DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens-based Direct-fed Microbial on Performance, Nutrient Utilization, Intestinal Morphology and Cecal Microflora in Broiler Chickens

  • Lei, Xinjian (College of Animal Science and Technology, Gansu Agricultural University) ;
  • Piao, Xiangshu (State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Ministry of Agriculture Feed Industry Certre, China Agricultural University) ;
  • Ru, Yingjun (College of Animal Science and Technology, Gansu Agricultural University) ;
  • Zhang, Hongyu (State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Ministry of Agriculture Feed Industry Certre, China Agricultural University) ;
  • Peron, Alexandre (Danisco Animal Nutrition) ;
  • Zhang, Huifang (College of Animal Science and Technology, Gansu Agricultural University)
  • Received : 2014.05.07
  • Accepted : 2014.08.01
  • Published : 2015.02.01

Abstract

The present study was conducted to evaluate the effect of the dietary supplementation of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens-based direct-fed microbial (DFM) on growth performance, nutrient utilization, intestinal morphology and cecal microflora in broiler chickens. A total of two hundred and eighty eight 1-d-old Arbor Acres male broilers were randomly allocated to one of four experimental treatments in a completely randomized design. Each treatment was fed to eight replicate cages, with nine birds per cage. Dietary treatments were composed of an antibiotic-free basal diet (control), and the basal diet supplemented with either 15 mg/kg of virginiamycin as antibiotic growth promoter (AGP), 30 mg/kg of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens-based DFM (DFM 30) or 60 mg/kg of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens-based DFM (DFM 60). Experimental diets were fed in two phases: starter (d 1 to 21) and finisher (d 22 to 42). Growth performance, nutrient utilization, morphological parameters of the small intestine and cecal microbial populations were measured at the end of the starter (d 21) and finisher (d 42) phases. During the starter phase, DFM and virginiamycin supplementation improved the feed conversion ratio (FCR; p<0.01) compared with the control group. For the finisher phase and the overall experiment (d 1 to 42) broilers fed diets with the DFM had better body weight gain (BWG) and FCR than that of control (p<0.05). Supplementation of virginiamycin and DFM significantly increased the total tract apparent digestibility of crude protein (CP), dry matter (DM) and gross energy during both starter and finisher phases (p<0.05) compared with the control group. On d 21, villus height, crypt depth and villus height to crypt depth ratio of duodenum, jejunum, and ileum were significantly increased for the birds fed with the DFM diets as compared with the control group (p<0.05). The DFM 30, DFM 60, and AGP groups decreased the Escherichia coli population in cecum at d 21 and d 42 compared with control group (p<0.01). In addition, the population of Lactobacillus was increased in DFM 30 and DFM 60 groups as compared with control and AGP groups (p<0.01). It can be concluded that Bacillus amyloliquefaciens-based DFM could be an alternative to the use of AGPs in broilers diets based on plant protein.

Keywords

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens;Broilers;Cecal Microflora;Intestinal Morphology;Nutrient Utilization;Performance

