Evaluation of the efficacy of a probiotic containing Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Enterococcus, and Pediococcus strains in promoting broiler performance and modulating cecal microflora…
By K. Mountzouris, P. Tsirtsikos, E. Kalamara, S. Nitsch, G. Schatzmayr, K. Fegeros. Poultry Science, 2007
739 citations recorded by the source corpus.
The aim of this work was to investigate the efficacy of a new multibacterial species probiotic in broiler nutrition. The probiotic contained 2 Lactobacillus strains, 1 Bifidobacterium strain, 1 Enterococcus strain, and 1 Pediococcus strain. Four hundred 1-d-old male Cobb broilers were allocated in 4 experimental treatments for 6 wk. The experimental treatments received a corn-soybean basal diet and were as follows: "control," with no other additions; "probiotic in feed and water," (PFW) with probiotic administered at 1 g/kg of feed for the whole period and in water on scheduled intervals during the first 4 wk; "probiotic in feed," (PF) with probiotic in feed as in PFW; and "antibiotic," (AB) with addition of avilamycin at 2.5 mg/kg of feed. Salinomycin Na was used as a coccidiostat. Each treatment had 5 replicates of 20 broilers. Treatment effects on parameters of broiler performance and cecal microbial ecology were determined. Broiler BW, feed intake, and feed conversion ratio were determined on a weekly and overall basis. Cecal microflora composition, concentration of volatile fatty acids, and activities of 5 bacterial glycolytic enzymes (alpha-galactosidase, beta-galactosidase, alpha-glucosidase, beta-glucosidase, and beta-glucuronidase) were determined at the end of the experiment. Overall, treatment PFW displayed a growth-promoting effect that did not differ from AB. Overall, feed conversion ratio in treatment AB was significantly better (P < or = 0.01) than the control treatment, whereas treatments PFW and PF were intermediate and not different from AB. Concentrations of bacteria belonging to Bifidobacterium spp., Lactobacillus spp., and gram-positive cocci were significantly (P < or = 0.05) higher in treatments PFW and PF compared with the control and AB treatments. Treatments PFW and PF had significantly higher specific activities of alpha-galactosidase and beta-galactosidase compared with the control and AB treatments. In conclusion, probiotic treatment PFW displayed a growth-promoting effect that was comparable to avilamycin treatment. In addition, treatments PFW and PF modulated the composition and, to an extent, the activities of the cecal microflora, resulting in a significant probiotic effect.
Subfields: Animal Science and Zoology, Food Science, Nutrition and Dietetics
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0e08c9db48ddc0201c1aa66fb42df7c26bd1fed9
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Animal Science and Zoology
In Food Science
In Nutrition and Dietetics
Citations in the corpus
- Evaluation of Multi-microbial Probiotics Produced by Submerged Liquid and Solid Substrate Fermentation Methods in Broilers (2010, result): “The beneficial effects of probiotics in broilers are in agreement with a number of previous research studies (Owings et al., 1990; Cavazzoni et al., 1998; Kabir et al., 2004; Mountzouris et al., 2007).”
- Probiotics and phytogenics for poultry: myth or reality? (2010, background): “In the European Union, microorganisms used as feed additives are comprehensively regulated [34], whereas in the past, the use of conventional probiotic organisms in various human applications were not particularly regulated [38].”
- Alternatives to antibiotics for maximizing growth performance and feed efficiency in poultry: a review (2017, background): “…of different bene fi cial bacteria and/or yeast and were shown to exhibit a growth-promoting effect (Chiang and Hsieh, 1995; Huang et al. , 2004; Mountzouris et al. , 2007, 2010; Nayebpor et al. , 2007; Talebi et al. , 2008; Torshizi et al. , 2010; Kim et al. , 2012; Bai et al. , 2013;…”
- Effects of dietary inclusion of probiotic and synbiotic on growth performance, organ weights, and intestinal histomorphology of broiler chickens. (2009, background): “After feeding of probiotics, improvements in growth performance and feed efficiency have been reported in broiler chickens (Cavazzoni et al., 1998; Jin et al., 1998; Zulkifli et al., 2000; Kabir et al., 2004; Mountzouris et al., 2007; Samli et al., 2007).”
- Dietary modulation of gut microflora in broiler chickens: a review of the role of six kinds of alternatives to in-feed antibiotics (2009, background): “…were reported to be comparable to antibiotic treatments (virginiamycin, Cavazzoni et al., 1998; oxytetracycline, Zulkifli et al., 2000; avilamycin, Mountzouris et al., 2007); a meta-analysis of 35 studies involved in probiotics across Brazil between 1995 and 2005 seems to indicate that probiotics…”
- Effects of probiotic and phytogenic products on performance, gut morphology and cecal microflora of broiler chickens (2010, background): “…a reduction in proliferation of pathogenic species, maintaining microbiota balance in the gut (LINE et al. 1998, MACFARLANE and CUMMINGS 1999, MOUNTZOURIS et al. 2007), boost immune function (ZULKIFLI et al. 2000, KABIR et al. 2004) and increase resistance to infection (HERICH et al. 1998,…”
- Probiotics and prebiotics in animal feeding for safe food production. (2010, background): “Mountzouris et al. (2007)x investigated the efficacy of selected probiotic bacteria, isolated from the gut of healthy chickens (Lactobacillus reuteri, L. salivarius, Enterococcus faecium, Bifidobacterium animalis and Pediococcus acidilactici and) on body weight, feed intake and feed conversion…”