SAFE ALTERNATIVES TO ANTIBIOTICS IN BROILER CHICKS: 2-EFFECT OF COMPETITIVE EXCLUSION AND PREBIOTICS...

Proceeding of the 4th scientific conference of Animal Production Research Institute 223-234

November 12-13th, 2013, Dokki, Giza, Egypt.

SAFE ALTERNATIVES TO ANTIBIOTICS IN BROILER CHICKS: 2-EFFECT OF COMPETITIVE EXCLUSION AND PREBIOTICS ON GROWTH PERFORMANCE, IMMUNE RESPONSE AND MICROBIOTA OF BROILER CHICKS DURING SUMMER SEASON Abdel-Khalek1*, A.M., Abdel-Salaam2, A. F. and Youssef1, S. F. 1 Animal Production Research Institute, Agric. Res. Center, Egypt. 2 Regional Center for Food and Feed, Agric. Res. Center, Egypt. *[email protected]

ABSTRACT

This study was carried out to investigate the response to some safe alternatives

growth promoters on some performance aspects of broiler chicks subjected to environmental stress of summer season. Two hundred and eighty 1-day-old unsexed Arbor Acres broiler chicks (averaged 41 g), divided equally into seven groups of four replicates each, were reared on wire battery cages and had the same managerial procedures throughout the growth trial term (June-August months). The experimental groups were; G1: A control group was fed on the basal diet without treatment, G2: One dose oral gavage with 1 ml (1 x 1010 cfu) of self developed-undefined anaerobic (CE) culture/chick administrated at day-1 post-hatch within 6 hours after chicks had been arrived to the farm, G3: Two doses oral gavage with CE culture/chick (1 x 1010 cfu, each), administrated twice; 1st time at day-1 post-hatch within 6 hours after chicks had been arrived to the farm and another repeated dose (1 x 1010 cfu/ml) at day 11 of age, G4: was fed on the basal diet supplemented with commercial prebiotic (MTB-100, 1 g/kg diet), only during starter period and then chicks were switched to the control diets during grower and finisher periods, G5: was fed on the basal diets supplemented with MTB-100 (1g/kg diet) during starter and grower and not during finisher feeding, G6: was fed on the basal diet supplemented with commercial prebiotic (Bio-Mos, 1g/kg diet), only during starter period and then chicks were switched to the control diets during grower and finisher periods, and G7: was fed on the basal diets supplemented with Bio-Mos (1g/kg diet) during starter and grower and not during finisher feeding. Results obtained could be summarized as follow:

- Body weight gain (BWG) did not significantly affected by the experimental treatments. However, BWG were tended to increase with tested CE or prebiotics both during finisher and the total experimental period. Feed conversion ratio during grower period was significantly (P=0.003) affected by experimental treatments and not for other intervals.

- Gavaging CE twice significantly (P=0.05) showed higher total beneficial anaerobic bacteria against the other treatments. Total aerobic bacteria were not significantly affected by experimental treatments.

- Competitive exclusion or prebiotics significantly (P=0.001) increased red blood cell count, hemoglobin and hematocrit compared to the control treatment. While, mean corpuscular volume, mean corpuscular hemoglobin and mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration were not significantly influenced by examined supplements

- Supplementation with CE or prebiotics significantly increased white blood cell count (P=0.001), lymphocytes percent (P=0.001), serum Immunoglobulin A (P=0.007) and Antibody against Newcastle Disease Virus (P=0.001), while heterophils percent (P=0.001) and heterophils to lymphocytes ratio were significantly (P=0.001) decreased with tested supplements compared to the control.

It can be recommended that providing either CE culture or commercial prebiotics (Gos & Mos) may improve the performance of broiler chicks during summer months. Keyword: broiler chicks , competitive exclusion, prebiotics, growth, immunity, microbiota

SAFE ALTERNATIVES TO ANTIBIOTICS IN BROILER CHICKS…

224

INTRODUCTION The recent evidence on the development of resistance in zoonotic organisms of

animal origin and the consumers' claims for safety animal foods urged many countries around the world to ban the use of anti-microbial growth promoters that in turn has resulted in search for safe, reliable and economic alternatives. In this respect, probiotics and prebiotics seem to be convenient alternatives.

The inclusion of desirable microorganisms (probiotics) in the diet allows the rapid development of beneficial bacteria in the digestive tract of the host, improving its performance (Edens, 2003). As a consequence, there is an improvement in the intestinal environment, increasing the efficiency of digestion and nutrient absorption processes (Pelicano et al., 2004), which may explain the improvement in feed conversion ratio observed with probiotic feeding. The efficiency of probiotics, however, will depend on the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of microorganisms used in the production of growth promoters (Tournut, 1998), making it difficult to conduct comparative studies between different products. The phenomenon by which the normal intestinal microflora protects the host against invading pathogens is called competitive exclusion. The treatment is fully biological, it does not leave and residues and only one treatment on the day-of hatch is normally enough (Schneitz, 2005). Selim et al., (2009) reported that CE that orally gavaged to newly hatched chicks at the dose of 1 ml/ chick (only once) was more efficient in promoting good performance and balanced intestinal microbial ecology in favour of the beneficial bacteria than commercial preparations that may lack the compatibility with the management conditions prevailed in Egypt. Also earlier study by Abdel-Salam (2001) reported that the same previously mentioned technique was effectual to improve growth performance of broiler chicks infected with Salmonella.