References

  1. Alloui, M. N., W. Szczurek, and S. Swiatkiewicz. 2013. The usefulness of prebiotics and probiotics in modern poultry nutrition: A review. Ann. Anim. Sci. 13:17-32.
  2. Aliakbarpour, H. R., M. Chamani, G. Rahimi, A. A. Sadeghi, and D. Qujieq. 2012. The Bacillus subtilis and lactic acid bacteria probiotics influences intestinal mucin gene expression, histomorphology and growth performance in broilers. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 25:1285-1293. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2012.12110
  3. Chichlowski, M., J. Croom, B. W. McBride, G. B. Havenstein, and M. D. Koci. 2007. Mebabolic and physiological impact of probiotics or direct-fed-microbials on poultry: a brief review of current knowledge. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 6:694-704. https://doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2007.694.704
  4. An, B. K., B. L. Cho, S. J. You, H. D. Paik, H. I. Chang, S. W. Kim, C. W. Yun, and C. W. Kang. 2008. Growth performance and antibody response of broiler chicks fed yeast derived $\beta$-glucan and single-strain probiotics. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 21:1027-1032. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2008.70571
  5. AOAC. 1990. Official Methods of Analysis. 16th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC, USA.
  6. Baruzzi, F., L. Quintieri, M. Morea, and L. Caputo. 2011. Antimicrobial compounds produced by Bacillus spp. and applications in food. Science against microbial pathogens: Communicating Current research and technological advances (Ed. A. M. Vilas). City, Spain. 1102-1111.
  7. Castanon, J. I. R. 2007. History of the use of antibiotic as growth promoters in European poultry feeds. Poult. Sci. 86:2466-2471. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2007-00249
  8. Choct, M. 2009. Managing gut health through nutrition. Br. Poult. Sci. 50:9-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660802538632
  9. Deng, W., X. F. Dong, J. M. Tong, and Q. Zhang. 2012. The probiotic Bacillus licheniformis ameliorates heat stressinduced impairment of egg production, gut morphology, and intestinal mucosal immunity in laying hens. Poult. Sci. 91:575-582. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-01293
  10. Fan, Y., J. Croom, V. L. Christensen, B. L. Black, A. R. Bird, L. R. Daniel, B. W. McBride, and E. J. Eisen. 1997. Jejunal glucose uptake and oxygen consumption in turkey poults selected for rapid growth. Poult. Sci. 76:1738-1745. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/76.12.1738
  11. Ferreira, C. L., S. salminen, L. Grzeskowiak, M. A. Brizuela, L. Sanchez, H. Carneiro, and M. Bonnet. 2011. Terminology concepts of probiotic and prebiotic and their role in human and animal health. Rev. Salud Anim. 33:137-146.
  12. Fioramonti, J., V. Theodorou, and L. Bueno. 2003. Probiotics:what are they? What are their effects on gut physiology? Best Pract. Res Cl. Gastroenterol. 17:711-724. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1521-6918(03)00075-1
  13. Hong, H. A., L. H. Duc, and S. M. Cutting. 2005. The use of bacterial spore formers as probiotics. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 29:813-835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.femsre.2004.12.001
  14. Fuller, R. F. 1989. Probiotic in man and animals. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 66:365-378. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.1989.tb05105.x
  15. Gaskins, H. R., C. T. Collier, and D. B. Anderson. 2002. Antibiotics as growth promotants: Mode of action. Anim. Biotechnol. 13:29-42. https://doi.org/10.1081/ABIO-120005768
  16. Geng, W., M. Cao, C Song, H. Xie, L. Liu, C. Yang, J. Feng, W. Zhang, Y. Jin, Y. Du, and S. Wang. 2011. Complete genome sequence of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens LL3, which exhibits glutamic acid-independent production of poly-$\gamma$-glutamic acid. J. Bacteriol. 193:3393-3394. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.05058-11
  17. Huyghebaert, G., R. Ducatelle, and F. V. Immerseel. 2011. An update alternatives to antimicrobial growth promoters for broilers. Vet. J. 187:182-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2010.03.003
  18. Isolauri, E., Y. Sutas, P. Kankaanpaa, H. Arvilommi, and S. Salminen. 2001. Probiotics: effects on immunity. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 73:444S-450S.
  19. Jayaraman, S., G. Thangavel, H. Kurian, R. Mani, R. Mukkalil, and H. Chirakkal. 2013. Bacillus subtilis PB6 improves intestinal health of broiler chickens challenged with Clostridium perfringens-induced necrotic enteritis. Poult. Sci. 92:370-374. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2012-02528
  20. Jerzsele, A., K. Szeker, R. Csizinszky, E. Gere, C. Jakab, J. J. Mallo, and P. Galfi. 2012. Efficacy of protected sodium butyrate, a protected blend of essential oils, their combination, and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens spore suspension against artificially induced necrotic enteritis in broilers. Poult. Sci. 91:837-843. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2011-01853
  21. Keeney, K. M. and B. B. Finlay. 2011. Enteric pathogen exploitation of the microbiota-generated nutrient environment of the gut. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 14:92-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mib.2010.12.012
  22. Li, P. F., X. S. Piao, Y. J. Ru, X. Han, L. F. Xue, and H. Y. Zhang. 2012. Effects of adding essential oil to the diet of weaned pigs on performance, nutrient utilization, immune response and intestinal health. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 25:1617-1626. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2012.12292
  23. Onderci, M., N. Sahin, K. Sahin, G. Cikim, A. Aydin, I. Ozercanand, and S. Aydin. 2006. Efficacy of supplementation of $\alpha$-amylase-producing bacterial culture on the performance, nutrient use, and gut morphology of broiler chickens fed a corn-based diet. Poult. Sci. 85:505-510. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/85.3.505
  24. Maruta, K., H. Miyazaki, Y. Tadano, S. Masuda, A. Suzuki, H. Takahashi, and M. Takahashi. 1996. Effects of Bacillus subtilis C-3102 intake on fecal flora of sows and on diarrhea and mortality rate of their piglets. Anim. Sci. Technol. 67:403-409.
  25. Montagne, L., J. R. Pluske, and D. J. Hampson. 2003. A review of interactions between dietary fibre and the intestinal mucosa, and their consequences on digestive health in young nonruminant animals. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 108:95-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(03)00163-9
  26. NRC. 1994. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry. 9th rev. ed. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.
  27. SAS. Institute. 1999. SAS User's Guide: Statistics (Version 8.01). SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
  28. Shamoto, K. and K. Yamauchi. 2000. Recovery responses of chick intestinal villus morphology to different refeeding procedures. Poult. Sci. 79:718-723. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/79.5.718
  29. Sharifi, S. D., A. Dibamehr, H. Lotfollahian, and B. Baurhoo. 2012. Effects of flavomycin and probiotic supplementation to diets containing different sources of fat on growth performance, intestinal morphology, apparent metabolizable energy, and fat digestibility in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 91:918-927. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2011-01844
  30. Song, J., K. Xiao, Y. L. Ke, L. F. Jiao, C. H. Hu, Q. Y. Diao, B. Shi, and X. T. Zhou. 2014. Effect of a probiotic mixture on intestinal microflora, morphology, and barrier interity of broilers subjected to heat stress. Poult. Sci. 93:581-588. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2013-03455
  31. Williams, C. H., D. J. David, and O. Lismaa. 1962. The determination of chromic oxide in faeces sample by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. J. Agric. Sci. 59:381-385. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002185960001546X
  32. Wu, B. Q., T. Zhang, L. Q. Guo, and J. F. Lin. 2011. Effect of Bacillus subtilis $KD_1$ on broiler intestinal flora. Poult. Sci. 90:2493-2499. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2011-01529

Cited by

  1. CGMCC 1.1086 on the growth performance and intestinal microbiota of broilers vol.120, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.12972
  2. Influência da qualidade microbiológica da água de dessedentação na morfologia intestinal de frangos de corte vol.35, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-736X2015000100016
  3. Effects of Ecklonia cava as fucoidan-rich algae on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, intestinal morphology and caecal microflora in weanling pigs vol.30, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.16.0102
  4. Effects of Bacillus subtilis, Kefir and β-Glucan Supplementation on Growth Performance, Blood Characteristics, Meat Quality and Intestine Microbiota in Broilers vol.43, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.5536/KJPS.2016.43.3.159
  5. and synbiotic as antibiotic growth promoter substitutions on performance, gut morphology, immune responses and blood constitutes of broiler chickens vol.88, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.12629
  6. Effect of Direct-fed Microbials on Intestinal Villus Height in Broiler Chickens: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled Trials vol.16, pp.10, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2017.403.414
  7. Effect of the Balance of Energy and Protein in Rations Given to Pitalah Ducks along with the Probiotic Bacillus amyloliquefaciens on the Live Weight, Percentage of Carcass, Percentage of Abdominal Fat and Income Over Feed Cost vol.16, pp.12, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2017.500.505
  8. Inclusion of Probiotic on Chicken Performance and Immunity: A Review vol.16, pp.9, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2017.328.335
  9. and its application to goose feed vol.4, pp.10, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171012
  10. Administration of Bacillus Amyloliquefaciens and Saccharomyces Cerevisiae as Direct-Fed Microbials Improves Intestinal Microflora and Morphology in Broiler Chickens vol.54, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.2141/jpsa.0160069
  11. Effects of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens LFB112 in the diet on growth of broilers and on the quality and fatty acid composition of broiler meat vol.57, pp.9, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1071/AN16119
  12. Viral Infections and Obesity vol.6, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13679-017-0251-1
  13. US573 as alternative feed additive pp.00225142, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.8574
  14. strain TOA5001 in the diet of broilers suppresses the symptoms of coccidiosis by modulating intestinal microbiota pp.13443941, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.12980
  15. Performance and cost-benefit improvements following supplementation with a combination of direct-fed microbials and enzymes to broiler chickens raised with or without ionophores pp.1537-0437, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3382/japr/pfx036
  16. vol.102, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.12856
  17. Effect of direct-fed microbials on culturable gut microbiotas in broiler chickens: a meta-analysis of controlled trials vol.31, pp.11, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.18.0009
  18. Effects of Probiotic Bacillus as an Alternative of Antibiotics on Digestive Enzymes Activity and Intestinal Integrity of Piglets vol.9, pp.1664-302X, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02427
  19. Using Different Feed Additives as Alternative to Antibiotic Growth Promoter to Improve Growth Performance and Carcass Traits of Broilers vol.17, pp.6, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2018.255.261
  20. The role of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics in animal nutrition vol.10, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13099-018-0250-0
  21. The Growth Rate, Immune Status, Duodenal Development, and Cecal Microbial Diversity of 24-Day-Old Offspring of SD Rats Received Bacillus subtilis-Cu or CuSO4 During Pregnancy and Lactation Periods pp.1559-0720, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-019-1638-5