition of MOS to feed does not cause any negative effect on high vitality tissues involved in digestion in gilthead seabream.

 

CONCLUSIONs

 

This study investigate the potential of MOS as an alternative fish feed additive in the aquaculture of Gilthead seabream of the family Sparidae, which is a natural species of Aegean and Mediterranean regions and is important in Turkish aquaculture system. With the increasing importance of healthy food , replacing harmful substances that might leave residues with natural products for increasing yield becomes desirable. As one such product, mannan-oligosaccharide (MOS), the subject of this study, was tested on gilthead seabream fingerlings for the first time (approximate initial weight of 4 g). In sectorial and commercial assessments of results of this study and according to the relevant market investigations, we have concluded that the cost of MOS is relatively low. Feeds containing varying amounts of MOS were evaluated on bream for a period of 15 weeks. Taken together, it is determined that the use of MOS as a feed additive can’t negatively effect the health of gilthead seabream. We believe that the effects of this product at lower doses on gilthead seabream of different sizes and in larval stages should also be investigated in future, and studies to determine its mechanisms on economical aquaculture species are also required to be investigated. Even though aquaculture benefits from various healthy alternatives, feed additive products in use today have been a subject of research for a long time; studies regarding the use of such products in our country, especially in the field of aquaculture, are relatively new and limited in scope. We believe conducting future studies on the use of these additives, determining their effects and increasing their field of application in protecting animal health and to increase productively will provide benefits for producers of aquaculture feeds as well as sector stakeholders.

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

 

The study was supported by TAGEM/HAYSÜD/13/A-11/P-01/01 and by the Research Fund of University of Çukurova (SUF2011D9).

 

Conflict of interest statement

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

 

REFERENCES

 

Ackman, R.G., 1989. Nutritional composition of fats in sea foods. Progr. Fd. Nutr. Sci., 13: 161-241.

Akrami, R., Razeghi, Mansour, M., Chitsaz, M. and Ziaei, R., 2012. Effect of dietary manan oligosaccharide on growth performance, survival, body composition and some hematological parameters of carp juvenile (Cyprinus carpio). J. Aquacul. Feed Sci. Nutr., 4: 54-60.

AOAC, 1990. Official methods of analysis, 15th Ed. Association of the Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC, USA.

Bavington, C.D. and Page, C.P., 2005. Stopping bacterial adhesion: a novel approach to treating infections. Respiration, 72: 335e44.

Bligh, E.G. and Dyer, W.J., 1959. A rapid method of total lipid extraction and purification. Canadian J. Biochem. Physiol., 37: 911-917. https://doi.org/10.1139/o59-099

Bogut, I., Milakovic, Z., Brkic, S., Novoselic, D. and Bukvic, Z., 2000. Effects of Enterococcus faecium on the growth rate and intestinal microflora in sheat fish (Silurus glanis). Vet. Med. Czech. 45: 107–109.

Bovera, F., Lestingi, A., Iannaccone, F., Tateo, A. and Nizza, A., 2012. Use of dietary mannanoligosaccharides during rabbit fattening period: Effects on growth performance, feed nutrient digestibility, carcass traits, and meat quality. J. Anim. Sci., 90: 3858-3866. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-4119

Bonos, E.M., Christaki, E.V. and Florou-Paneri P.C., 2010. Effect of dietary supplementation of mannan oligosaccharides and acidifier calcium propionate on the performance and carcass quality of japanese quail (Coturnix japonica). Int. J. Poult. Sci., 9: 264-272. https://doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2010.264.272

Burriel, S.T., 2006. Efecto de la Inclusión de Derivados de la Pared Celular de Saccharomyces cerevisiae Sobre el Crimiento, la Utilización del Alimento, el Sistema Inmune y la Resistencia a Enfermedades en Juveniles de Lubina (Dicentrarchus labrax), IV. Master Universitario Internacional en Acuicultura, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Espaňa, pp. 121.

Burr, G. and Gathlin, D., 2005. Microbial ecology of the gastrointestinal tract of fish and the potential application of prebiotics and probiotics in finfish aquaculture. J. World Aquacul. Soc., 36: 425-436. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-7345.2005.tb00390.x

Culjak, V., Bogut, I., Has-Schon, E., Milakovic, Z. and Canecki, K., 2006. Effect of Bio-Mos on performance and health of juvenile carp. Proceedings of Alltech’s 22nd Annual Symposium April 23-26, 2006. Lexington, KY, USA.

Dimitroglou, A., Merrfield, D.L., Spring, P., Sweetman, J., Moate, R. and Davies, S.J., 2010. Effects of mannan oligosaccharide (MOS) supplementation on growth performance, feed utilisation, intestinal histology and gut microbiota of gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata). Aquaculture, 300: 182–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2010.01.015

Dimitroglou, A., reynolds, P., Ravnoy, B., Johnsen, F., Sweetman, J. and Johansen, J., 2011b. The effect of mannan oligosaccharide supplementation on Atlantic salmon smolts (Salmo salar L.) fed diets with high levels of plant proteins. J. Aquacul. Res. Dev., S1: 011.

Estrada, U. R., Satoh, S., Haga, Y., Fushimi, H. and Sweetman, J., 2013. Effects of inactivated Enterococcus faecalis and mannan oligosaccharide and their combination on growth, immunity and disease protection in rainbow trout. N. Am. J. Aquacul., 75: 416-428. https://doi.org/10.1080/15222055.2013.799620

FAO, 2012. FAO fish stat 2012 database.

Genç, M.A., Yılmaz, E. and Genc, E., 2006. Effects of dietary Mannan-oligosaccharide on growth, intestine and liver histology of the African catfish (Clarias gariepinus (Burchell, 1822). E.U. J. Fish. aquat. Sci., 23: 37-41.

Genc, M.A., Yılmaz, E., Genc, E. and Aktaş, M., 2007a. Effects of dietary mannan oligosaccharides (MOS) on growth, body composition, and intestine and liver histology of the hybrid tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus x O. aureus). Israel J. Aquacul., 59: 10-16.

Genç, M.A., Aktas, M., Genc, E. and Yılmaz, E., 2007b. Effects of dietary mannan oligosaccharide on growth, body composition and hepatopancreas histology of Penaeus semisulcatus (De Haan 1844). Aquacul. Nutr., 13: 156-161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2095.2007.00469.x

Genc, E., Genç, M.A., Aktaş, M., Bircan-Yıldırım, Y. and İkizdoğan, A.T., 2011. Utilizing mannan-oligosaccharide (MOS) in aquaculture to raise awareness in Turkey. Eğirdir Su Ürünleri Fak. Derg., 7: 18-24.

Genc, M.A., Sengul, H. and Genc, E., 2013. Effects of dietary mannan oligosaccaharides on growth, body composition, intestine and liver histology of the common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) fry. In: Proceeding of Aquaculture Europe 2013 EAS, Trondheim, Norway.

Gibson, G.R. and Roberfroid, M.B., 1995. Dietary modulasyon of human colonic microbiota: Introducing the concept of prebiotics. J. Nutr., 125: 1401-1412.

Grigorakis, K., Alexis, M.N., Taylor, K.D.A. and Hole, M., 2002. Comparison of wild and cultured gilthead Sea Bream (Sparus aurata); Composition, appearance and seasonal variations. Int. J. Fd. Sci. Technol., 37: 477-484. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2621.2002.00604.x

Guerrero, G.J., L. Venegas-Venegas, E., Rincon-Cervera, M.A. and Suarez, M.D., 2011. Fatty acid profiles of livers from selected marine fish species. J. Fd. Compos. Anal., 24: 217–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2010.07.011

Guçlu, B.K., 2001. Effects of probiotic and prebiotic (mannanoligosaccharide) supplementation on performance, egg quality and hatchability in quail breeders. Ankara Univ. Vet. Fak. Derg., 58: 27-32. https://doi.org/10.1501/Vetfak_0000002445

Gultepe, N., Salnur, S., Hoşsu, B. and Hisar, O., 2011. Dietary supplementation with mannanoligosaccarides (MOS) from bio-Mos enhances growth parameters and digestive capacity of gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata). Aquacul. Nutr., 17: 428-487. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2095.2010.00824.x

Gultepe, N., Hisar, O., Semih, S., Hoşsu, B., Tanrikul, T.T. and Aydın, S., 2012. Preliminary assessment of dietary mannanoligosaccharides on growth performance and health status of gilthead Seabream Sparus auratus. J. Aquat. Anim. Hlth., 24: 37-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/08997659.2012.668508

Heinrichs, A.J., Jones, C.M. and Heinrichs, B.S., 2003. Effects of mannanoligosaccharide or antibiotics in neonatal diets on health and growth of dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci., 86: 4064-4069. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)74018-1

Hossu, B., Korkut, A.Y. and Fırat, A., 2001. Fish nutrition and feed technology I. Ege University Faculty of Fisheries Publications, 50, pp. 295.