Prebiotics have been reported to produce a beneficial effect upon the animal that receives them. This is due to that prebiotics work as a substrate for the proliferation of certain beneficial bacteria such as Bifidobacterium spp. and Lactobacillus spp. or an increase in their metabolic activity (Gibson and Roberfroid, 1995). Inulin, fructo-oligosaccharide, gluco-oligosaccharides and other oligo-saccharides, except mannan-ologosaccharides (MOS), are reported to be substrates for certain species of beneficial bacteria (Chung and Day, 2004), whereas MOS appear to act due to their capability to interlink the fimbriae of E coli and Salmonella spp, blocking the ability of these bacteria to connect via their fimbriae, with the epithelial cells and therefore facilitating their excretion (Spring et al., 2000, and Duncan et al., 2005). Also, the MOS have a positive effect on the immunity preventing the infections (Shashidahara and Devegowda, 2003). The use of dietary prebiotics in broiler nutrition has yielded variable responses. Several studies have shown improved performance in birds supplemented with MOS and ß-glucans (Hooge et al., 2004 and Benites et al., 2008), but also there is a number of evaluations where no benefits on live weight or feed efficiency were found (Benites et al., 2008 and Baurhoo et al., 2009). It has been hypothesised by many that a lack of environmental, health or social challenges may be behind the bird performance ineffectiveness of sources of these active ingredients (Baurhoo et al., 2009).

The current study aimed at comparing the efficacy of undefined-competitive exclusion culture and two prebiotic sources with different mode of actions (gluco or mannan oligo-saccharides) offered once or twice on growth performance, immune response and gut microbiota of broiler chicks raised during summer season.

MATERIALS and METHODS

Microbiological studies:

Before launching the growth trial, drinking water, formulated diets, droppings and cloacal swaps from new hatched 10 chicks, all were checked for Salmonella infection. At the end of the growth trial, six chicks of each experimental group were chosen for the total anaerobic and aerobic count determinations in duodenum.

Abdel-Khalek, A.M. et al.,

225

Preparation of anaerobic inoculum: Cecal content from three adult broilers, immediately after slaughtering were

transferred into anaerobic chamber (Cox Laboratory Products, Ann Arbor, Mioch.), where they were pooled, and mixed with five folds of sterile glycerin, then doses of 0.2 ml of the resultant suspension were put in test tubes and stored at -70ºC until use. Before inoculation, 200 ml of LVL broth (10 g/l liter of tryptose, 5 g/l liter of NaCl, 2.4 g/l liter of beef extract, 5 g/l liter of yeast extract, 10.4 g/l liter of cystine hydrochloride, 25 g/l liter of lactose and 0.6 g/l liter of agar with a final pH of 6.67) was inoculated with a loopfull from the anaerobic inoculum and incubated, anaerobically for 24 hr, after which a plate count was done using LVL agar (the same as LVL broth with the addition of 1.5 % agar), according to the method ascribed by (Bailery et al., 1988). Preparation method was adjusted to obtain not less than 1010 cfu/m of the undefined inoculun. Detection of Salmonella:

Cecal contents, previously used in the preparation of anaerobic culture were examined to ensure their freedomness from Salmonella using peptone water as pre-enrichment broth, then selective Salmonella as enrichment broth. Salmonella shigella agar (S.S) as plating medium, biochemical and serological tests for identification (NMKL, 1994). Determination of total bacterial count (anaerobes and aerobes):

Determination of total bacterial count was carried out according to the procedure described by Berrange et al., (2001). Growth trial measurements:

Two hundred and eighty 1-day-old unsexed broiler chicks (averaged 41 g), divided equally into seven groups of four replicates each, were reared on wire battery cages and had the same managerial procedures throughout the growth trial term. Birds were given ad libitum access to water and the diets described in Table (1). Three-phased diets were formulated to meet the Arbor Acres strain requirements. Phase starter (1-10 days of age), phase grower (11-24 days of age), and finisher (25-40 days of age). The experimental groups were; G1: A control group was fed on the basal diet without treatment, G2: One dose oral gavage with 1 ml (1 x 1010 cfu) of self developed-undefined anaerobic (CE) culture/chick administrated at day-1 post-hatch within 6 hours after chicks had been arrived to the farm, G3: Two doses oral gavage with CE culture/chick (1 x 1010 cfu, each), administrated twice; 1st time at day-1 post-hatch within 6 hours after chicks had been arrived to the farm and another repeated dose (1 x 1010 cfu/ml) at day 11 of age, G4: was fed on the basal diet supplemented with commercial prebiotic (MTB-100, 1 g/kg diet), only during starter period and then chicks were switched to the control diets during grower and finisher periods, G5: was fed on the basal diets supplemented with commercial prebiotic (MTB-100, 1g/kg diet) during starter and grower and not during finisher feeding, G6: was fed on the basal diet supplemented with Bio-Mos (1g/kg diet), only during starter period and then chicks were switched to the control diets during grower and finisher periods, and G7: was fed on the basal diets supplemented with Bio-Mos (1g/kg diet) during starter and grower and not during finisher feeding. MTB-100TM is a commercial prebiotic based on esterified gluco-mannan, while Bio-Mos™ is a commercial prebiotic based on mannan oligosaccharide, both are products of Alltech Inc., USA. Live body weight and feed intake were recorded for each growth phase, and the corresponding live body weight gain and feed conversion ratio were calculated. Chicks were kept under the same managerial routine during June-August months. Experimental facility air temperature and relative humidity were recorded during day hours. At the termination of the growth trial period (40 days of age), six representing birds of each experimental group were overnight fasted, slaughtered and eviscerated. Weights of hot carcass with neck, liver, heart, gizzard and abdominal fat, each was proportioned to the live body weight upon slaughtering.


