4.6 Article

The Probiotic Butyricicoccus pullicaecorum Reduces Feed Conversion and Protects from Potentially Harmful Intestinal Microorganisms and Necrotic Enteritis in Broilers

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01416

关键词

Butyricicoccus; butyrate; broiler; microbiota; FCR

资金

  1. Institute of Science and Technology, Flanders (IWT) [SBO-100016]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Probiotics which do not result in the development and spread of microbial resistance are among the candidate replacements for antibiotics previously used as growth promotors. In this study the effect of in feed supplementation of the butyrate producing Butyricicoccus pullicaecorum strain 25-3(T) on performance, intestinal microbiota and prevention of necrotic enteritis (NE), a disease caused by Clostridium perfringens was evaluated in broilers. For the performance study, day old Ross 308 chicks were randomly allocated into two treatment groups and fed either a non-supplemented diet or a diet supplemented with 10(9) cfu lyophilized B. pullicaecorum per kg feed for 40 days. On day 40 broilers administered B. pullicaecorum had a significant lower bodyweight (2675 g vs. 2762 g; p = 0.0025) but supplementation of B. pullicaecorum decreased the feed conversion ratio significantly (1.518 vs. 1.632; p < 0.0001). Additionally, ingestion of the Butyricicoccus strain significantly lowered the abundance of Campylobacter spp. in the caecum and Enterococcus and Escherichia/Shigella spp. in the ileum at day 40. In feed supplementation of B. pullicaecorum in the NE trials resulted in a significant decrease in the number of birds with necrotic lesions compared with the untreated control group. These studies show that supplementation of B. pullicaecorum is able to improve feed conversion, to reduce the abundance of some potentially important pathogens in the caeca and ileum and to contribute to the prevention of NE in broilers, making the strain a potential valuable probiotic.

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

4.6
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