Literature DB >> 17297154

Performance and condemnation rate analysis of commercial turkey flocks treated with a Lactobacillus spp.-based probiotic.

A Torres-Rodriguez1, A M Donoghue, D J Donoghue, J T Barton, G Tellez, B M Hargis.   

Abstract

The use of defined probiotic cultures in the poultry industry has recently become more common. However, few conclusive studies regarding their efficacy under commercial conditions have been reported in the scientific literature. We conducted a study that included 118 commercial turkey hen lots, ranging from 1,542 to 30,390 hens per lot, of either Nicholas or Hybrid genetic lines, to look at the effect of a selected commercial Lactobacillus-based probiotic (FM-B11) on turkey BW, performance, and health. Sixty lots received the probiotic, whereas 58 lots were controls without probiotic. The probiotic was administered for 3 consecutive days at placement (day of age) and at move-out (around 6 wk of age, movement from brooder to grower houses). The parameters collected, calculated, and analyzed (significance level P < 0.05) were market BW, average daily weight gain, feed conversion ratio, and cost of production. There was no interaction effect between the genetic line and probiotic effect. Therefore, data from the 2 genetic lines were combined for the statistical analysis of the probiotic effect. The probiotic significantly improved market BW and average daily gain by 190 and 1.63 g, respectively. The feed conversion ratio was not statistically different between treatments (2.176 vs. 2.192 for the probiotic and control, respectively). However, the cost of production was lower in the probiotic-treated (58.37 cents/kg of live turkey) than in the control (59.90 cents/kg of live turkey) lots. Condemnation rates were not significantly different between lots. When each premise was compared by level of performance as good, fair, or poor (grouping based on historical analysis of 5 previous flocks), the probiotic appeared to increase the performance of the poor and fair farms. Use of the selected commercial probiotic resulted in increased market BW and reduced cost of production.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17297154     DOI: 10.1093/ps/86.3.444

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Poult Sci        ISSN: 0032-5791            Impact factor:   3.352


  7 in total

Review 1.  The role of probiotics in the poultry industry.

Authors:  S M Lutful Kabir
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2009-08-12       Impact factor: 5.923

2.  Influence of probiotic supplementation on blood parameters and growth performance in broiler chickens.

Authors:  A Alkhalf; M Alhaj; I Al-Homidan
Journal:  Saudi J Biol Sci       Date:  2010-04-18       Impact factor: 4.219

3.  Evaluation of probiotic properties of Lactobacillus plantarum strains isolated from Chinese sauerkraut.

Authors:  Zhihui Yu; Xue Zhang; Shengyu Li; Changying Li; Da Li; Zhennai Yang
Journal:  World J Microbiol Biotechnol       Date:  2012-11-02       Impact factor: 3.312

4.  Isolation and Identification of Lactic Acid Bacteria Probiotic Culture Candidates for the Treatment of Salmonella enterica Serovar Enteritidis in Neonatal Turkey Poults.

Authors:  Margarita A Arreguin-Nava; Daniel Hernández-Patlán; Bruno Solis-Cruz; Juan D Latorre; Xochitl Hernandez-Velasco; Guillermo Tellez; Saeed El-Ashram; Billy M Hargis; Guillermo Tellez-Isaias
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2019-09-17       Impact factor: 2.752

5.  Effect of oral spray with Lactobacillus on growth performance, intestinal development and microflora population of ducklings.

Authors:  Qi Zhang; Yuchen Jie; Chuli Zhou; Leyun Wang; Liang Huang; Lin Yang; Yongwen Zhu
Journal:  Asian-Australas J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 2.509

Review 6.  The Microbial Pecking Order: Utilization of Intestinal Microbiota for Poultry Health.

Authors:  Joel J Maki; Cassidy L Klima; Matthew J Sylte; Torey Looft
Journal:  Microorganisms       Date:  2019-09-20

Review 7.  The role of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics in animal nutrition.

Authors:  Paulina Markowiak; Katarzyna Śliżewska
Journal:  Gut Pathog       Date:  2018-06-06       Impact factor: 4.181

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.