A comparison of the effects of resistant starch, fructooligosaccharide, and zinc bacitracin on cecal short-chain fatty acids, cecal microflora, intestinal morphology, and antibody titer against Newcastle disease virus in broilers

被引：10

作者：

Akbaryan M. ^{[1
]}

Mahdavi A. ^{[1
]}

Jebelli-Javan A. ^{[1
]}

Staji H. ^{[1
]}

Darabighane B. ^{[2
]}

机构：

[1] Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Semnan University, Semnan

[2] Department of Animal Science, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil

来源：

Comparative Clinical Pathology | 2019年 / 28卷 / 3期

关键词：

Broiler; Fructooligosaccharide; Resistant starch; Zinc bacitracin;

D O I：

10.1007/s00580-019-02936-9

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

This study was conducted to examine effects of resistant starch (RS), compared to fructooligosaccharide (FOS) and zinc bacitracin (ZnB), on cecal short-chain fatty acids, cecal microflora intestinal morphology, and antibody titer against Newcastle disease virus in broilers. The experiment groups included the control group (basal diet with no additive; CON), four groups receiving different levels of RS type 2 (1, 2, 3, and 4% in basal diet; RS), a FOS group (0.4% of basal diet), and a ZnB group (50 mg/kg of basal diet). On day 35, the highest concentration of acetic, propionic, and butyric was found in the 4% RS, showing a significant difference from the CON as well as the FOS and the ZnB (P < 0.05). The greatest lactobacillus count was found the FOS (P < 0.05), and of the groups that received RS, the 4% RS had the greatest lactobacillus count. The smallest coliform count was found in the 3% and 4% RS groups (P < 0.05). In the duodenum and the jejunum, the largest villus height (VH) and the smallest crypt depth (CD) were found in the ZnB. Among the groups treated with RS, the 3% RS had the greatest VH and the smallest CD. The group that received FOS showed the greatest antibody titer on day 23, and of the groups treated with RS, the 4% RS had the greatest antibody titer showing a significant difference from the CON. The findings suggest that adding 3 and 4% RS or FOS to broiler’s feed may improve intestinal health. © Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019.

引用

页码：661 / 667

页数：6

共 29 条

[1]

Adhikari P.A., Kim W.K., Overview of prebiotics and probiotics: Focus on performance, gut health and immunity–a review, Ann Anim Sci, 17, pp. 949-966, (2017)

[2]

Ashwar B.A., Gani A., Shah A., Wani I.A., Masoodi F.A., Preparation, health benefits and applications of resistant starch—a review, Starch-Stärke, 68, pp. 287-301, (2016)

[3]

Bhandari S., Nyachoti C., Krause D., Raw potato starch in weaned pig diets and its influence on postweaning scours and the molecular microbial ecology of the digestive tract, J Anim Sci, 87, pp. 984-993, (2009)

[4]

Bird A., Conlon M., Christophersen C., Topping D., Resistant starch, large bowel fermentation and a broader perspective of prebiotics and probiotics, Benefic Microbes, 1, pp. 423-431, (2010)

[5]

Catala-Gregori P., Garcia V., Madrid J., Orengo J., Hernandez F., Response of broilers to feeding low-calcium and total phosphorus wheat-soybean based diets plus phytase: Performance, digestibility, mineral retention and tibiotarsus mineralization, Can J Anim Sci, 87, pp. 563-569, (2007)

[6]

Dibaji S.M., Seidavi A., Asadpour L., Moreira da Silva F., Effect of a synbiotic on the intestinal microflora of chickens, J Appl Poult Res, 23, pp. 1-6, (2014)

[7]

Dibner J., Richards J., Antibiotic growth promoters in agriculture: History and mode of action, Poult Sci, 84, pp. 634-643, (2005)

[8]

Fuentes-Zaragoza E., Riquelme-Navarrete M., Sanchez-Zapata E., Perez Alvarez J., Resistant starch as functional ingredient: A review, Food Res Int, 43, pp. 931-942, (2010)

[9]

Fuentes-Zaragoza E., Sanchez-Zapata E., Sendra E., Sayas E., Navarro C., Fernandez-Lopez J., Perez-Alvarez J.A., Resistant starch as prebiotic: A review, Starch-Stärke, 63, pp. 406-415, (2011)

[10]

Gadde U., Kim W., Oh S., Lillehoj H.S., Alternatives to antibiotics for maximizing growth performance and feed efficiency in poultry: A review, Anim Health Res Rev, 18, pp. 26-45, (2017)

← 1 2 3 →