226

Hematological and immunological measurements: Blood samples were taken from the brachial vein into heparinzed tubes from one

chick from each replicate. Hemoglobin, hematocrit concentration (Hb) and red blood cells (RBC`s) count were determined (Hoffbrand et al., 2006). Total and differential white blood cells (WBC) counts were performed by using standard avian guidelines introduced by Ritchie et al., (1994). Leucocyte cells heterophils (H), lymphocytes (L), were counted and H: L ratios were calculated (Gross and Siegel, 1986). IgA measured according to Wieland et al., (2004). The immune response to Newcastle Disease Virus (NDV) was carried out by measuring titer against that virus using preventing from hemangontinasion method and using commercial Elisa kits. These examinations were carried out in Reference Laboratory for Veterinary Quality Control on Poultry Production, Egypt. Statistical procedures:

Data were subjected to a one-way analysis using SAS procedures (SAS, 1990). Variables having significant differences were compared using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (Duncan, 1955).

RESULTS and DISCUSSION Laboratory preparation of the anaerobic inoculum resulted in 1 x 1010 cfu/ml solution.

Also, samples of drinking water, formulated diets, droppings and cloacal swaps of chicks were found negative for Salmonella detection at the start of the study. Mortality level (5% overall) was within normally expected limits, and was not influenced by dietary treatment. Data of the maximum recorded air temperature (°C) and average relative humidity (%) are summarized in Table (2). Growth performance:

Results in Tables (3, 4 and 5) show the effect of different experimental treatment on body weight gains (BWG), feed conversion ratio (FCR) during studied growth intervals and carcass traits of broilers at termination of the study. BWG did not significantly affected by the experimental treatments. However, BWG were tended to increase with tested CE or prebiotics both during finisher and the total experimental period. Dosing CE twice or MOS during starter and grower periods recoded 9.4% and 10.2% higher BWG over the control, respectively but the effect still numerical. Only FCR during grower period was significantly (P=0.003) affected by experimental treatments and not for other intervals. CE treatments improved FCR by 5.8% relative to the control group. Hot carcass weight and dressing weight percentages were not significantly differed between studied treatments. Abdominal fat weight percentage was significantly higher in broiler chicks orally gavaged once with CE preparation against the other treatments.

Results for CE are not in agreement with results of Selim et al., (2009) who reported that undefined anaerobic bacteria culture isolated from the cecum of healthy native adult broilers that orally gavaged to newly hatched chicks (only once) was more efficient in promoting good performance and balanced intestinal microbial ecology in favour of the beneficial bacteria than commercial preparations that may lack the compatibility with the management conditions prevailed. The non-significant improvements in BWG and FCR with prebiotics could be regarded in light that increasing beneficial gut micro flora through the use of prebiotics will compete against harmful bacteria and decrease the pH of environment (Topping, 1996), enhancing nutrient absorption and prevent infection. The function of supplemental beneficial bacteria “probiotics” is thus to improve the growth and development of the normal, desirable microbial population in the gut allowing them to maintain domination over the undesirable organisms by maintaining a desirable pH thus allowing the growth of beneficial bacteria which produces a natural anti biotic like substance called bacteriocins, (Suskovic et al., 1997) which helps to eliminate unwanted coli forms as data indicate in Table 5.

Results for studied prebiotics are in agreement with Pelicano et al., (2004) who reported that FCR of broiler chicks fed diets with probiotic or prebiotic was better than FCR of


227

birds not receiving such additives during the initial period (1 to 21 days). Midilli et al., (2008) observed that Bio-Mos had no effect on BWG or carcass yield. While, Bozkurt et al., (2008) showed that broiler chicks fed MOS diet exhibited significantly BWG but not FCR compared to the control birds. They also reported that percentage weight of carcass yield not of abdominal fat pad was not affected by dietary prebiotic supplementation. Bacteriological study:

Results in Table (6) indicate that total beneficial anaerobic bacteria were significantly (P=0.05) higher with gavaging CE twice against the other treatments evaluated while total aerobic bacteria that are composed not beneficial species were not significantly affected. In this connection, Selim et al., (2009) reported that CE treatment enhanced the multiplication of beneficial anaerobes, while margining the plate count of aerobes. The increase in anaerobic bacteria are considered indicator for a flora which allows good gastro-intestinal functioning of the host. These microorganisms produce short chain fatty acids, creating an acidic environment which suppresses the growth of putrefactive proteolytic bacteria (Yusrizal and Chen, 2003).

No much research work has been done to explore the relationship between supplemental prebiotics and broiler microbiota; Xu et al., (2003) concluded fructo-oligosaccharides was associated with more proliferated beneficial bacteria, and a remarkable reduction in pathogenic bacteria in the cecum and small intestine. The effects of MOS on the population of beneficial bacteria in the gut of broilers are inconsistent. Because attachment is often mediated through binding of bacterial lectins to receptors containing D-mannose (Eschdat et al., 1978), it may be possible to block the lectins with mannose or similar sugars and to inhibit bacterial attachment. Finuance et al., (1999) reported the turkey poults on mannanoligosaccharide treatment showed a higher total anaerobe count and lower level of Clostridium perfringens than the control group. Fernandez et al., (2002) and Denev et al., (2005) reported increases in lactobacilli and bifidobacteria populations in the ceca of broilers fed MOS compared with the control diet. Sims et al., (2004) observed increased cecal population of bifidobacteria in turkeys fed MOS compared with the control diet, but there were no differences in cecal load of lactobacilli. Spring et al., (2000) reported no effect of MOS on lactobacilli populations in the ceca of broilers. Baurhoo et al., (2007) reported that when BioMos was incorporated in broiler diets, population of Bifidobacteria were comparable to the control group.

Hematological and immunological measurements: Results of the effect of studied treatments in some hematological and immunological

parameters are provided in Tables (7 and 8). Competitive exclusion or prebiotics significantly increased red blood cell count (P=0.001), hemoglobin (P=0.001) and hematocrit (P=0.001) compared to the control group. While, mean corpuscular volume (MCV), mean corpuscular hemoglobin (MCH) and mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (MCHC) were not significantly influenced by examined supplements (Table 7).

