Lactobacilli-Based Pro and Postbiotic Efficacy Are Also Influenced by Other Factors Than Dietary Challenging Conditions.
broiler
dietary challenge
fibre
postbiotic
probiotic
Journal
Journal of animal physiology and animal nutrition
ISSN: 1439-0396
Titre abrégé: J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl)
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101126979
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Sep 2024
28 Sep 2024
Historique:
revised:
03
09
2024
received:
05
06
2024
accepted:
09
09
2024
medline:
28
9
2024
pubmed:
28
9
2024
entrez:
28
9
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The present study aimed to confirm the previously reported 'recovery' effect to a challenging diet (CD) of a Lactobacilli-based probiotic (Pro) and its derived postbiotic (Post) in broilers. Identical diet compositions were used, and observations were extended to a second CD diet. A completely randomised block design of 2 × 3 treatment groups with two CDs and three additive conditions (Control, Pro, Post) was used. One additional group received a standard diet (SD). The study involved 1600 one-day-old Ross 308 male broilers. All diets, fed from d1 to 35, were formulated to contain identical nutrients levels, with CDs formulated to be greater than SD in nonstarch polysaccharides using rye and barley (Rye CD) or dry distiller grains with soluble, sunflower and rapeseed meal (DDGS CD). Growth performance parameters, footpad lesions (FPL) score and plasma Ca, P and uric acid concentrations were measured. Compared to SD, birds fed Rye CD and DDGS CD had a higher 1-35 days feed conversion ratio (+3.4 and +4.1%, respectively), due to a higher feed intake for Rye CD (+2.9%) and a lower body weight for DDGS CD (-4.1%). An effect of additive was restricted to Rye CD where Post depressed BW at d28 and d35 (-3.7 and -2.4%, respectively). Compared to Rye CD, DDGS CD lowered plasma Ca/P at d21 (-9.0%) and d35 (-8.1%) and uric acid at d21 (-26%). Pro increased plasma Ca in Rye CD at d21 (+12%) and Post decreased plasma uric acid in DDGS CD at d35 (-25%). All other plasma parameters were not affected. The previously observed recovery effect of a commercial probiotic and postbiotic were not reproducible under highly similar growth conditions, which suggests that both may have specific physiological effects which are only expressed under specific circumstances.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH.
Références
Abd El‐Hack, M. E., S. A. Mahgoub, M. Alagawany, and E. A. Ashour. 2017. “Improving Productive Performance and Mitigating Harmful Emissions From Laying Hen Excreta via Feeding on Graded Levels of Corn DDGS With or Without Bacillus subtilis Probiotic.” Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 101: 904–913. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.12522.
Anderson, M. J. 2017. “Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance (PERMANOVA).” In Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online, edited by N. Balakrishnan, T. Colton, B. Everitt, W. Piegorsch, F. Ruggeri, and J. L. Teugels, 1–15. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118445112.stat07841.
Bederska‐Łojewska, D., S. Świątkiewicz, A. Arczewska‐Włosek, and T. Schwarz. 2017. “Rye Non‐Starch Polysaccharides: Their Impact on Poultry Intestinal Physiology, Nutrients Digestibility and Performance Indices—A Review.” Annals of Animal Science 17: 351–369. https://doi.org/10.1515/aoas-2016-0090.
Bedford, A., H. Yu, M. Hernandez, et al. 2018. “Response of Ross 308 and 708 Broiler Strains in Growth Performance and Lipid Metabolism to Diets Containing Tributyrate Glycerides.” Canadian Journal of Animal Science 98: 98–108. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjas-2017-0025.
Bindari, Y. R., and P. F. Gerber. 2022. “Centennial Review: Factors Affecting the Chicken Gastrointestinal Microbial Composition and Their Association With Gut Health and Productive Performance.” Poultry Science 101: 101612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2021.101612.
Blajman, J. E., L. S. Frizzo, M. V. Zbrun, et al. 2014. “Probiotics and Broiler Growth Performance: A Meta‐Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.” British Poultry Science 55: 483–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2014.931930.
Fathima, S., R. Shanmugasundaram, D. Adams, and R. K. Selvaraj. 2022. “Gastrointestinal Microbiota and Their Manipulation for Improved Growth and Performance in Chickens.” Foods 11: 1401. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11101401.
Hermans, P. G., D. Fradkin, I. B. Muchnik, and K. L. Morgan. 2006. “Prevalence of Wet Litter and the Associated Risk Factors in Broiler Flocks in the United Kingdom.” Veterinary Record 158: 615–622. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.158.18.615.
