Prophybiotics for in-ovo stimulation; validation of effects on gut health and production of broiler chickens.

Autor:	Wishna-Kadawarage RN; Department of Animal Biotechnology and Genetics, Faculty of Animal Breeding and Biology, Bydgoszcz University of Science and Technology, Mazowiecka 28, Bydgoszcz 85-084, Poland. Electronic address: ramesha.wishna-kadawarage@pbs.edu.pl., Połtowicz K; Department of Poultry Breeding, National Research Institute of Animal Production, Krakowska 1, Balice 32-083, Poland., Dankowiakowska A; Department of Animal Physiology and Physiotherapy, Faculty of Animal Breeding and Biology, Bydgoszcz University of Science and Technology, Mazowiecka 28, Bydgoszcz 85-084, Poland., Hickey RM; Teagasc Food Research Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork P61 C996, Ireland., Siwek M; Department of Animal Biotechnology and Genetics, Faculty of Animal Breeding and Biology, Bydgoszcz University of Science and Technology, Mazowiecka 28, Bydgoszcz 85-084, Poland.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Poultry science [Poult Sci] 2024 Apr; Vol. 103 (4), pp. 103512. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Feb 01.
DOI:	10.1016/j.psj.2024.103512
Abstrakt:	Probiotics and phytobiotics have demonstrated effective improvement of gut health in broiler chickens when individually administered in-ovo. However, their combined use in-ovo, has not been studied to date. We coined the term "prophybiotic" (probiotic + phytobiotic) for such a combination. The current study therefore, aimed to elucidate the effects of combined use of a selected probiotic and a phytobiotic in-ovo, on broiler gut health and production parameters, as opposed to use of probiotics alone. ROSS 308 hatching eggs were injected with either Leuconostoc mesenteroides (probiotic: PB) or L. mesenteroides with garlic aqueous extract (prophyiotic: PPB) on the 12th day of incubation. Relative abundances of bacteria in feces and cecal content (qPCR), immune related gene expression in cecal mucosa (qPCR) and histomorphology of cecal tissue (PAS staining) were analyzed along with production parameters (hatch quality, body weight, feed efficiency and slaughter and meat quality). PPB treatment increased the abundance of faecalibacteria and bifidobacteria in feces (d 7) and Akkermansia sp. in cecal content. Moreover, it decreased Escherichia coli abundance in both feces (d 34) and cecal content. PB treatment only increased the faecalibacteria in feces (d 7) and Akkermansia sp. in the cecal content. Moreover, PPB treatment resulted in up-regulation of immune related genes (Avian beta defensing 1, Free fatty acid receptor 2 and Mucin 6) and increased the crypt depth in ceca whereas PB treatment demonstrated a higher crypt depth and a tendency to increase Mucin 6 gene expression. Both treatments did not impair the production parameters studied. In conclusion, our results suggest that in-ovo PPB treatment may have enhanced potential in boosting the immune system without compromising broiler production and efficiency, as compared to the use of probiotic alone. Our study, highlights the potential of carefully selected PPB combinations for better results in improving gut health of broiler chickens. (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu