4.2 Article

Effect of yeast mannan-rich fractions on reducing Campylobacter colonization in broiler chickens

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED POULTRY RESEARCH
卷 26, 期 3, 页码 350-357

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.3382/japr/pfx002

关键词

qPCR; natural challenge; prebiotic; MOS; cecum

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Campylobacteriosis is considered to be the most frequently reported cause of zoonotic illness globally, with poultry being the main source of infection. Reducing the colonization level of Campylobacter spp. in broilers entering the processing unit could make an effective contribution at reducing the incidence of zoonotic transmission of this pathogen. It is essential to search for new, natural, and sustainable strategies to reduce the incidence of this bacterium in the broiler cecum. The aim of this study was to examine whether dietary supplementation of broilers with 3 different yeast mannan-rich fraction (MRF) supplements (supplements 1 to 3) reduced the level of natural Campylobacter spp. colonization in the broiler cecum. Birds were allowed to naturally become colonized with Campylobacter spp. from the environment. Weight gains and feed conversion ratios were measured throughout production. All 3 MRF based supplements resulted in higher weight gains over 35 d when compared with the control. Broiler pens were tested at d 21 post hatch using the boot swab method and confirmed Campylobacter spp. presence in the flock. At d 35 post hatch, colonization levels were measured using serial dilution plate counts and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) of cecal material. Enumeration of Campylobacter colonization level in cecal content by qPCR showed that both supplement 2 and supplement 3 significantly reduced the levels of Campylobacter spp. colonization in the broiler cecum at 35 days. In conclusion, under the conditions of this study, MRF based supplements significantly reduced Campylobacter colonisation levels in the broiler cecum while also offering improvements in weight gain.

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

4.2
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