4.7 Article

Influence of whole wheat and xylanase on broiler performance and microbial composition and activity in the digestive tract

期刊

POULTRY SCIENCE
卷 83, 期 6, 页码 925-938

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ps/83.6.925

关键词

digestive physiology; intestinal microflora; whole wheat; xylanase

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An experiment was carried out to study the effect of different forms of wheat (airtight silo stored whole wheat, conventionally stored whole wheat, and ground wheat included in pellets) and dietary xylanase addition on production results and gastrointestinal characteristics of broiler chickens. Real viscosity, pancreatic digestive enzyme activities, and the composition and activity of the intestinal microflora were considered as response parameters. Differences between the 2 types of whole wheat with respect to the various measured parameters were marginal, whereas distinct differences were found between pellet-fed birds and birds receiving whole wheat. Whole wheat feeding improved feed conversion ratio and reduced water consumption (P < 0.001). Compared with pellets, whole wheat increased the relative weight of pancreas and gizzard and the dry matter concentration of gizzard content (P < 0.001). Whole wheat feeding reduced the pH in the gizzard contents (P < 0.01) and increased ileal viscosity. The addition of xylanase reduced ileal viscosity in birds receiving whole wheat to the same level as in pellet-fed birds. Whole wheat feeding resulted in lower activities of amylase in pancreatic tissue (P = 0.054), whereas xylanase addition increased chymotrypsin (P = 0.030) and lipase activities (P = 0.052). Whole wheat feeding resulted in lower intestinal numbers of lactose-negative enterobacteria (P < 0.05) and tended to reduce the ileal and cecal numbers of Clostridium perfringens (P less than or equal to 0.08). It is concluded that whole wheat feeding stimulates gizzard function, which in turn prevents potentially pathogenic bacteria from entering the intestinal tract.

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