The results agree with Ozsoy and Yalcin, (2011) and Abdel-Rahman et al., (2012) who reported that probiotics may improve health condition by enhancing concentration of hemoglobin, hematocrit and red blood cell count in broilers. The results also agree with (El-Sheikh et al., 2009) who reported that addition of MOS caused significant increase in hemoglobin and RBC's of broilers.

Supplementation of competitive exclusion or prebiotics to broiler chicks diets significantly increased white blood cell count (P=0.001), lymphocytes (L) percent (P=0.001), serum Immunoglobulin A (P=0.007) and Antibody Against Newcastle Disease Virus (NDV) (P=0.001), while heterophils (H) percent (P=0.001) and H /L ratio (P=0.001) were significantly decreased with tested supplements compared to the control (Table 8).

Results with CE preparation agree with Szajewska et al., (2001) who reported that probiotics interact with enterocytes, goblet cells, Peyer´s patches, isolated follicles that are extended through the mucosa and submucosa in the small intestine, forming GALT (Gut Associated Lymphoid Tissue) and immune cells among them, intraepithelial lymphocytes.


228

These interactions result in an increase in the number of IgA producing cells accompanied by the production of secretory IgA that are particularly important to the immunity of the mucosa, contributing to the barrier against pathogenic micro-organisms.

Results with prebiotics agree with other reports; Attia, et al., (2013) indicated that MOS supplementation increased lymphocyte count and serum IgA were increased while serum IgA tended to increase compared with the control group and El-Sheikh et al., (2009) and Kim et al., (2009) who postulated that supplemental MOS increased the production of IgA. Attia, et al., (2013) suggested that MOS have three modes of action, which includes its ability to adsorb enteropathogenic bacteria, improve gastrointestinal health and finally its ability to modulate the immune system. Moreover, MOS was capable of stimulating specific microbial populations resulting in improved fibre fermentation with a reduction in starch and sugar utilizing bacterial populations. Glucans have a strong immuno-modulating activity which has been well studied in livestock (Paul et al., 2012). During stress, immunostimulants can provide resistance to pathogens. Glucans are now commercially significant as immunostimulating agents (Ganguly, 2013). Different types of β-glucans have been successfully used to increase the resistance of poultry against bacterial and viral infections (Ganguly and Mukhopadhayay, 2011 and Paul et al., 2013). The increase in WBC count and decrease in H/L may be due to β-glucans are capable of altering cytokine profiles (Cox et al., 2010). β-Glucans have beneficial effects on both the innate and adaptive immune systems (Chen et al., 2003). The increase in IgA and immunity against NDV agree with Shao et al., (2013) who reported that β-glucans increased the number of IgA-expressing cells and secretory IgA content which suggesting the presence of immune stimulating effect of β-glucans (Rajapakse et al., 2010).

CONCLUSION

Supplementing of broiler chicks with competitive exclusion culture or glucan/mannan-oligosaccharides-prebiotic during starter and grower periods during summer season can improve the growth performance, enhance immunity functions and boost the beneficial microbiota of the digestive system.

REFERENCES

1. Abdel-Rahman, H., A. Kamel, H. Walaa, M. Ahmed, O. Mogoda, and H. Mohamed. 2012. Effect of bactocell and revitilyte-plustm as probiotic food supplements on the growth performance, hematological, biochemical parameters and humoral immune response of broiler chickens. World Appl. Sci. J., 18: 305-316

2. Abdel-Salam, A. 2001. Control of microbial pollution in feed-stuffs of animal origin as affected by some environmental factors. M.Sc., Thesis, Dept. Agric. Sci., Inst. Environmental Studies, Ain Shams Univ., Egypt.

3. Attia, Y., H. Allakany, A. Abd Al-Hamid, A. Al-Saffar, R. Hassan, and N. Mohamed. 2013. Capability of different non-nutritive feed additives on improving productive and physiological traits of broiler chicks fed diets with or without aflatoxin during the first 3 weeks of life. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr., 97:754-772.

4. Bailery, J., L. Blankenship, N. Stern, N. Cox, and F. McHan. 1988. Effect of anticoccodial and antimicrobial feed additives on prevention of Salmonella colonization of chicks treated with anaerobic culture of chicken faeces. Adv. Disease, 32:324-329.

5. Baurhoo, B., P. Ferket, and X. Zhao. 2009. Effects of diets containing different concentrations of mannanoligosaccharide or antibiotics on growth performance, intestinal development, cecal and litter microbial populations and carcass parameters of broilers. Poult. Sci., 88:2262-2272.


229

6. Baurhoo, B., L. Phillip, and C. Ruiz-Feria. 2007. Effects of purified lignin and mannan oligosaccharides on intestinal integrity and microbial populations in the ceca and litter of broiler chickens. Poult. Sci., 86:1070–1078

7. Benites, V., R. Gillharry, A. Gernat, and J. Murillo. 2008. Effect of dietary mannan oligosaccharide from Bio-Mos or SAF-Mannan on live performance of broiler chickens. J. Appl. Poult. Res., 17:471-475.

8. Berrange, M., S. Ladely, and R. Buhr. 2001. Presence and level of Campylobacter, Coliforms, Escherichia coli and total aerobic bacteria recorded from broiler parts with and without shin. Food Protection, 64 (2): 184-188.

9. Bozkurt, M., K. Küçükyilmaz, A. Çatli, and M. Çinar. 2008. Growth performance and slaughter characteristics of broiler chickens fed with antibiotic, mannan oligosaccharide and dextran oligosaccharide supplemented diets. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 7 (10): 969-977.

