Effect of Some Acidifiers on Gastrointestinal Tract Characteristics and Performance of Broiler Chickens
محورهای موضوعی : Camelس. یخکشی 1 , پ. شورنگ 2 , س. رحیمی 3
1 - Department of Poultry Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
2 - Nuclear Agriculture Research School, Nuclear Science and Technology Research Institute, Karaj, Iran
3 - Department of Poultry Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
کلید واژه: digestibility, broiler performance, microflora, acidifiers,
چکیده مقاله :
The effects of Selko-pH (S; 1 mL/L drinking water); Termin-8 (T; 2 kg/ton feed) and Neogermicin (N; 2 L/ton feed) on gastrointestinal tract (GIT) pH, microbial population, ileal digestibility and broiler performance were investigated. The lowest feed intake (FI) was attained by chickens fed diets supplemented with S group in all periods (P<0.05). The highest weight gain (WG) was achieved by birds fed diet containing N set at 22-42 and 1-42 periods (P<0.05). The highest and lowest feed conversion ratio (FCR) were obtained by control (C) and N groups at 22-42 and 1-42 days of age, respectively (P<0.05). Inclusion of acidifiers increased lactic acid bacteria and reduced total coliforms at different ages. The C and N treatments induced the lowest and greatest dry matter and gross energy digestibility coefficients, respectively (P<0.05). Moreover, pH of different parts of GIT were significantly diminished by acidifiers’ treatments compared to C group (P<0.05). The results of current study have shown that acidifiers improved the gut microflora conditions by pH reduction. The digestibility of nutrients and energy utilization were superior by incorporated acidifiers, but S groups played a minor role in this regard.
اثر Selko-pH (1 میلی‌لیتر در لیتر آب آشامیدنی)، Termin-8 (2 کیلوگرم در تن) و Neogermicin (2 لیتر در تن) بر pH دستگاه گوارش، جمعیت میکروبی، قابلیت هضم و عملکرد جوجه‌های گوشتی مطالعه شد. کمترین مصرف خوراک در کل دوره مربوط به جوجه‌هایی بود که جیره حاوی Selko دریافت کردند (05/0P<). بیشترین افزایش وزن در 22 تا 42 روزگی و کل دوره مربوط به جوجه‌هایی که Neogermicin دریافت کردند و گروه شاهد بود (05/0P<). بیشترین و کمترین ضریب تبدیل غذایی در 22 تا 42 روزگی و کل دوره به ترتیب متعلق به گروه کنترل و گروهی بود که Neogermicin دریافت کردند (05/0P<). افزودن اسیدی‌فایر به جیره جمعیت باکتری‌های اسیدلاکتیکی را افزایش و تعداد کلی‌فرم‌ها را در سنین مختلف کاهش داد. گروه شاهد و پرندگانی که Neogermicin دریافت کردند به ترتیب کمترین و بیشترین ضرایب هضم ماده خشک و انرژی خام را داشتند. pH در قسمت‌های مختلف دستگاه گوارش با افزودن اسیدی‌فایر بر جیره نسبت به گروه شاهد کاهش یافت. نتایج این مطالعه نشان داد که افزودن اسیدی‌فایر بر جیره سبب بهبود میکروفلور روده با کاهش دادن pH روده می‌شود. قابلیت هضم مواد مغذی و انرژی با افزودن اسیدی‌فایر بهتر می‌شود. در بین اسیدی‌فایرها Selko کمترین اثر را داشت.
Ao T., Cantor A.H., Pescatore A.J., Ford M.J., Pierce J.L. and Dawson K.A. (2009). Effect of enzyme supplementation and acidification of diets on nutrient digestibility and growth performance of broiler chicks. Poult. Sci. 88, 111-117.
Abdel Fattah S.A., El-Sanhoury M.H., El-Mednay N.M. and Abdel-Azeem F. (2008). Thyroid activity, some blood constituents, organs morphology and performance of broiler chicks fed supplemental organic acids. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 7, 215-222.
Adams C.A. (2004). Nutrients in poultry production: focus on bioactive feed ingredients. Nutr. Abst. Reviews: Series B. 74, 1-12.
Adil S.H., Banday T., Bhat G.A., Salahuddin M., Raquib M. and Shanaz S. (2011). Response of broiler chicken to dietary supplementation of organic acids. J. Centr. Eur. Agric. 12, 498-508.
AOAC. (1990). Official Methods of Analysis. Vol. I. 15th Ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA.
Biggs P. and Parsons C.M. (2008). The effects of several organic acids on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and cecal microbial populations in young chicks. Poult. Sci. 87, 2581-2589.
Boling Frankenbach S.D., Snow J.L., Parsons C.M. and Baker D.H. (2001). The effect of citric acid on the calcium and phosphorus requirements of chicks fed corn-soybean meal diets. Poult. Sci. 80, 783-788.
