Animal Bioscience

Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies (아세아태평양축산학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The effect of multi-strain probiotics as feed additives on performance, immunity, expression of nutrient transporter genes and gut morphometry in broiler chickens

  • Biswas, Avishek (Avian Nutrition and Feed Technology Division, ICAR-Central Avian Research Institute) ;
  • Dev, Kapil (Avian Nutrition and Feed Technology Division, ICAR-Central Avian Research Institute) ;
  • Tyagi, Pramod K (Avian Nutrition and Feed Technology Division, ICAR-Central Avian Research Institute) ;
  • Mandal, Asitbaran (Avian Nutrition and Feed Technology Division, ICAR-Central Avian Research Institute)
  • Received : 2020.10.29
  • Accepted : 2021.02.26
  • Published : 2022.01.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: This study was conducted to investigate the effects of dietary multi-strain probiotic (MSP) (Bacillus coagulans Unique IS2 + Bacillus subtillis UBBS14 + Saccharomyces boulardii Unique 28) on performance, gut morphology and expression of nutrient transporter related genes in broiler chickens. Methods: A total of 256 (4×8×8) day-old CARIBRO Vishal commercial broiler chicks of uniform body weight were randomly distributed into four treatments with 8 replicates each and having eight chicks in each replicate. Four dietary treatments were T1 (negative control-basal diet), T2 (positive control-antibiotic bacitracin methylene disalicylate at 20 mg/kg diet), T3 (MSP at 107 colony-forming unit [CFU]/g feed), and T4 (MSP at 108 CFU/g feed). Results: During 3 to 6 weeks and 0 to 6 weeks, the body weight gain increased significantly (p<0.05) in T3 and T4 groups. The feed intake significantly (p<0.05) reduced from T1 to T3 during 0 to 3 weeks and the feed conversion ratio also significantly (p<0.05) improved in T3 and T4 during 0 to 6 weeks. The humoral and cell mediated immune response and the weight of immune organs were also significantly (p<0.05) improved in T3 and T4. However, significant (p<0.05) dietary effects were observed on intestinal histo-morphometry of ileum in T3 followed by T4 and T2. At 14 d post hatch, the relative gene expression of glucose transporter (GLUT5), sodium-dependent glucose transporter (SGLT1) and peptide transporter (PepT1) showed a significant (p<0.05) up-regulating pattern in T2, T3, and T4. Whereas, at 21 d post hatch, the gene expression of SGLT1 and PepT1 was significantly (p<0.05) downregulated in MSP supplemented treatments T3 and T4. Conclusion: The supplementation of MSP at 107 CFU/g diet showed significant effects with improved performance, immune response, gut morphology and expression of nutrient transporter genes. Thus, the MSP could be a suitable alternative to antibiotic growth promoters in chicken diets.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was carried out with the support of Unique Biotech Ltd, Hyderabad, Telangana, India (CR/CARI-1/NFT/2019).

References

  1. Aalaei M, Khatibjoo A, Zaghari M, Taherpou K, AkbariGharaei M, Soltani M. Effect of single- and multi-strain probiotics on broiler breeder performance, immunity and intestinal toll-like receptors expression. J Appl Anim Res 2019;47:236-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2019.1618311
  2. Griggs JP, Jacob JP. Alternatives to antibiotics for organic poultry production. J Appl Poult Res 2005;14:750-6. https://doi.org/10.1093/japr/14.4.750
  3. Mnisi CM, Matshogo TB, van Niekerk RF, Mlambo V. Growth performance, haeatological and serum biochemical parameters and meat quality characteristics of male Japanese quails fed a Lippia javanica-based diet. S Afr J Anim Sci 2017;47:661-71. https://doi.org/10.4314/sajas.v47i5.9
  4. Lee YJ, Kim BK, Lee BH, et al. Purification and characterization of cellulase produced by Bacillus amyoliquefaciens DL-3 utilizing rice hull. Bioresour Technol 2008;99:378-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2006.12.013
  5. Cox CM, Dalloul RA. Immunomodulatory role of probiotics in poultry and potential in ovo application. Benef Microbes 2015;6:45-52. https://doi.org/10.3920/BM2014.0062
  6. Ohimain EI, Ofongo RT. The effect of probiotic and prebiotic feed supplementation on chicken health and gut microflora: a review. Int J Anim Vet Adv 2012;4:135-43.
  7. Albazaz RI, Buyukunal-Bal EB. Microflora of digestive tract in poultry. KSU J Nat Sci 2014;17:39-42.
  8. Zhao L, Wang G, Siegel P, et al. Quantitative genetic background of the host influences gut microbiomes in chickens. Sci Rep 2013;3:1163. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep01163
  9. Borda-Molina D, Seifert J, Camarinha-Silva A. Current perspectives of the chicken gastrointestinal tract and its microbiome. Comput Struct Biotechnol J 2018;16:131-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2018.03.002
  10. Dev K, Mir NA, Biswas A, et al. Dietary synbiotic supplementation improves the growth performance, body antioxidant pool, serum biochemistry, meat quality, and lipid oxidative stability in broiler chickens. Anim Nutr 2020; 6:325-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2020.03.002
  11. Ashayerizadeh A, Dabiri N, Mirzadeh KH, Ghorbani MR. Effects of dietary inclusion of several biological feed additives on growth response of broiler chickens. Cell Anim Biol 2011;5:61-5. https://doi.org/10.5897/JCAB.9000059
  12. Siegel PB, Gross WB. Production and persistence of antibodies in chickens to sheep erythrocytes. 1. Directional selection. Poult Sci 1980; 59:1-5. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0590001
  13. Van Der Zijpp AJ. The effect of genetic origin, source of antigen, and dose of antigen on the immune response of cockerels. Poult Sci 1983;62:205-11. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0620205
  14. Corrier DE, Deloach JR. Evaluation of cell-mediated, cutaneous basophil hypersensitivity in young chickens by an interdigital skin test. Poult Sci 1990;69:403-8. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0690403
  15. Cheng S, Lamont SJ. Genetic Analysis of immunocompetence measures in a white leghorn chicken line. Poult Sci 1988;67:989-95. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0670989
  16. Pfaffl MW, Horgan GW, Dempfle L. Relative expression software tool (REST) for group-wise comparison and statistical analysis of relative expression results in real-time PCR. Nucleic Acids Res 2002;30:e36. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/30.9.e36
  17. Awad WA, Ghareeb K, Abdel-Raheem S, Bohm J. Effects of dietary inclusion of probiotic and synbiotic on growth performance, organ weights, and intestinal histomorphology of broiler chickens. Poult Sci 2009;88:49-56. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2008-00244
  18. Junaid N, Biswas A, Kumawat M, Mandal AB. Production performance, immune response and carcass traits of broiler chickens fed diet incorporated with probiotics. Indian J Anim Res 2018;52:1597-602. https://doi.org/10.18805/ijar.B-3420
  19. Chen KL, Kho WL, You SH, Yeh RH, Tang SW, Hsieh CW. Effects of Bacillus subtilis var. natto and Saccharomyces cerevisiae mixed fermented feed on the enhanced growth performance of broilers. Poult Sci 2009;88:309-15. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2008-00224
  20. Molnar AK, Podmaniczky B, Kurti P, et al. Effect of different concentrations of Bacillus subtilis on growth performance, carcase quality, gut microflora and immune response of broiler chickens. Br Poult Sci 2012;52:658-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2011.636029
  21. Patterson JA, Burkholder KM. Application of prebiotics and probiotics in poultry production. Poult Sci 2003;82:627-31. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/82.4.627
  22. Lin HC, Hsu CH, Chen HL, et al. Oral probiotics prevent necrotizing enterocolitis in very low birth weight preterm infants: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Pediatrics 2008;122:693-700. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-3007
  23. Lee JH, Nam SH, Seo WT, et al. The production of surfactin during the fermentation of cheonggukjang by potential probiotic Bacillus subtilis CSY191 and the resultant growth suppression of MCF-7 human breast cancer cells. Food Chem 2012;131:1347-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.09.133
  24. Yurong Y, Ruiping S, Shimin Z, Yibao J. Effect of probiotics on intestinal mucosal immunity and ultrastructure of cecal tonsils of chickens. Arch Anim Nutr 2005;59:237-46. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450390500216928
  25. Atela JA, Mlambo V, Mnisi CM. A multi-strain probiotic administered via drinking water enhances feed conversion efficiency and meat quality traits in indigenous chickens. Anim Nutr 2019;5:179-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2018.08.002
  26. Dhama K, Verma V, Sawant PM, Tiwari R, Vaid RK, Chauhan RS. Applications of probiotics in poultry: Enhancing immunity and beneficial effects on production performances and health - a review. J Immunol Immunopathol 2011;13:1-19.
  27. Paryad A, Mahmoudi M. Effect of different levels of supplemental yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) on performance, blood constituents and carcass characteristics of broiler chicks. Afr J Agric Res 2008;3:835-42. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR.9000201
  28. Moreira J, Mendes AA, Garcia EA, et al. Effect of probiotic use on carcass performance and yield in broilers. In: XXXVIII annual meeting of the SBZ; 2001, Piracicaba, Brazil. Annals. pp. 852-4.
  29. Vargas Jr JG, Toledo RS, Albino LFT, Rostango HS, Oliveira JE, Carvalho DCO. Characteristics of cut chicken carcass, subjected to rations containing probiotics, prebiotics and antibiotics. In: XXXIX annual meeting of the SBZ; 2002; Recife, Brazil [CD ROM].
  30. Mokhtari R, Yazdani A, Kashfi H. The effects of different growth promoters on performance and carcass characteristics of broiler chickens. J Vet Med Anim Health 2015;7:271-7. https://doi.org/10.5897/JVMAH2015.0394
  31. Pelicano ERL, Souza PA, de Souza HBA, et al. Effect of different probiotics on broiler carcass and meat quality. Braz J Poult Sci 2003;5:207-14. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-635X2003000300009
  32. Karaoglu M, Durdag H. The influence of dietary probiotic (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) supplementation and different slaughter age on the performance, slaughter and carcass properties of broilers. Int J Poult Sci 2005;4:309-16. https://doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2005.309.316
  33. Raceviciute-Stupeliene A, Sasyte V, Gruzauskas R, Simkus A. Influence of probiotic preparation YEASTURE-W on the productivity and meat quality of broiler chickens. Biotechnol Anim Husb 2007;23:543-50. https://doi.org/10.2298/BAH0701543R
  34. Wang H, Ni X, Lei L, et al. Controlling of growth performance, lipid deposits and fatty acid composition of chicken meat through a probiotic, Lactobacillus johnsonii during subclinical Clostridium perfringens infection. Lipids Health Dis 2017;16:38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12944-017-0408-7
  35. Mohan B, Kadirvel R, Bhaskaran M, Natarajan A. Effect of probiotic supplementation on serum/yolk cholesterol and on egg shell thickness in layers. Br Poult Sci 1995;36:799-803. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071669508417824
  36. Jin LZ, Ho YW, Abdullah N, Jalaludin S. Growth performance, intestinal microbial populations, and serum cholesterol of broilers fed diets containing Lactobacillus cultures. Poult Sci 1998;77:1259-65. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/77.9.1259
  37. Wright EM, Turk E. The sodium/glucose cotransport family SLC5. Pflugers Arch 2004; 447:510-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00424-003-1063-6
  38. Adibi SA. The oligopeptide transporter (PepT-1) in human intestine: biology and function. Gastroenterology 1997;113:332-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5085(97)70112-4
  39. Steel A, Nussberger S, Romero MF, Boron WF, Boyd CA, Hediger MA. Stoichiometry and pH dependence of the rabbit proton-dependent oligopeptide transporter PepT1. J Physiol 1997;498:563-9. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1997.sp021883
  40. Iji PA, Saki AA, Tivey DR. Intestinal development and body growth of broiler chicks on diets supplemented with nonstarch polysaccharides. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2001;89:175-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(00)00223-6
  41. Van der Wielen PWJJ, Lipman LJA, van Kampen F, Biesterveld S. Competitive exclusion of Salmonella enterica serovar enteritidis by Lactobacillus crispatus and Clostridium lactatifermentans in a sequencing fed-batch culture. J Appl Environ Microbiol 2002;68:555-9. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.68.2. 555-559.2002
  42. Chiou PW, Lu TW, Hsu JC, Yu B. Effect of different sources of fiber on the intestinal morphology of domestic geese. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 1996;9:539-50. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.1996.539
  43. Strompfova V, Marcinakova M, Simonova M, Gancarcikova S, Jonecova Z, Scirankova L. Enterococcus faecium EK13-an enterocin a-producing strain with probiotic character and its effect in piglets. Anerobe 2006;12:242-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anaerobe.2006.09.003
  44. Mott CR, Siegel PB, Webb KE Jr, Wong EA. Gene expression of nutrient transporters in the small intestine of chickens from lines divergently selected for high or low juvenile body weight. J Poult Sci 2008;87:2215-24. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2008-00101
  45. Zang JJ, Piao XS, Huang DS, Wang JJ, Ma X, Ma YX. Effects of feed particle size and feed form on growth performance, nutrient metabolizability and intestinal morphology in broiler chickens. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2009;22:107-12. https://doi.org/10.5713/AJAS.2009.80352
  46. Tufarelli V, Desantis S, Zizza S, Laudadio V. Performance, gut morphology and carcass characteristics of fattening rabbits as affected by particle size of pelleted diets. Arch Anim Nutr 2010;64:373-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/1745039X.2010.496945
  47. Buwjoom T, Yamauchi K, Erikawa T, Goto H. Histological intestinal alterations in chickens fed low protein diet. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 2010;94:354-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0396.2008.00915.x
  48. Choct M. Managing gut health through nutrition. Br Poult Sci 2009;50:9-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660802538632