| Literature DB >> 22394592 |
Zouhir Mallek1, Imen Fendri, Lamia Khannous, Amal Ben Hassena, Al Ibrahim Traore, