Effects of dietary probiotic (Pediococcus acidilactici) supplementation on productive performance, egg quality, and body composition in laying hens fed diets varying in energy density.
Pediococcus acidilactici
body composition
egg quality
laying hen
performance
Journal
Poultry science
ISSN: 1525-3171
Titre abrégé: Poult Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0401150
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2020
Apr 2020
Historique:
received:
13
07
2019
revised:
11
11
2019
accepted:
27
11
2019
entrez:
4
4
2020
pubmed:
4
4
2020
medline:
18
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study was conducted to determine the effect of probiotic Pediococcus acidilactici (PA) strain MA18/5M supplementation of diets with different dietary energy levels on productive performance, egg quality, and body composition in Hy-Line Brown hens during a 16-week period from 32 to 47 wk of age. The experimental treatments with a 2 × 2 factorial design received a 2 wheat-corn-soybean diet: a moderately low energy density diet with 2,650 kcal ME/kg (M-LED) and a low energy density diet based on the M-LED diet with 2,550 kcal ME/kg (LED), each diet without and with probiotic supplementation (M-LED, LED, M-LEDp, and LEDp, respectively). Reduced dietary energy levels had a particularly negative effect on egg weight (61.7 vs. 63.3 g; -2.6%, P < 0.001), egg mass output (1.67 vs. 1.71 kg; -2.4%, P = 0.015), and FCR (2.01 vs. 1.97 kg feed/kg egg; +2%, P = 0.028). In hens administered the LED diet, deteriorated productive performance was accompanied by greater body weight loss (P < 0.001) and reduced abdominal fat content (P < 0.033) as compared with the M-LED group. Dietary probiotic inclusion increased egg weight (P = 0.015), including relative eggshell weight (P = 0.008) and eggshell thickness (P = 0.002) and significantly improved FCR (P = 0.010). No interactions between the PA-based probiotic and dietary energy levels were found in any of the tested parameters. Adding the probiotic on top of the M-LED diet improved layers performance but resulted in nonbioequivalence for the egg weight, egg mass output, and FCR compared with this group without probiotic. Probiotic supplementation of the LEDp diet improved all performance parameters except for egg weight. As a result, the laying rate, egg mass output, daily feed intake, and FCR in the LEDp treatment were bioequivalent to those noted in the M-LED group without the probiotic. The results of a bioequivalence test suggest that a low energy diet fed to laying hens promoted a probiotic response to improve energy utilization by birds.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32241513
pii: S0032-5791(19)58045-2
doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2019.11.046
pmc: PMC7587791
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2275-2285Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Br Poult Sci. 1996 May;37(2):341-6
pubmed: 8773843
Poult Sci. 2001 Aug;80(8):1171-9
pubmed: 11495470
Br Poult Sci. 1995 Dec;36(5):799-803
pubmed: 8746981
Vet Res Commun. 2008 Sep;32 Suppl 1:S359-61
pubmed: 18685970
Poult Sci. 2012 Oct;91(10):2691-700
pubmed: 22991559
Poult Sci. 1999 Nov;78(11):1542-51
pubmed: 10560827
J Sci Food Agric. 2017 Mar;97(4):1335-1341
pubmed: 27342952
Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2012 Apr;25(4):524-30
pubmed: 25049593
Br Poult Sci. 2013;54(5):635-41
pubmed: 24112072
J Anim Sci. 2010 Oct;88(10):3320-6
pubmed: 20562363
J Anim Sci. 2013 Oct;91(10):4781-7
pubmed: 23893973
Poult Sci. 1994 Nov;73(11):1699-711
pubmed: 7862610
Poult Sci. 1994 Nov;73(11):1712-23
pubmed: 7862611
Br Poult Sci. 2001 Sep;42(4):456-61
pubmed: 11572620
Br Poult Sci. 1993 Dec;34(5):999-1010
pubmed: 8156437
Poult Sci. 2006 Feb;85(2):306-11
pubmed: 16523631
EFSA J. 2018 May 07;16(5):e05274
pubmed: 32625911
Poult Sci. 2011 Jul;90(7):1516-22
pubmed: 21673167
Poult Sci. 2008 May;87(5):844-52
pubmed: 18420974
Int J Mol Sci. 2009 Aug 12;10(8):3531-46
pubmed: 20111681
Saudi J Biol Sci. 2010 Jul;17(3):219-25
pubmed: 23961081
Poult Sci. 1996 Apr;75(4):491-4
pubmed: 8786938
Poult Sci. 2012 Nov;91(11):2755-60
pubmed: 23091128
Poult Sci. 2019 May 1;98(5):2169-2178
pubmed: 30615142
Trop Anim Health Prod. 2013 Apr;45(4):1017-24
pubmed: 23271415
Poult Sci. 1995 Jan;74(1):50-61
pubmed: 7899213
Br Poult Sci. 2003 Mar;44(1):139-44
pubmed: 12737236
Poult Sci. 2005 Jun;84(6):894-7
pubmed: 15971526
Poult Sci. 2015 Feb;94(2):195-206
pubmed: 25595478
Poult Sci. 1983 Mar;62(3):452-8
pubmed: 6844209
Anim Health Res Rev. 2005 Jun;6(1):105-18
pubmed: 16164012
Br Poult Sci. 1999 Dec;40(5):681-7
pubmed: 10670682
Poult Sci. 2012 Dec;91(12):3156-66
pubmed: 23155026