10. Chen, H., D. Li, B. Chang, L. Gong, X. Piao, G. Yi, and J. Zhang. 2003. Effects of lentinan on broiler splenocyte proliferation, interleukin-2 production, and signal transduction. Poult. Sci., 82:760–766.

11. Chung, C., and D. Day. 2004. Efficacy of Leuconostoc mesenteroides (ATCC 13146) isomaltoologosacharides as a poultry prebiotic. Poult. Sci., 83: 1302-1306.

12. Cox, C., L. Stuard, S. Kim, A. McElroy, M. Bedford, and R. Dalloul. 2010. Performance and immune responses to dietary beta-glucan in broiler chicks. Poult. Sci., 89:1924-1933.

13. Denev, S., I. Dinev, I. Nikiforov, and V. Koinarski. 2005. Effects of mannan oligosaccharides on composition of cecal microflora and performance of broiler chickens. In Proc. 15th European Symp. Poult. Nutr., Hungary, pp. 351–353

14. Duncan, D.B. 1955. Multiple range and multiple F test. Biometrics, 11, 1-42. 15. Duncan M.J., E.L. M.S. Mann, Cohen, I. Ofek, N. Sharon and S.N. Abraham.

2005. The distinct binding specificities exhibited by enterobacterial type 1 fimbriae are determined by their fimbrial shafts. J. Biological Chem., 280(45): 37707-37716.

16. Edens, F. 2003. An alternative for antibiotic use in poultry: Probiotics. Braz. J. Poult. Sci., 5:75-97.

17. El-Sheikh, A., E. Abdalla, and M. Maysa. 2009. Study on productive performance, hematological and immunological parameters in a local strain of chicken as affected by mannan oligosaccharide under hot climate conditions. Egypt. Poult. Sci. J., 29: 287-305.

18. Eschdat, Y., I. Ofek, Y. Yashouv-Gan, N. Sharon, and D. Mirelman. 1978. Isolation of mannose specific lectin from Escherichia coli and its role in the adherence of bacteria to epithelial cells, Bioch. and Biophy. Res. Commun., 85: 1151-1159.

19. Fernandez, F., M. Hinton, and B. Van Gils. 2002. Dietary mannanoligosaccharides and their effect on chicken caecal microflora in relation to Salmonella enteritidis colonization. Avian Path., 31(1), 49-58.

20. Finuance, M. C., K. A. Dawson, P. Spring, and K. E. Newman. 1999. The effect of mannan oligosaccharide on the composition of the microflora in turkey poults, Poult. Sci., 78: 77.

21. Ganguly, S. 2013. Supplementation of prebiotics, probiotics, and acids on immunity in poultry feed: a brief review. World’s Poult. Sci. J., 69(3):639-647.

22. Ganguly, S., and S. Mukhopadhayay. 2011. Immunostimulants, probiotics and prebiotics: importance of immunostimulants, probiotic and prebiotic feed


230

supplements in poultry ration & in commercial aquaculture. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, Germany.

23. Gibson, G., and M. Roberfroid. 1995. Dietary modulation of the human colonic microbiota: introducing the concept of prebiotics. J. Nutr., 125:1401-1412.

24. Gross, W., and P. Siegel. 1986. Effects of initial and second periods of fasting on heterophil/lymphocyte ratios and body weight. Avian Dis., 30:345-346.

25. Hoffbrand, A., P. Moss, and J. Pettit. 2006. Essential Haematology, 5th ed. Blackwell Publishing, Italy.

26. Hooge, D., H. Ishimaru, and M. Sims. 2004. Influence of dietary Bacillus subtilis C-3102 spores on live performance of broiler chickens in four controlled pen trials. J. Appl. Poult. Res., 13:222-228.

27. Kim, C., K. Shin, K. Woo, and I. Paik. 2009. Effect of dietary oligosaccharides on the performance, intestinal microflora and serum immunoglobulin contents in laying hens. Kor. J. Poult. Sci. 36:125–131.

28. Midilli, M., M. Alp, N. Kocabağli, Ö. Muğlali, N. Turan, H. Yılmaz, and S. Çakir. (2008). Effects of dietary probiotic and prebiotic supplementation on growth performance and serum IgG concentration of broilers. South African J. Anim. Sci. 38(1):21-27

29. NMKL. 1994. Quality Assurance Guidelines for Microbiological Laboratories. Reports No. 5, 2nd edition.

30. Ozsoy, B., and S. Yalcin. 2011. The effects of dietary supplementation of yeast culture on performance blood parameters and immune system in broiler turkeys. Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 58: 117-122.

31. Paul, I., D. Isore, S. Joardar, I. Samanta, U. Biswas, T. Maiti, S. Ganguly, and S. Mukhopadhayay. 2012. Orally administered β-glucan of edible mushroom (Pleuratus florida) origin upregulates innate immune response in broiler. Ind. J. Anim. Sci., 82(7):745-748.

32. Paul, I., D. Isore, S. Joardar, B. Roy, R. Aich, and S. Ganguly, 2013. Effect of dietary yeast cell wall preparation on innate immune response in broiler chickens. Ind. J. Anim. Sci., 83(3):307-9.

33. Pelicano, E., P. Souza, H. Souza, F. Leonel, N. Zeola, and M. Boiago. 2004. Productive traits of broiler chickens fed diets containing different growth promoters. Braz. J. Poult. Sci., 6:177-182.

34. Rajapakse, J., M. Buddhika, M. Nagataki, H. Nomura, Y. Watanabe, Y. Ikeue, and T. Agatsuma. 2010. Effect of Sophy β-glucan on immunity and growth performance in broiler chicken. J. Vet. Med. Sci., 72:1629-1632.

35. Ritchie, B., J. Harrison, and R. Harrison. 1994. Avian Medicine. Winger’s Publishing Inc, Florida, USA, pp. 176-198.

36. SAS Institute Inc. 1990. SAS/STAT User’s Guide. Version 8 Edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.

37. Schneitz, C. 2005. Competitive exclusion in poultry-30 years of research. Food control, 16:657-667.

38. Selim, N., A. Abdel-Khalek, and A. Abdel-Salam. 2009. Impact of prebiotic, probiotic and competitive exclusion on growth performance and microbiota of broiler chicks. 5th Int. Poult. Conf., 10-13 March, Egypt, 982-999.

39. Shao, Y., Y. Guo, and Z. Wang. 2013. β-1,3/1,6-Glucan alleviated intestinal mucosal barrier impairment of broiler chickens challenged with Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. Poult Sci., 92(7):1764-1773.


231

40. Shashidahara, R., and G. Devegowda. 2003. Effect of dietary mannan oligosaccharide on broiler breeder production traits and immunity. Poult. Sci., 82:1319-1325.

41. Sims, M., K. Dawson, K. Newman, P. Spring, and D. Hooge. 2004. Effects of dietary mannan oligosaccharide, bacitracin methylene disalicylate, or both on the live performance and intestinal microbiology of turkeys. Poult. Sci. 83:1148-1154.

42. Spring, P., C. Wenk, K. Dawson, and K. Newman 2000. The effects of dietary mannanoligosaccahrides on cecal parameters and the concentration of enteric bacteria in the ceca of Salmonella-challenged broiler chicks. Poult. Sci., 79: 205-211.

43. Suskovic, J., B. Brkic, and S. Matosic. 1997. Mechanism of probiotic activity of lactic acid bacteria. Mijekarstvo. 47 (1): 57-73

44. Szajewska, H., M. Kotowska, J. Mrukowicz, M. Armanska, and W. Mikolajczyk. 2001. Efficacy of Lactobacillus GG in prevention of nosocomial diarrhea in infants. The Journal of Pediatrics. 138:361–365.

45. Topping, D. 1996. Short chain fatty acids produced by intestinal bacteria. Asia Pacific J. Clin. Nutr., 5 (1): 15-19.

46. Tournut, J. R. 1998. Probiotics. In: 35ª Reunião Anual da Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia; Botucatu, São Paulo, Brasil. p.179-199.

47. Wieland, W., D. Orzaez, A. Lammers, K. Parmentier, W. Martin, and A. Schots. 2004. A functional polymeric immunoglobulin receptor in chicken (Gallus gallus) indicates ancient role of secretory IgA in mucosal immunity. Biochem. J. 380: 669–676.

48. Xu, Z., C. Hu, S. Xia, X. Zhan, and M. Wang. 2003. Effects of dietary frutooligosaccharide on digestive enzyme activities,intestinal microflora and morphology of male broilers. Poult. Sci., 82:1030–1036.

49. Yusrizal and Chen, T. 2003. Effect of adding chicory fructans in feed on broiler growth performance, serum cholesterol and intestinal length. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 3: 214-219.

Table (1) Composition and calculated chemical analysis of the experimental diets. Ingredients Starter (1-10 d) Grower (11-24 d) Finisher (25-40 d) Yellow corn 52.5 59.3 63.36 Soybean meal (44%) 34 26.7 22.5 Corn gluten (60%) 6.0 7.0 6.3 Soy oil 3.0 3.0 4.0 Di Calcium phosphate 1.84 1.72 1.59 Limestone 1.43 1.1 1.1 Vitamin-Mineral Premix* 0.3 0.3 0.3 NaCl 0.35 0.38 0.4 L-lysine 0.32 0.31 0.28 DL-methionine 0.26 0.19 0.17

calculated analysis Crude protein (%) 23.17 21.06 19.04 ME (kcal/kg) 3010 3110 3207 Ether extract (%) 5.64 5.81 6.88 Crude fiber (%) 3.81 3.45 3.23 Methionine +Cystene (%) 1.06 0.95 0.86 Lysine (%) 1.44 1.24 1.10 Calcium (%) 1.05 0.88 0.84 Available P (%) 0.50 0.47 0.43 *Supplied per 3.0 ; 12000000 IU vit.A; 2000000 IU vit. D3; 10000 mg vit. E; 1000 mg vit. K3; 1000 mg vit. B1; 5000 mg vit. B2; 1500 mg vit. B6; 10 mg vit. B12; 30000 mg vit. PP; 10000 mg vit. B5; 50 mg B8; 1000 mg B9; 250000 mg choline ; 60000 mg Mn; 30000 mg Fe; 50000 mg Zn; 10000 mg Cu; 1000 mg I; 100 mg Se and 100 mg Co.


232

Table (2) Recorded air temperature (°C) and relative humidity (%) throughout growth phases. Growth phase Air temperature (°C) Relative humidity (%) Starter 37-39 55 Grower 36-41 45 Finisher 36-37 35

Table (3) Effect of competitive exclusion (CE) or prebiotics on live body weight gain of broiler chicks (g). Stage Treatment

Starter (1-10 d)

Grower (11-24 d)

Finisher (25-40 d)

Total (1-40 d)

Control 146±11 595±23 773±17 1514±13 CE once (1st day) 137±30 546±38 874±25 1557±48 CE twice (1st +11th day) 156±13 636±15 864±58 1656±54 GOS (starter) 152±10 564±16 796±19 1512±15 GOS (starter + grower) 147±90 616±28 815±70 1578±33 MOS (starter) 141±60 541±25 856±67 1594±53 MOS (starter + grower) 147±11 591±25 856±67 1669±83 P value 0.799 0.198 0.101 0.178 Table (4) Effect of competitive exclusion (CE) or prebiotics on feed conversion ratio of broiler chicks. Stage Treatment

Starter (1-10 d)

Grower (11-24 d)

Finisher (25-40 d)

Total (1-40 d)

Control 1.39±0.11 1.74a±0.03 1.76±0.07 1.71±0.03 CE once (1st day) 1.47±0.04 1.56bcd±0.04 1.67±0.10 1.61±0.07 CE twice (1st +11th day) 1.30±0.11 1.46d±0.03 1.79±0.03 1.61±0.07 GOS (starter) 1.33±0.06 1.59bc±0.05 1.93±0.07 1.74±0.06 GOS (starter + grower) 1.38±0.09 1.43d±0.03 1.86±0.10 1.73±0.02 MOS (starter) 1.43±0.06 1.62b±0.05 1.84±0.02 1.73±0.02 MOS (starter + grower) 1.39±0.11 1.66ab±0.04 1.79±0.10 1.69±0.04 P value 0.869 0.003 0.359 0.187

a-d mean values within a column with unlike superscript letters were significantly differed.

Table (5) Effect of competitive exclusion (CE) or prebiotics on hot carcass weight, dressing weight and abdominal fat weight percentages of broiler chicks. Variable Treatment

Hot carcass yield (%)

Dressing weight (%)

Abdominal fat weight

(%) Control 63.3±0.8 68.9±0.8 1.59b±0.13 CE once (1st day) 64.0±0.4 68.5±0.5 2.24a±0.19 CE twice (1st +11th day) 64.1±1.0 68.0±1.1 1.45b±0.16 GOS (starter) 64.5±0.3 69.1±0.3 1.28b±0.1 GOS (starter + grower) 63.8±1.1 68.2±1.2 1.44b±0.1 MOS (starter) 64.8±0.4 68.8±0.3 1.57b±0.1 MOS (starter + grower) 65.0±0.6 69.3±0.7 1.51b±0.1 P value 0.713 0.557 0.0003

a-b mean values within a column with unlike superscript letters were significantly differed.


233

Table (6) Effect of competitive exclusion (CE) or prebiotics on total aerobes and anaerobes bacteria in duodenum of broiler chicks at 40 days of age. Variable Treatment

Aerobic (x106)

Anaerobic (beneficial) (x107)

Control 70 12b CE once (1st day) 7 3800b CE twice (1st +11th day) 2 62000a GOS (starter) 39 55b GOS (starter + grower) 21 186b MOS (starter) 35 76b MOS (starter + grower) 17 75b P value 0.24 0.05

a-b mean values within a column with unlike superscript letters were significantly differed.

Table (7) Effect of competitive exclusion (CE) or prebiotics on some hematological parameters

Variable Treatment RBC ×106/ mm3 HB

(g/dl) HT (%) MCV MCH MCHC

Control 2.68c ±0.08 10.00c ±0.54 27.75c ±0.95 103.71±1.57 37.58±2.78 36.22±2.53

CE once (1st day) 3.35a ±0.09 13.00a ±0.35 34.25a ±0.85 102.38±3.11 38.81±0.33 38.03±1.39

CE twice (1st +11th day) 3.38a ±0.09 13.20a ±0.11 35.00a ±0.91 103.75±1.84 39.16±0.67 37.78±0.80

GOS (starter) 3.08b ±0.06 12.25ab ±0.14 32.50ab ±1.04 105.68±2.41 39.87±0.61 37.81±1.25

GOS (starter + grower) 3.18ab ±0.09 11.75b ±0.43 31.00b ±0.41 97.81±2.01 36.99±0.41 37.87±0.96

MOS (starter) 3.15ab ±0.06 12.50a ±0.20 31.25b ±0.63 99.29±2.35 39.76±1.31 40.06±1.20

MOS (starter + grower) 3.25a ±0.06 12.13ab ±0.38 30.38b ±0.38 93.51±0.84 37.29±0.51 39.89±0.80

P value 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.088 0.496 0.497 a-c mean values within a column with unlike superscript letters were significantly differed. RBC: Red Blood Cell. MCV: Mean corpuscular volume. HB: Hemoglobin. MCH: Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin HT: Hematocrit. MCHC: Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin Concentration Table (8) Effect of competitive exclusion (CE) or prebiotics on some white blood Cells differentiation counts and immunity parameters

Variable Treatment

WBC ×104/ mm3 H (%) L (%) H/L IgA( mg/l) NDV

Control 3.43c±0.21 34.33a±0.80 59.80d±0.61 0.58a±0.02 3.93d±0.64 7.33d±0.30

CE once (1st day) 4.30ab±0.13 30.90b±0.54 63.50c±0.87 0.49ab±0.01 5.03ab±0.22 8.03bc±0.12

CE twice (1st +11th day) 4.58a±0.09 28.20bc±0.63 66.78ab±0.71 0.42c±0.01 5.67a±0.09 8.80a±0.06

GOS (starter) 4.00b±0.14 29.90bc±0.66 65.00bc±0.81 0.46bc±0.02 4.03c±0.12 7.80c±0.06

GOS (starter + grower) 4.25ab±0.09 28.13bc±1.63 67.70a±0.82 0.42c±0.03 4.43bc±0.12 7.97c±0.12

MOS (starter) 4.43ab±0.11 27.93c±0.39 66.40ab±0.52 0.42c±0.10 4.93abc±0.09 8.10bc±0.12

MOS (starter + grower) 4.38ab±0.13 27.45c±0.97 67.55a±0.87 0.41c±0.02 5.13ab±0.29 8.47ab±0.09