Canibe N., Engberg R.M. and Jensen B.B. (2001). An Overview of the Effect of Organic Acids on Gut Flora and Gut Health. Danish Institute of Agricultural Science. Research Center Foulum, Denmark.
Cave N.A.G. (1984). Effect of dietary propionic and lactic acid on feed intake by chicks. Poult. Sci. 63, 131-134.
Chaveerach P., Keuzenkamp D.A., Lipman L.J. and Van Knapen F. (2004). Effect of organic acids in drinking water for young broilers on Campylobacter infection, volatile fatty acid production, gut microflora and histological cell changes. Poult. Sci. 83, 330-334.
Denli M., Okan F. and Celik K. (2003). Effect of dietary probiotic, organic acid and antibiotic supplementation to diets on broiler performance and carcass yield. Pakistan J. Nutr. 2, 89-91.
Gong J., Forster R.J., Yu H., Chambers J.R., Wheatcroft R., Sabour P.M. and Chen S. (2002). Molecular analysis of bacterial populations in the ileum of broiler chickens and comparison with bacteria in the cecum. Fed. Eur. Microbiol. Ecol. 41, 171-179.
Hernandez F., Garcia V., Orengo J. and Catala P. (2006). Effect of formic acid on performance, digestibility, intestinal histomorphology and plasma metabolite levels of broiler chickens. Br. Poult. Sci. 47, 50-56.
Izat A.L., Tidwell N.M., Thomas R.A., Reiber M.A., AdamsM.H., Colberg M. and Waldroup P.W. (1990). Effects of a bufferedpropionic acid in diets on the performance of broiler chickens andon microflora of the intestine and carcass. Poult. Sci. 69,818-826.
Jones F.T. and Ricke S.C. (2003). Observations on the history of the development of antimicrobials and their use in poultry feeds. Poult. Sci. 82, 613-617.
Khosravi A., Boldaji F., Dastar B. and Hasani S. (2012). Comparison of broiler performance when fed diets containing a probiotic, an organic acid or antibiotic growth promoter. Asian J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 7, 318-325.
Král M., Angelovičová M., Mrázová L., Tkácová J. and Kliment M.(2011). Probiotic and acetic acid effect on broiler chickens performance. Anim. Sci. Biotech. 44, 62-64.
Lampromsuk P., Bunchasak C., Kaewtapee C., Sawanon S. and Poeikhampha T. (2012). Effect of supplementing acidifiere and organic zinc in diet on growth performance and gut condition of pigs. J. Appl. Sci. 12, 553-560.
Langhout P. (2000). New additives for broiler chickens. World's Poult. 16, 22-27.
Maynard L.A. and Loosli J.K. (1969). Animal Nutrition, McGraw-Hill, New York.USA.
Partanen K.H. and Mroz Z. (1999). Organic acids for performance enhancement in pig diets.Nutr. Res. Rev. 12, 117-145.
Patterson J.A. and Burkholder K.M. (2003). Application of prebiotics and probiotics in poultry production. Poult. Sci. 82, 627-631.
Ranho R.C., Sakomura N.K., Kuana S., Banzatto D., Gunhueira O.M. and Stringhini J.H. (1997). Use of organic acid (fumaric acid) in broiler ration. Rev. Bras. Zoot. 26, 1183-1191.
Ravindran V. and Kornegay E.T. (1993). Acidification of weaner pig diets: a review. J. Sci. Food Agric. 62, 313-322.
Roser U. (2006). Effects of organic acids in liquid and solid forms on the survival rate of Salmonella in pelleted compound feed after recontamination. J. Immunol. 82, 12-19.
Roy R.D., Edens F.W., Parkhorst C.R., Qureshi M.A. and Havenstein G.B. (2002). Influence of a propionic acid feed additive on performance of turkey with experimentally induced poult enteritis and mortality syndrome. Poult. Sci. 81, 951-957.
SAS Institute. (2004). SAS users Guide .Statistics. Version 9.2. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC.
Skinner J.T., Izat A.L. and Waldrop P.W. (1991). Research note: fumaricacid enhances performance of broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 70, 1444-1447.
Vale M.M., Menten J.M.F., Morais S.C.D. and Brainer M.M.A. (2004). Mixture of formic and propionic acid as additives in broiler feeds. Sci. Agric. Piracic. 61, 371-375.
Vogt H. and Matthes S. (1982). Effect of organic acids in rations on the performances of broilers and laying hens. Arch. Gefluegelkd. 45, 221-232.
Witkamp M. (1963). Microbial ppopulations of leaf litter in relation to environmental conditions and decomposition. Ecol. Soc. Am. 44, 370-377.
