4.7 Article

Effects of a combination of lauric acid monoglyceride and cinnamaldehyde on growth performance, gut morphology, and gut microbiota of yellow-feathered broilers

期刊

POULTRY SCIENCE
卷 102, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.psj.2023.102825

关键词

cinnamaldehyde; lauric acid monoglyceride; growth performance; microflora; gut morphology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study suggests that adding 500 mg/kg of lauric acid monoglyceride and cinnamaldehyde complex in feed can improve the growth performance, intestinal morphology, and gut microbiota of yellow-feathered broilers.
A total of 480 one-day-old male yellow feathered broilers were randomly divided into 4 groups with 6 replicates of 20 chicks per replicate. A basal diet was administered to the control group (CON), whereas CML350, CML500, and CML1000 groups were fed with basal diet supplemented with 350, 500, and 1,000 mg/kg of lauric acid monoglyceride and cinnamaldehyde complex, respectively. However, adding 500 mg/kg of lauric acid monoglyceride and cinnamaldehyde complex improved weight gain (P < 0.01), enhanced intestinal morphology, increased serum total protein and albumin content, and total antioxidant capacity (P < 0.01), and significantly increased the Chao1 and Ace indices (P < 0.01), indicating an increase in the richness of the gut microbiota. At the phylum level, CML500 group reduced the abundance of Fusobacteriota at 21 d and Proteobacteria at 42 d (P < 0.01). At the genus level, CML500 group increased the abundance of Faecalibacterium and Alistipes at 42 d (P < 0.01) and decreased the abundance of Escherichia-Shigella (P < 0.01). At the species level, CML500 group reduced the abundance of Escherichia coli at 42 d (P < 0.01) and increased the abundance of Alistipes_sp_CHKCI003 at 42 d (P < 0.01). According to these results, adding 500 mg/kg of lauric acid monoglyceride and cinnamaldehyde complex in feed can improve the growth performance, intestinal morphology, and gut microbiota of yellow-feathered broilers.

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

4.7
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