P value 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.007 0.001 a-d mean values within a column with unlike superscript letters were significantly differed. WBC: White Blood Cell. H/L:Heterophils: Lymphocyte ratio H: Heterophils IgA: Serum Immunoglobulin A L:Lymphocyte NDV: Antibody Against Newcastle Disease Virus


234

ى أداء -٢ :التسمین لدجاجالبدائل اآلمنة للمضادات الحیویة تأثیر االستبعاد التنافسي و البریبیوتیك عل البیئة المیكروبیة لدجاج التسمین خالل فصل الصیف واالستجابة المناعیة والنمو

اح فاروق یوسف -٢احمد عبد السالم - *١احمد محمد عبد الخالق ١صب

مصر –مركز البحوث الزراعیة –معھد بحوث اإلنتاج الحیواني ١ مصر –مركز البحوث الزراعیة –المركز اإلقلیمي للتغذیة واألعالف ٢

[email protected]*

ءأجریت ھذه الدراسة بھدف تقییم بعض البدائل اآلمنة من محفزات النمو على أداء بدارى التسمین المعرضة للعباءالحراري ع . فصل الصیف أثن م توزی وم ٢٨٠ت ر ی ر مجنسین عم ورایكرز غی مین ارب ا (كتكوت تس ٤١متوسط وزنھ

رام ة )ج ل مجموع امیع بك بع مج ل ٤، لس اص س ا بأقف م تربیتھ ررات ت ة مك م معامل ة ، وت روف الرعای س ظ ت نف كیة تح -:المجامیع على النحو التالي

.إضافات بدونالمعاملة األولى غذیت على علیقة مقارنة ة ا النافع ي١( المعاملة الثانیة غذیت على علیقة مقارنة وتم تجریعھا مرة واحدة بمستخلص البكتری ١٠ ١٠×١(مل

.وصول الكتاكیت إلى المزرعةساعات من ٦بعد ) وحدة خالیا میكروبیة ـعلیقة مقارنة وتالمعاملة الثالثة غذیت على ا مرتــــــ ـم تجریعھ ا النافعـ ـین بمستخلص البكتری ي١(ة ــــ ١٠× ١(مل

.یوم ١١ساعات من وصول الكتاكیت إلى المزرعة واألخرى على عمر ٦المرة األولى بعد ) وحدة خالیا میكروبیة ١٠ة مضاف المعاملة الرابعة غ ة مقارن ى علیق ا مستحضر إذیت عل رة ) كجم علف/جم ١( MTB-100لیھ خالل فت

.البادي فقط ثم غذیت على علیقة المقارنة في فترتي النامي والناھياالمعاملة الخامسة غذیت على علیقة مقارنة مضاف رة ) كجم علف/جم ١( MTB-100 مستحضر إلیھ خالل فت

.یقة المقارنة في فترتي الناھيالبادي والنامي ثم غذیت على علة مضاف ة مقارن ى علیق االمعاملة السادسة غذیت عل رة ) كجم علف/جم ١( Bio-Mosمستحضر إلیھ خالل فت

.البادي فقط ثم غذیت على علیقة المقارنة في فترتي النامي والناھية مضاف ة مقارن ى علیق ة السابعة غذیت عل االمعامل رة ) كجم علف/جم ١( Bio-Mos مستحضر إلیھ خالل فت .البادي والنامي ثم غذیت على علیقة المقارنة في فترة الناھي

-:ج التالیةویمكن تلخیص النتائة رة الكلی اھي والفت رة الن ي وزن الجسم خالل فت ادة ف ي الزی ة ف أدى التجریع وإضافة البریبیوتیك لزیادة غیر معنوی

على مستوى للتجربة ، و تأثر معامل التحویل الغذائي معنوی .٪ خالل فترة النامي٠.٠٠٣اة ٠.٠٥إجراء التجریع مرتین سبب زیادة معنویة على مستوى ة مقارن ة النافع ا الالھوائی ي للبكتیری دد الكل ي الع ٪ ف

. بینما لم تتأثر البكتریا الھوائیة. بباقي المعامالتادة معن ى زی ك إل ة أو إضافة البریبیوتی ى مستوى أدى تجریع البكتریا النافع ة عل دم ٠.٠٠١وی ي عدد كرات ال ٪ ف .الحمراء و نسبة الھیموجلوبین والھیماتوكریت مقارنة بمجموعة المقارنة

ى مستوى ي لكرات ٠.٠٠١أدى تجریع البكتریا النافعة أو إضافة البریبیوتیك إلى زیادة معنویة عل دد الكل ي الع ٪ فادة م ت الزی ة وكان ا اللمفاوی اء والخالی دم البیض توى ال ى مس ة عل اعي ٪ ٠.٠٠٧عنوی روتین المن ي الب ولین أ(ف ) جلوبی

.٪ في األجسام المضادة لمرض النیوكاسل٠.٠٠١ومعنویة على مستوى على مستوى ا ل٪ النسبة المئویة ل٠.٠٠١انخفضت معنویا ایرة الصبغخالی ا الونسبة متغ ایرة الصبغخالی ى متغ إل

.ا النافعة أو إضافة البریبیوتیك مقارنة بمعاملة المقارنةالخالیا اللیمفاویة عند تجریع البكتریع إجراء التجری ة ب دة وتوصي الدراس ة المفی ا الحی ك بالبكتری مین نیحسلتأو إضافة البریبیوت دارى التس فات ب ص

النامیة خالل شھور الصیف

SAFE ALTERNATIVES TO ANTIBIOTICS IN BROILER CHICKS: 2-EFFECT OF COMPETITIVE EXCLUSION AND PREBIOTICS...

Documents

Transcript of SAFE ALTERNATIVES TO ANTIBIOTICS IN BROILER CHICKS: 2-EFFECT OF COMPETITIVE EXCLUSION AND PREBIOTICS...