4.5 Article

Effect of barley and oat cultivars with different carbohydrate compositions on the intestinal bacterial communities in weaned piglets

期刊

FEMS MICROBIOLOGY ECOLOGY
卷 66, 期 3, 页码 556-566

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2008.00605.x

关键词

barley; oat; mixed-linked beta-glucan; intestinal microbiota; weaning piglets

资金

  1. National Pork Board, Des Moines, IA, USA
  2. Alberta Barley Commission, Edmonton, AB, Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This experiment was aimed at comparing the intestinal microbial community composition in pigs fed hulled common barley supplemented with isolated barley mixed-linked beta-glucan, four hulless barley varieties and breeding lines with mixed-linked beta-glucan contents ranging from 41 to 84 g kg(-1) and different amylose/amylopectin ratios as well as two oat varieties. Seventy-two weaned piglets were allocated to one of nine diets composed of 81.5% cereal, 6% whey, 9% soy protein isolate and 3.5% minerals. After 15 days, pigs were sacrificed and ileum and colon contents were collected for quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) and denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis to evaluate microbial communities. Shifts in intestinal microbial communities were observed with the hulless barley cultivars with a normal to high beta-glucan content and from normal starch toward either high-amylopectin or high-amylose starch. These hulless barleys had the lowest (P < 0.05) microbial diversity, whereas oats had intermediate diversity compared with low-beta-glucan hulless cultivars and hulled varieties. Furthermore, hulless varieties favoured xylan- and beta-glucan-degrading bacteria whereas mixed-linked beta-glucan-supplemented hulled barley favoured lactobacilli. Numbers of lactobacilli decreased in the ileum of pigs fed hulless/high mixed-linked beta-glucan barley-based diets. Thus, cultivar differences in both the form and the quantity of carbohydrates affect gut microbiota in pigs, which provides information for future feeding strategies.

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

4.5
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