Immerseel, F. V., J. D. Buck, F. Pasmans, G. Huyghebaert, F. Haesebrouck, and R. Ducatelle. 2004. “Clostridium perfringens in Poultry: An Emerging Threat for Animal and Public Health.” Avian Pathology 33: 537–549. https://doi.org/10.1080/03079450400013162.
Jansseune, S. C. G., A. Lammers, J. van Baal, et al. 2024. “Diet Composition Influences Probiotic and Postbiotic Effects on Broiler Growth and Physiology.” Poultry Science 103: 103650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.103650.
Jha, R., R. Das, S. Oak, and P. Mishra. 2020. “Probiotics (Direct‐Fed Microbials) in Poultry Nutrition and Their Effects on Nutrient Utilization, Growth and Laying Performance, and Gut Health: A Systematic Review.” Animals 10: 1863. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10101863.
Knudsen, K. E. B. 2014. “Fiber and Non‐Starch Polysaccharide Content and Variation in Common Crops Used in Broiler Diets.” Poultry Science 93: 2380–2393. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2014-03902.
van Krimpen, M. M., M. Torki, and D. Schokker. 2017. “Effects of Rye Inclusion in Grower Diets on Immune Competence‐Related Parameters and Performance in Broilers.” Poultry Science 96: 3324–3337. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pex152.
Lannuzel, C., A. Smith, A. L. Mary, E. A. Della Pia, M. A. Kabel, and S. de Vries. 2022. “Improving Fiber Utilization From Rapeseed and Sunflower Seed Meals to Substitute Soybean Meal in Pig and Chicken Diets: A Review.” Animal Feed Science and Technology 285: 115213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2022.115213.
Larsen, I. S., B. S.‐Y. Choi, B. Föh, et al. 2023. “Experimental Diets Dictate the Metabolic Benefits of Probiotics in Obesity.” Gut Microbes 15: 2192547. https://doi.org/10.1080/19490976.2023.2192547.
Liu, Y., C. D. Espinosa, J. J. Abelilla, et al. 2018. “Non‐Antibiotic Feed Additives in Diets for Pigs: A Review.” Animal Nutrition 4: 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2018.01.007.
Martínez, Y., and M. Valdivié. 2021. “Efficiency of Ross 308 Broilers Under Different Nutritional Requirements.” Journal of Applied Poultry Research 30: 100140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japr.2021.100140.
Pahm, A. A., C. Pedersen, and H. H. Stein. 2008. “Application of the Reactive Lysine Procedure to Estimate Lysine Digestibility in Distillers Dried Grains With Solubles Fed to Growing Pigs.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 56: 9441–9446. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf801618g.
Pedersen, M. B., S. Dalsgaard, K. E. B. Knudsen, S. Yu, and H. N. Lærke. 2014. “Compositional Profile and Variation of Distillers Dried Grains With Solubles From Various Origins With Focus on Non‐Starch Polysaccharides.” Animal Feed Science and Technology 197: 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2014.07.011.
Piqué, N., M. Berlanga, and D. Miñana‐Galbis. 2019. “Health Benefits of Heat‐Killed (Tyndallized) Probiotics: An Overview.” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 20: 2534. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20102534.
Polovinski‐Horvatović, M. 2021. “A Mini Review of the Effects of NSP and Exogenous Enzymes in Broiler Diets on Digestibility and Some Intestinal Functions.” Serb Journal of Agricultural Sciences 70: 116–122. https://doi.org/10.2478/contagri-2021-0017.
Qaisrani, S. N., M. M. Van Krimpen, M. W. A. Verstegen, W. H. Hendriks, and R. P. Kwakkel. 2020. “Effects of Three Major Protein Sources on Performance, Gut Morphology and Fermentation Characteristics in Broilers.” British Poultry Science 61: 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2019.1671958.
R Core Team. 2023. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Singh, A. K., and W. K. Kim. 2021. “Effects of Dietary Fiber on Nutrients Utilization and Gut Health of Poultry: A Review of Challenges and Opportunities.” Animals 11: 181. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11010181.
Swiatkiewicz, S., A. Arczewska‐Wlosek, and D. Jozefiak. 2017. “The Nutrition of Poultry as a Factor Affecting Litter Quality and Foot Pad Dermatitis—An Updated Review.” Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 101: e14–e20. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.12630.
Tejeda, O. J., and W. K. Kim. 2021. “Role of Dietary Fiber in Poultry Nutrition.” Animals 11: 461. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11020461.
Wastyk, H. C., D. Perelman, M. Topf, et al. 2023. “Randomized Controlled Trial Demonstrates Response to a Probiotic Intervention for Metabolic Syndrome That May Correspond to Diet.” Gut Microbes 15: 2178794. https://doi.org/10.1080/19490976.2023.2178794.