Kahraman, Z., Mızrak, C., Yenice, E., Atik, Z. and Tunca, M., 2010. Effects of prebiotic (manan oligosaccaride) supplementation into laying hen diets on the hen performance, egg quality, organs weights, jejunum pH and hatching results. Poultry Research Institute, Ankara.

Kaufhould, J., Hammon, H. and Blum. J., 2000. Fructo-oligosaccharide supplementation: effects on metabolic, endocrine and hematological traits in veal calves. J. Vet. Med. A Physiol. Pathol. Clin. Med., 47: 17-29. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0442.2000.00257.x

Lenas, D., Triantafillou, D.J., Chatziantoniou, S. and NathanailIdes, C., 2011. Fatty acid profile of wild and farmed gilthead sea bream Sparus aurata. J. Verb. Lebensm., 6: 435-440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00003-011-0695-2

Mansour, M.R., Akrami, R., Ghobadi, S.H., Denji, K.A., Ezatrahimi, N. and Gharaei, A., 2012. Effect of dietary mannan oligosaccharide (MOS) on growth performance, survival, body composition, and some hematological parameters in giant sturgeon juvenile (Huso huso Linnaeus, 1754). Fish Physiol. Biochem., 38: 829–835. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10695-011-9570-4

Mazlum, Y., Yılmaz, E., Genç, M.A. and Güner, O., 2011. A preliminary study on the use of mannan oligosaccharides (MOS) in freshwater crayfish, Astacus leptodactylus Eschscholtz, 1823 juvenile diets. Aquacul. Int., 19: 111-119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-010-9345-4

Nettleton, J.A., 1985. Seafood nutrition. Facts, issues and marketing of nutrition in fish and shellfish. Van Nostrand / Reinhold, Osprey Books, New York.

Newman, K., 1994. Mannan-oligosaccharides: Natural polymers with significant impact on the gastrointestinal microflora and the immune system. In: Biotechnology in the feed industry, Proceedings of the 10th Annual Symposium (eds. T.P. Lyons and K.A. Jacques). Nottingham Universty Press, Nottingham, UK, pp. 167-174.

Nogueira, N., Cordeiro, N. and Aveiro, M.J., 2013. Chemical composition, fatty acids profile and cholesterol content of commercialized marine fishes captured in northeastern atlantic. J. Fish. Sci., 7: 271-286. https://doi.org/10.3153/jfscom.2013029

Patterson, J.A. and Burkholder, K.M., 2003. Application of prebiotics and probiotics in poultry production. Poult. Sci., 82: 627-631. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/82.4.627

Piccolo, G., Centoducati, G., Bovera, F., Marrone, R. and Nizza, A., 2013. Effects of mannan oligosaccharide and inulin on sharpsnout seabream (Diplodus puntazzo) in the context of partial fish meal substitution by soybean meal. Italian J. Anim. Sci., 12: 22. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2013.e22

Pinto, F.J., Nunes, M.L. and Cardoso, C., 2007. Feeding interruption and quality of cultured gilthead sea bream. Fd. Chem., 100: 1504–1510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.11.041

Pryor, G.S., Royes, J.B., Chapman, F. and Miles, RD., 2003. Mannan oligosaccharides in fish nutrition: effects of dietary supplementation on growth and gastrointestinal villi structure in Gulf of Mexico sturgeon. N. Am. J. Aquacul., 65: 106-111. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8454(2003)65<106:MIFNEO>2.0.CO;2

Roberts, R.J. and Smail, D.A., 2004. Laboratory methods. In: Fish pathology, 3rd edn (ed. R.J. Roberts) Saunders, London.

Quigley, J.D., Drewry, J.J., Murray, L.M. and Ivey, S.J., 1997. Body weight gain, feed efficiency and fecal scores of dairy calves in response to galactosyl-lactose or antibiotics in milk replacers. J. Dairy Sci., 80: 1751-1754. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)76108-3

Sado, R.Y., Almedia Bicudo, A.J.D. and Cyrino, J.E.P., 2008. Feeding dietary mannan oligosaccharides to juvenile Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus has no effect on haematological parameters and showed decreased feed consumption. J. World Aquacul. Soc., 39: 821–826. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-7345.2008.00219.x

Saito, H., Yamashiro, R., Alasalvar, C. and Konno, T., 1999. Influence of diet on fatty acids of three subtrobical fish, subfamily Caesioninae (Caesio diagramma and C. tile) and family Siganidae (Siganus canaliculatus). Lipids, 34: 1073-1082. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11745-999-0459-4

Samrongpan, C., Areechon, N., Yoonpundh, R. and Srısapoome, P., 2006. Effects of manan-oligosaccharide on growth, survival and disease resistance of Nile Tilapia (Oreochramis niloticus) fry. 8th International Symposium on Tilapia in Aquaculture, pp. 345.

