Animal welfare, etológia és tartástechnológia - PDF

Description
Animal welfare, etológia és tartástechnológia Animal welfare, ethology and housing systems Volume 9 Issue 3 Különszám/Special Issue Gödöllő 2013 Ján Weis*, Cyril Hrnčár EFFECT OF PROBIOTIC SUPPLEMENTATION

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 8
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information
Category:

Study Guides, Notes, & Quizzes

Publish on:

Views: 23 | Pages: 8

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Share
Transcript
Animal welfare, etológia és tartástechnológia Animal welfare, ethology and housing systems Volume 9 Issue 3 Különszám/Special Issue Gödöllő 2013 Ján Weis*, Cyril Hrnčár EFFECT OF PROBIOTIC SUPPLEMENTATION ON PERFORMANCE OF DIFFERENT BROILER GENOTYPES Address*: doc. Ing. Ján Weis, CSc., Department of Poultry Science and Small Animal Husbandry, Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources, Slovak University of Agriculture, Tr. A. Hlinku 2, Nitra, Slovakia, phone number: / Abstract This experiment was conducted to investigate the effects of probiotic strain Lactobacillus fermentum supplementation on the performance and carcass parameters of different genotypes of broiler chickens. Totally 60 one-day-old chickens of Cobb 500, 60 one-day-old chickens of Hubbard JV and 60 one-day-old chickens of Ross 308 were divided in two groups: control chicken group (n=30) received drinking water without any additives and experimental chickens group (n=30) received probiotic strain Lactobacillus fermentum CCM 7158 with concentration of 1x10 9 colony forming units (CFU) in drinking water from day 1 to day 42 of fattening. Individual body weights of all birds, feed conversion ratio per group were determined in 21 and 42 day, total mortality rate we recorded in 42 day of fattening period. Carcass quality of broiler chickens was determined at the end of the experiment. The supplementation of probiotic affected positively body weight (P 0.05) in all broiler chicken genotypes in 21 and 42 day of fattening. Feed conversion ratio in 21 and 42 day was similar in control and experimental groups. The probiotic no significant (P 0.05) affected percentage of breast and thighs form carcass body, weight of giblets and carcass yield. The probiotic addition significantly (P 0.05) reduced the abdominal fat content of the chicken meat. Key words: Lactobacillus fermentum, body weight, feed utility, mortality, carcass parameters INTRODUCTION The consumption of chicken meat is of increasing importance in the EU and per head consumption is still rising. One reason for this case might be a more health-conscious nutrition by the consumers. Other reasons like the BSE problem or antibiotic abuse in pig production might also be important for an increase in consumption of chicken meat (Schedle et al., 2006). Research studies have reported feed residues in chicken meat products and the development of bacterial resistance to antibiotics used both in human medicine and poultry production (Edens, 2003). On 1 st January 2006 the European Union introduced a complete ban on the use of antibiotic growth promoters in feeds for animals for consumption. The ban was introduced at the same time in all Member States. Since then, antibiotics have been allowed to be used as medicines only in medical feeds or prophylactic additives. Resolution No 1831/2003 EC of the European Parliament and Council of 22 nd August 2003 devoted to the issue of additives used in feeding animals described probiotics as alternative feed additives to antibiotic growth promoters (Casewell et al., 2003; Patterson and Burkholder, 2003; Berghmann et al., 2005). 626 Probiotics are additives that can be used to replace antibiotics in poultry nutrition (Griggs and Jacob, 2005). The term probiotic stems from the Greek and means in favor of life ; its antonym is antibiotics, which means against life (Coppola and Turnes, 2004). Probiotics are defined as live microbial food supplements, which beneficially influence only not human (Songisepp et al., 2005), but also poultry health and performance, chickens (Haščík et al., 2005; Weis et al., 2010), hens (Capcarova et al., 2010), turkeys (Capcarova, 2008), pigeons (Malíková et al., 2013) and waterfowl (Weis et al., 2008; Hrnčár et al., 2013). Probiotics in poultry maintaining normal intestinal microflora by competitive exclusion and antagonism (Kabir et al., 2005; Kizerwetter-Swida and Binek, 2009), alter metabolism by increasing digestive enzyme activity and decreasing bacterial enzyme activity and ammonia production (Yoon et al., 2004; Nayebpor et al., 2007), improve feed intake and stimulate the immune system (Kabir et al., 2004; Haghighi et al., 2005; Apata, 2008). The selection of bacteria such as Lactobacillus, Pediococcus, Bacteroides, Bifidobacterium, Bacillus and Streptococcus, for use as probiotics is based on assessment of their metabolic products and their potential to colonize specific sites (Lima et al., 2007). The ability of lactic acid bacteria to inhibit various G-positive and G-negative bacteria is well known. This inhibition may be related to the production of organic acids, hydrogen peroxide and bacteriocin-like substances that are active against certain pathogens and may be produced by different species of Lactobacillus (Messaoudi et al., 2005). Lactobacillus sp. are normal inhabitants of the intestinal tract, especially of poultry (Juven et al., 2001). Lactobacilli mainly compose the flora in crop and ileum region in poultry (Gong et al., 2002). Lactobacilli are rod shape bacteria and possess different biochemical and physiological properties (Tannock et al., 1999). Many Lactobacillus strains, isolated from various sources, are being used as probiotic agents and it is unlikely that all functional characters of a probiotic are present in each species/strain. It needs thorough study and documentation. Generally recognized beneficial properties are the origin of the strain being used, the surviving ability within the GI tract, non-pathogenic activities and the modulation ability in immune responses (Gibson and Fuller, 2000; Dunne et al., 2001; Holzapfel et al., 2001). The objective of this study was to provide a comparison of the effect of probiotic strain Lactobacillus fermentum supplementation in drinking water on performance and carcass parameters of different genotypes broiler chickens (Cobb 500, Hubbard JV, Ross 308). MATERIAL AND METHODS The experiment was realised in half-operation conditions of experimental basis of Department of Poultry Science and Small Animal Husbandry (Certificate of Authorization to Experiment on Living Animals, State Veterinary and Food Institute of Slovak Republic, no. SK PC 30008). Totally 60 one-day-old chickens of Cobb 500, 60 one-day-old chickens of Hubbard JV and 60 one-day-old chickens of Ross 308 were divided in two groups: control chicken group (n=30) received drinking water without any additives and experimental chickens group (n=30) received probiotic strain Lactobacillus fermentum CCM 7158 with concentration of 1x10 9 colony forming units (CFU) in drinking water from day 1 to day 42 of fattening. Quantization of drinking water and probiotic strain are presented in Table Table 1 Dose of drinking water and probiotic strain in experimental group Week of fattening Total amount of drinking water per day (l) Dose of probiotic strain (g) CFU in 1 ml of drinking water x x x x x x10 5 The feeding period lasted 42 days. The chickens were fed with starter diet in powdery form from days 1 to 21 and grower diet with granular form from days 22 to 49. The nutrition value of the diets were shown in Table 2. Feeding was provided on an ad libitum basis from containers on the front of the cages. Table 2 Nutritional value of complete feed mixtures Nutritient Unit Starter Grower Crude protein g/kg min min ME MJ/kg min min Lysine g/kg min min Methionine and cistine g/kg min min from that methionine g/kg min min Linoleic acid g/kg min min Calcium g/kg min min Phosphorus g/kg min min Sodium g/kg Manganese mg/kg min min Iron mg/kg min min Copper mg/kg min min Zinc mg/kg min min Vitamin A i.u./kg min min Vitamin B 2 mg/kg min min Vitamin B 12 μg/kg min min Vitamin D 3 i.u./kg min min Vitamin E mg/kg min min Birds were stabled in a 3-etage cage technology consisted of 18 cages with proportions 75x50 cm (0.375 m 2 ). During the 42 days experimental period was recording body weight (g) a feed conversion ratio (g/g) in 24 and 42 day of fattening. total mortality we recorded in 42 day of fattening period. At the end of the experiment, 10 broiler chickens of similar body weight to the group average were selected from each group, weighted and killed by severing of the bronchial weight. The weights of carcass, breast, giblets and abdominal fat were recorded individually. 628 Data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) (SAS, 2001). Significant difference was used at 0.05 probability level and differences between groups were tested using the Duncan s procedure (Duncan, 1955). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The effect of probiotic supplement to the drinking water on chickens live weight is shown in Table 3. In Cobb 500, Hubbard JV and Ross 308 hybrids, there was significant (P 0.05) difference in body weight of broiler chickens between control and experimental groups on day 21. At the end of the experiment (day 42), broiler chickens of all hybrids supplemented with prebiotic strain Lactobacillus fermentum in drinking water had higher body weight in compare of control group (P 0.05). These results are in agreement with Kabir et al. (2004) who observed improvement of final body weight of broiler chickens at addition of probiotic preparate. In contrast, our results are opposite to those of Lima et al. (2003) and Awad et al. (2008) who recorded reported that addition of probiotic to broilers diet did not show any significant effect on body weight compared with control group. Table 3 The effect of probiotic on body weight and feed conversion ratio of broiler chickens Body weight (g) Feed conservation ratio (g/g) 21 day 42 day 21 day 42 day Cobb 500 Control ± ± ± ±0.04 Experimental ±77.49 a ±221,84 a 1.54± ±0.04 Hubbard JV Control ± ± ± ±0.03 Experimental ±70.53 b ± b 1.53± ±0.03 Ross 308 Control ± ± ± ±0.03 Experimental ±70.41 c ± c 1.55± ±0.03 Values shown are mean ± SD (standard deviation) a,b,c Means in a row with different superscript differ significantly (P 0.05) During our experiment, there was not any significant (P 0.05) difference in feed conversion ratio (FCR) between groups after application of probiotic strain Lactobacillus fermentum. Similar results were found by Samli et al. (2007) and Willis and Reid (2008) who found that addition of probiotic did not have any significant effect on FCR of broiler chickens. However, our findings on feed consumption were in contrast to those of Aftahi et al. (2006), Chafai et al. (2007) and Mountzouris et al. (2007), who reported that addition of probiotic to broiler chicken diets decreased FCR significantly (P 0.05). In hybrids Cobb 500 and Hubbard JV we recorded reduced total mortality in benefit of experimental groups on the end of fattening period (3.33 vs. 6.67%). The total mortality rate in the both groups in Ross 308 was identical (6.67 %). Cmiljanic et al. (2001) proved a reduction of mortality rate of broiler chickens due to the addition of probiotic. Data presented in Table 4 show that percentage of breast, percentage of thighs, weight of giblets and carcass yield were not affected by using probiotic strain (P 0.05). We found statistically significant reduction (P 0.05) of % abdominal fat in benefit of supplementation 629 of probiotic strains. Similar value of the slaughter are in contrast with results drawn from the study of Haščík et al. (2008) who concluded that there is statistically significant influence of the supplementation of probiotic on carcass parameters of broiler chickens. Similar values of carcass yields in broiler chickens supplemented or not with probiotic were found by Pelicano et al. (2004). Also, Kalavathy et al. (2006) observed significant reduction of the supplementation of probiotic on abdominal fat content of the poultry. Table 4 The effect of probiotic on some carcass parameters of broiler chickens Percentage of breast (%) Percentage of thighs (%) Weight of abdominal fat (%) Carcass yield (%) Weight of giblets (g) Cobb 500 Control 30.31± ± ± ± ±24.84 Experimental 30.42± ± ±5.74 a 77.31± ±21.56 Hubbard JV Control 29.84± ± ± ± ±21.53 Experimental 29.98± ± ±5.07 b 76.97± ±22.69 Ross 308 Control 30.28± ± ± ± ±25.87 Experimental 30.37± ± ±5.27 c 77.25± ±23.51 Values shown are mean ± SD (standard deviation) a,b,c Means in a row with different superscript differ significantly (P 0.05) Acknowledgments: This work was financially supported by VEGA 1/0493/12 and KEGA 035SPU-4/2012. CONCLUSION The results from this study show that supplementation of probiotic strain Lactobacillus fermentum in drinking water statistically significant affected body weight and no statistically significant affected feed conversion ratio in 21 and 42 day of fattening period. The tested probiotic strain had a no significant effect on percentage of breast and thighs from carcass body, weight of giblets and carcass yield. From carcass parameters we found only reduction of weight of abdominal fat in carcass body in all hybrid genotypes. REFERENCES APATA, D. F Growth performance, nutrient digestibility and immune response of broiler chicks fed diets supplemented with a culture of Lactobacillus bulgaricus. In Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, vol. 88, 2008, p AFTAHI, A. MUNIM, T. HOQUE, M.A. ASHRAF, M. A Effect of yoghurt and protexin boost on broiler. In International Journal of Poultry Science, vol. 5, 2006, p AWAD, W. GHAREEB, K. BÖHM, J Intestinal structure and function of broiler chickens on diets supplemented with a synbiotic containing Enterococcus faecium and oligosaccharides. In International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 9, 2008, p BERGHMANN, L. R. ABI-GHANEM, D. WAGNELA, S. D. RICKE S. C Antibodies: an alternative for antibiotics? In Poultry Science, vol. 84, 2005, p CAPCAROVA, M. KOLESÁROVÁ, A. MASSANYI, P. KOVÁČIK, J Selected blood biochemical and haematological parameters in turkeys after experimental probiotic Enterococcus faecium M-74 strain administration. In International Journal of Poultry Science, vol. 7, 2008, p CAPCAROVA, M. CHMELNIČNA, L. KOLESÁROVÁ, A. MASSANYI, P. KOVÁČIK, J Effects of Enterococcus faecium M 74 strain on selected blood and production parameters of laying hens. In British Poultry Science, vol. 51, 2010, p CASEWELL, M. FRIIS, C. MARCO. E The European ban on growth promoting antibiotics and emerging consequences for human and animal health. In Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, vol. 52, 2003, p CHAFAI S. FATIHA I. ALLOUI N Bacterial probiotic additive (Pediococcus acidilactici) and its impact on broiler chickens health and performance. Animal health, animal welfare and biosecurity. In The 13th International Congress in Animal Hygiene, Estonia: Tartu, 2007, p CMILJANIC, R. LUKIC M. TRENKOVSKI, S The effect of paciflor-c probiotic on gain, feed conversion and mortality of fattening chicks. In Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry, vol. 17, 2001, p COPPOLA, M. M. TURNES, C. G Probióticos e resposta imune. In Ciência Rural, vol. 34, 2004, p DUNCAN, B. D Multiple range and multiple F test. In Biometrics, vol. 11, 1955, p DUNNE, C. MAHONY, L. O. MURPHY, L. THORNTON, G. MORRISSEY, D. HALLORAN, S. O In-vitro selection criteria for probiotic bacteria of human origin: correlation with in vivo findings. In American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 73, 2001, p EDENS, F. W An alternative for antibiotic se in poultry: probiotics. In Revista Brasileira de Cięncia Avícola, vol. 5, 2003, p GIBSON, G. R. FULLER, R Aspects of in vitro and in vivo research approaches directed towards identifying probiotics and probiotics for human use. In Journal of Nutrition, vol. 130, 2000, p GONG, J. FORSTER, R. J. YU, H. CHAMBERS, J. R. WHEATCROFT, R. SABOUR, P. M. CHEN, S Molecular analysis of bacterial populations in the ileum of broiler chickens and comparison with bacteria in the cecum. In FEMS Microbiology Ecology, vol. 41, 2002, p GRIGGS, J. P. JACOB, J. P Alternatives to antibiotics for organic poultry production. In The Journal of Applied Poultry Research, vol. 14, 2005, p