4.7 Article

Evaluation of models using corticosterone and adrenocorticotropin to induce conditions mimicking physiological stress in commercial broilers

期刊

POULTRY SCIENCE
卷 86, 期 12, 页码 2485-2491

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.3382/ps.2006-00215

关键词

broiler; stress; corticosterone; adrenocorticotropin; nutrient density

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three experiments (Exp) were conducted to delineate a suitable model for inducing conditions mimicking physiological stress with minimal bird handling. For Exp 1, Ross x Ross 308 male chicks were fed a control diet or a diet containing 5 mg of corticosterone (CS)/kg from d 1 to 7. For Exp 2, Ross x Ross 508 broilers received I of 4 dietary treatments: control; control + 4 IU/kg of BW of adrenocorticotropin (ACTH)/d i.m. from d 21 to 27; control + 8 IU/kg of BW of ACTH/d i.m. from d 21 to 27; or control + 15 mg of CS/kg of diet for 14 d from 21 to 35 d of age. In Exp 3, Ross x Ross 308 broilers were fed high or low nutrient density (ND) from I to 41 d of age, and 0 or 20 mg of CS/kg of diet from 18 to 21 d of age. Performance parameters (BW gain, feed intake, feed conversion, and mortality) were measured in all 3 experiments. In Exp 1, CS administration significantly decreased BW gain and decreased feed intake and mortality. In Exp 2, although ACTH injection resulted in significantly depressed performance responses relative to the control, CS administration yielded significantly stronger results. In Exp 3, ND and CS interacted (P = 0.04) to affect feed intake from d 0 to 34. Broilers fed diets containing high ND and CS had higher feed intake than broilers fed low ND and CS. From 0 to 21 and 0 to 42 d, CS decreased feed intake. Increased dietary ND improved BW gain and feed conversion in Exp 3. Also, CS decreased and increased BW gain and feed conversion, respectively, during all periods in Exp 3. Dietary addition of CS negatively impacted performance of broilers, and increasing dietary amino acid density did not ameliorate these effects.

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