Effects of in ovo injection of carbohydrates on embryonic metabolism, hatchability, and subsequent somatic characteristics of broiler hatchlings

Abstract

The effects of the in ovo injection of different carbohydrate solutions on the internal egg temperature (IT), hatchability, and time of hatch of embryonated Ross × Ross 708 broiler hatching eggs were determined. In addition, the BW, liver weight, yolk sac weight (YSW), and yolk-free BW (YFBW) of the embryos on d 19.5 of incubation and of the chicks on day of hatch were determined. Eggs containing live embryos were injected in the amnion on d 18.5 of incubation using an automated multiple-egg injector. Solution injections delivered 1.2 mL of physiological saline (0.85%) alone or with a supplemental carbohydrate. The following supplemental carbohydrates were separately dissolved in saline at a concentration of 0.3 g/mL: glucose, fructose, sucrose, maltose, and dextrin. Temperature transponders were implanted in the air cells of embryonated and nonembryonated eggs after in ovo injection for the detection of IT at 6, 14, and 22 h after injection. The IT of embryonated eggs was significantly greater than that of nonembryonated eggs at all 3 times after the treatment period. Eggs that were injected with saline with or without supplemental carbohydrates experienced a reduction in IT when compared with control eggs whose shells were perforated without solution delivery, and the decrease in IT was associated with a delay in hatch time. Liver weight was negatively related to YSW and positively related to YFBW, and YSW was negatively related to YFBW. Although the saline and carbohydrate solution injections increased chick BW compared with noninjected controls, chick YFBW was decreased in the maltose- and sucrose-injected groups. In conclusion, the injection of 1.2 mL of saline with or without supplemental carbohydrates lowered embryonic metabolism, as reflected by a lower IT and a delay in time of hatch. However, effects of the different carbohydrate solutions on yolk absorption and tissue deposition in yolk-free embryos varied. These results suggest that lower volumes for solutions containing maltose, sucrose, or fructose should be considered for in ovo injection.

Impacts of In Ovo Feeding of DL-Methionine on Hatchability and Chick Weight

“…Different results were observed in hatchability with in ovo injection. For example, it has reported that in ovo injection decreased hatchability (Ohta et al, 1999;Zhai et al, 1999;McGruder et al, 2011a) and increased (Ohta et al, 2001;Bottje et al, 2010) and not affected (Zhai et al, 1999;McGruder et al, 2011b). These contradictious results about hatchability might be related with the different injection techniques or injection depths.…”

Impacts of Macronutrients on Gene Expression: Recent Evidence to Understand Productive and Reproductive Performance of Livestock

“…Furthermore, maternal overnutrition may cause enhanced activities and upregulation of certain enzyme and transporter genes via increasing intestinal functions, while maternal undernutrition caused disturbed fetal intestinal development in newborn pigs (Cao et al, 2014). On the other hand, avian embryos dependent on the nutrients stored in the egg that supplies necessary energy and building blocks for the metabolic activities and growth (Zhai et al, 2011). The in ovo (IO) nutrients of the chick embryo consist mainly of albumin (protein), yolk fat and a trace amount of carbohydrates.…”

The Effects of In-Ovo Injection of Propolis on Egg Hatchability and Starter Live Performance of Japanese Quails

“…The in-ovo method was first used by Sharma & Burmester (1982) for the vaccination of turkey hatching eggs against Marek's disease. Recently, the in-ovo method has been investigated by researchers for administering ascorbic acid (Elibol et al, 2001;Ipek et al, 2004;Sgavioli et al, 2015), carbohydrates (Zhai et al, 2011;Salmanzadeh, 2012;Ipek et al, 2004;Tako et al, 2004), amino acids (Bhanja et al, 2014;Ohta et al, 1999;Kermanshahi et al, 2015), vitamins (Bello et al, 2013;Salary et al, 2014), minerals (Yair et al, 2013;Oliveira et al, 2015), pollen (Coskun et al, 2014), hormones (Moore et al, 1994;Kocamis et al, 1999), and royal jelly (Moghaddam et al, 2014).…”