4.4 Article

Effects of direct-fed microbial supplementation on broiler performance, intestinal nutrient transport and integrity under experimental conditions with increased microbial challenge

期刊

BRITISH POULTRY SCIENCE
卷 55, 期 1, 页码 89-97

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00071668.2013.865834

关键词

-

资金

  1. Nutraferma Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

1. The effects of Aspergillus oryzae- and Bacillus subtilis-based direct-fed microbials (DFM) were investigated on the performance, ileal nutrient transport and intestinal integrity of broiler chickens, raised under experimental conditions, with increased intestinal microbial challenge.2. The first study was a 3x2 factorial experiment, with 3 dietary treatments (control (CON), CON+DFM and CON+antibiotic growth promoter) with and without challenge. Chicks were fed experimental diets from 1 to 28 d, while the challenge was provided by vaccinating with 10 times the normal dose of commercial coccidial vaccine on d 9. In a second experiment, two groups of 1 d-old broilers, housed on built-up litter (uncleaned from two previous flocks), were fed the same CON and CON+DFM diets from 1 to 21 d.3. The challenge in the first experiment reduced performance, but no differences were observed among dietary treatments from 8 to 28 d. The challenge reduced the ileal epithelial flux for D-glucose, L-lysine, DL-methionine and phosphorus on d 21. Epithelial flux for D-glucose, L-lysine and DL-methionine were increased by DFM. Ileal trans-epithelial electrical resistance (TER) was increased in challenged broilers fed DFM, although this was not observed in unchallenged birds as indicated by a significant interaction.4. Ileal mucin mRNA expression and colon TER were increased, and colon endotoxin permeability was reduced by DFM on d 21 in the second experiment.5. It was concluded that the addition of DFM in the diet improved the intestinal integrity of broiler chickens raised under experimental conditions designed to provide increased intestinal microbial challenge.

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

4.4
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