HAGHIGHI, H. R. GONG, C. L. HAYES, M. A. SANEI, B. PARVIZI, P. GISAVI, H. CHAMBERS, J. R. SHARIF, S Modulation of antibody-mediated immune response by probiotics in chickens. In Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, vol. 12, 2005, p HAŠČÍK, P. WEIS, J. ČUBOŇ, J. KULÍŠEK, V. MAKOVICKÝ, P. KAČÁNIOVÁ. M Effect of a probiotic preparation in complete diets for Ross 308 broiler chickens on chemical composition of meat. In Acta fytotechnica et zootechnica, vol. 8, 2005, p HAŠČÍK, P. ČUBOŇ, J. KAČÁNIOVÁ, M. KULÍŠEK, V. PAVLIČOVÁ, S. VAVRIŠINOVÁ, K Effect of probiotic preparation on meat production of chickens ROSS 308. In Journal of Central European Agriculture, vol. 9, 2008, p HOLZAPFEL, W. H. HABERER, P. GEISEN, R. BJÖRKROTH, J. SCHILLINGER, U Taxonomy and important features of probiotic microorganisms in food nutrition. In American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 73, 2001, p HRNČÁR, C. WEIS, J. BARAŇSKA, B. MALÍKOVÁ, L. PETRIČOVÁ, Ľ The effect of different probiotic strains on fattening and carcass parameters of broiler ducks. In Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnology and Food Sciences, vol. 3, 2013, p JUVEN, B. J. MEINERSMANN, R. J. STERN, N. J Antagonistic effect of lactobacilli and pediococci to control colonization by human enteropathogens in live poultry. In Journal of Applied Bacteriology, vol. 70, 2001, p KABIR, S. M. L. RAHMAN, M. M. RAHMAN, M. B. AHMED, S. U The dynamics of probiotics on growth performance and immune response in broiler. In International Journal of Poultry Science, vol. 3, 2004, p KABIR, S. M. L. RAHMAN, M. M. RAHMAN, M. B. HOSAIN, M. Z. AKAND M. S. I. DAS, S. K Viability of probiotics in balancing intestinal flora and effecting histological changes of crop and caecal tissue of broilers. In Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 4, 2005, p KALAVATHY, R. ABDULLAH, N. JALALUDIN, S. HO, Y. W Effects of Lactobacillus cultures on growth performance, abdominal fat deposition, serum lipids and weight of organs of broiler chickens. In British Poultry Science, vol. 44, 2003, p KIZERWETTER-SWIDA, M. BINEK, M Protective effect of potentially probiotic Lactobacillus strain on infection with pathogenic bacteria in chickens. In Polish Journal of Veterinary Sciences, vol. 12, 2009, p LIMA, A. C. F. PIZAURO JÚNIOR, J. M. MACARI, M. MALHEIROS, E. B Efeito do uso de probiotic sobre o Desempenho e atividade de enzimas digestivas de frangos de corte. In Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, vol 32, 2003, p LIMA, E. T. FILHO, R. L. A. OKAMOTO, A. S. JOSÉ C. NOUJAIM, J. C. BARROS, M. R. ADALBERTO J. CROCCI A. J Evaluation in vitro of the antagonistic substances produced by Lactobacillus spp. isolated from chickens. In Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research, vol. 71, 2007, p MALÍKOVÁ, L. WEIS, J. HRNČÁR, C Effect of administration of probiotic preparation with strain of Lactobacillus fermentum on the weight gain of the young pigeons. In Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnology and Food Sciences, vol. 3, 2013, p MESSAOUDI, D. F. BERGER, C. N. COCONNIER-POLTER, M. H. MOAL, V. SERVIN A. L ph-, lactic acid-, and non-lactic acid-dependent activities of probiotic Lactobacilli against Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. In Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 71, 2005, p MOUNTZOURIS, K.C. TSIRTSIKOS, P. KALAMARA, E. NITSCH, S. SCHATZMAYR, G. FEGEROS, K Evaluation of the efficacy of a probiotic containing Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Enterococcus and Pediococcus strains in promoting broiler performance and modulating cecal microflora composition and metabolic activities. In Poultry Science, vol. 86, 2007, p NAYEBPOR, M. FARHOMAND, P. HASHMI A Effects of different levels of direct fed microbial (Primalac) on growth performance and humoral immune response in broiler chickens. In Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, vol. 6, 2007, p PELICANO, E. R. L. SOUZA, P. A. SOUZA, H. B. A. OBA, A. NORKUS, E. A. KODAWARA, L. M. LIMA, T. M. A Performance of broilers fed
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks