Probiotics: Challenging the Traditional Modes of Action
محورهای موضوعی : Camel
A.G. Lorenzoni
1
(
Biomin, Herzogenburg, Austria
)
S. Pasteiner
2
(
Biomin, Herzogenburg, Austria
)
M. Mohnl
3
(
Biomin, Herzogenburg, Austria
)
F. Perazzo
4
(
Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Paraíba, Brasil
)
کلید واژه: feed conversion, broilers, inactivated probiotics,
چکیده مقاله :
A trial was conducted to evaluate the performance of broiler birds which supplemented with a commercial inactivated probiotic. Four hundred and fifty day old broiler chickens were allocated into 3 treatments with 6 replicates each. Each replicate was placed on clean wood shavings in floor pens receiving feed and water ad libitum. In treatment 1, feed was supplemented with 500 g/ton of a heat-inactivatedprobiotic containing Lactobacillus spp, Bifidobacterium animalis, Pediococus acidilactici and Enterococcus faecium. In treatment 2, the feed was supplemented with 500 g/ton of the same probiotic without the heat-inactivating process (commercial product). In Treatment 3 the feed was supplemented with Zinc Bacitracin at 100 ppm. During the length of the experiment the birds received the following diets: pre-initial 1 to 7 days; initial 8 to 21 days; growth, 22 to 35 days; and finisher, 36 to 40 days. Data were analyzed following the same dietary periods. In addition, data was arranged in two periods of similar length; from 1 to 21 days and from 22 to 40 days. During the pre-initial phase, treatment 2 had higher weight gain compared to treatment 1. During the initial phase, treatments 1 and 2 had lower feed conversion compared to treatment 3. In the finisher, treatments 1 and 2 had higher body weight and lower feed conversion than treatment 3. In conclusion, regular and inactivated probiotics had a similar performance which under the conditions of this trial were superior to the treatment containing 100 ppm of zinc bacitracin. These data suggest that not all growth promoting effects are mediated by bacterial metabolites or active colonization of the gastrointestinal tract.
Dibner J.J. and Richards J.D. (2005). Antibiotic growth promoter in agriculture: history and mode of action. Poult. Sci. 84, 634-643.
Fayol-Messaoudi D., Berger C.N., Coconnier-Polter M.H., Moal V.L. and Servin A.L. (2005). Ph-, lactic acid- and non-lactic acid-dependent activities of probiotic Lactobacilli against Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71(10), 6008-6013.
Fuller R. (1989). Probiotics in man and animals. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 66, 365-378.
Ibnou-Zekri N., Blum S., Schiffrin E.J. and Von Der Weid T. (2002). Divergent patterns of colonization and immune response elicited from two intestinal Lactobacillus strains that display similar properties in vitro. Infect Immun. 71(1), 428-436.
Ignatova M., Sredkova V. and Marasheva V. (2009). Effect of dietary inclusion of probiotic on chicken performance and some blood indices. Biotechnol. Anim. Husbandry. 25, 1079-1085.
Jarquin R.L., Nava G.M., Wolfenden A.D., Donoghue A.M., Hanning I., Higgins S.E. and Hargis B.M. (2007). The evaluation of organic acids and probiotic cultures to reduce Salmonella enteritidis horizontal transmission and crop infection in broiler chickens. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 6(3), 182-186.
Katakura K., Lee J., Rachmilewitz D., Li G., Eckmann L. and Raz E. (2005). Toll-like receptor 9-induced type I INF protects mice from experimental colitis. J. Clin. Invest. 115, 695-702.
Laudanno OM., Vasconcelos L., Catalana J. and Cesolari J.A. (2006). Anti-inflammatory effect of bioflora probiotic administered orally or subcutaneously with live or dead bacteria. Dig. Dis. Sci. 51, 2180-2183.
National Research Council. (1994). Nutrient Requirements of Poultry. 9th rev. Ed. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Niewold T.A. (2007). The non-antibiotic anti-inflammatory effect of antimicrobial growth promoters, the real mode of action? A hypothesis. Poult. Sci. 86, 605-609.
Ouwehand A.C., Tölkkö S., Kulmala J., Salminen S. and Salminen E. (2000). Adhesion of inactivated probiotic strains to intestinal mucus. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 31, 82-86.
Pascual M., Hugas M., Badiola R.I., Monfort J.M. and Garriga M. (1999). Lactobacillus salivarius CTC2197 prevents Salmonella enteritidis colonization in chickens. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 65, 4981-4986.
Rachmilewitz D., Katakura K., Karmeli F., Hayashi T., Reinus C., Rudensky B., Akira S., Takeda K., Lee J. and Takabayashi K. (2004). Toll-like receptor 9 signaling mediates the anti-inflammatory effects of probiotics in murine experimental colitis. Gastroenterology. 126(2), 520-528.
Roura E., Homedes J. and Klassing K.C. (1992). Prevention of immunologic stress contributes to the growth-permittiong ability of dietary antibiotics in chicks. J. Nutr. 122, 2383-2390.
Salminen S., Ouwehand A., Benno Y. and Lee Y.K. (1999). Probiotics: how should they be defined? Trends. Food Sci. Technol. 10, 107-110.
Talebi., AmirzadehA., Mokhtari B. and Gahri H. (2008). Effects of a multi-strain probiotic (PrimaLac) on performance and antibody responses to Newcastle disease virus and infectious bursal disease virus vaccination in broiler chickens. Avian Pathol. 27(5), 509-512.
Taoka Y., Maeda H., Jo J.Y., Kim S.M., Park S.I., Yoshikawa T. and Sakata T. (2006). Use of live and dead probiotic cells in tilapia Oreochromis niloticus. Fisheries Sci. 72, 755-766.