Santinha, P.J.M., Gomes, E.F.S. and Coimbra, J.O., 1996. Effects of protein level of the diet on digestibility and growth of gilthead seabream, (Sparus auratus). Aquacul. Nutr., 2: 81-87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2095.1996.tb00012.x

Sang, H.M., Fotedar, R. and Filer, K., 2011. Effects of diateray manan oligosaccarides on the survival, growth, immunity and digestive enzyme activity of fresh water crayfish Cherax destructor, Clark (1936). Aquacul. Nutr., 17: 629–635. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2095.2010.00812.x

Sarikaya, S. and Kucuk, O., 2009. Effects of mannan oligosaccharides and chromium on performance and some blood levels parameter of calves consuming milk. J. Hlth. Sci., 18: 81-87.

Savage, T.F. and Zakrzewska, E.I., 1996b. The performance of male turkeys fed a starter diet containing a mannan-oligosaccharide (Bio-Mos) from day old to eight weeks of age, Biotechnology in the Feed Industry. Proceedings of Alltech’s 12th Annual Symposium (eds. T.P. Lyons and K.A. Jacques), Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK, pp. 47-54.

Skalli, A. and Robin, J.H., 2004. Requirement of n-3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids for European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) juveniles: growth and fatty acid composition. Aquaculture, 240: 399-415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2004.06.036

SPSS, 2012. Computer program, MS for Windows, version 15.0.1. SPSS Inc., USA.

Staykov, Y., Denev, S. and Spring, p., 2005. Influence of dietary mannan oligosaccharides (Bio-Mos) on growth rate and immune function of common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.). In: Lessons from the past to optimise the future (eds. B. Howell and R. Flos). Eur. Aquacul. Soc. Sp. Publ., 35: 431–432.

Staykov, Y., Spring, E.P., Denev, E.S. and Sweetman, E.J., 2007. Effect of a mannan oligosaccharide on the growth performance and immune status of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquacult. Int., 15: 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-007-9096-z

Takashima, F. and Hibiya, T.T., 1995. An atlas of fish histology normal and pathological features, 2nd edn. Kodansha Ltd., Tokyo.

Torrecillas, S., Makol, A., Caballero, M.J., Montero, D., Robaina, L., Real, F., Sweetman, J., Tort, L. and Izquierdo, M.S., 2007. Immune stimulation and improved infection resistance in European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) fed mananoligosaccharides. Fish Shellf. Immunol., 23: 969-981.

Torrecillas, S., Makol, A., Caballero, M.J., Montero, D. and Gines, R., 2011. Improved feed utilazition, intestinal mucus production and immun parameters in sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) feed manan- oligosaccarides. Aquacul. Nutr., 17: 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2095.2009.00730.x

TUIK, 2014. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/VeriBilgi.do?alt_id=47 (accessed 7 March 2014).

Welker, T.L., Lim, C., Yıldırım M.A., Shelby, R. and Klesius, PH., 2007. Immune response and resistance to stress and Edwardsiella ictaluri, fed diets containing commercial whole-cell yeast or yeast subcomponents. J. World Aquacul. Soc., 38: 24-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-7345.2006.00070.x

Yalcınkaya, İ., Gungor, T., Bafialan, M. and Erdem, E., 2011. Mannan Oligosaccharides (MOS) from Saccharomyces cerevisiae in broilers: Effects on performance and blood biochemistry. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci., 32: 43-48.

Ye, J.D., Wang, K., Li, F.D. and Sun, Y.Z., 2011. Single or combined effects of fructo and mannan-oligosaccarides supplements and Bacillus claussii on the growth feed utilizition, body composition, digestive enzym activity, innate-immun response and lipid metabolism of the Japonose flaunder Paralichthys olivaceus. Aquacul. Nutr., 17: 902–911. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2095.2011.00863.x

Yılmaz, E., Genc, M. A. and Genc, E., 2007. Effects of dietary mannan oligosaccharides on growth, body composition, and intestine and liver histology of rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss. Israeli J. Aquacul. Bamidgeh, 59: 183-189.

To share on other social networks, click on P-share. What are these?

Pakistan Journal of Zoology

August

Vol. 50, Iss. 4, Pages 1199-1600

Featuring

Click here for more

Subscribe Today

Receive free updates on new articles, opportunities and benefits


Subscribe Unsubscribe