4.2 Article

Tenebrio meal as a functional ingredient modulates immune response and improves growth performance of broiler chickens

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.japr.2023.100346

关键词

antibiotic growth promoter; feed additive; ionophore; poultry; Tenebrio molitor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the use of full-fat tenebrio larvae meal in broilers diet. The results showed that the inclusion of 2.0% tenebrio larvae meal improved growth performance, feed intake, and innate immune response in broilers.
Two experiments were carried out to evaluate the use of full-fat tenebrio larvae meal (TM) in broilers diet. In experiment 1, 800 birds were assigned to 4 treatments in an open-sided poultry house, during 35 d, to evaluate performance and count of selected bacteria in ceca. Dietary treatments were as follows: negative control (NC); positive control (PC)- NC + 10 mg/kg enramycin and 66 mg/kg salinomycin; TM0.5-NC + 0.5% TM; and TM2.0 -NC + 2.0% TM. In experiment 2, the same treatments were used; 192 birds were raised in battery cages for 21 d. At the end of the trial, birds were challenged with LPS and blood was sampled for innate immune response evaluation. PROC MIXED of SAS was used in statistical analyses and comparisons of means done using Tukey's test. In experiment 1, treatment TM2.0 resulted in increase in BWG and FI of 3.8 and 4.2% (P < 0.05), and in experiment 2 the improvements were of 5.7 and 2.1% (P < 0.05), compared to NC. TM2.0 improved FCR relative to NC in experiment 2 (P < 0.05), but not in experiment 1. In both trials the supplementation with 0.5% TM did not improve performance. Birds nonchallenged with LPS (NCLPS) and fed 2.0% TM had hemolytic activity of the alternative complement system (HACS) and myeloperoxidase activity (MPO) increased compared to NC and even PC (P < 0.05). The indication of TM as a functional ingredient is ascertained by the growth improvement and innate immune response modulation in chickens fed the diet containing 2.0% TM.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据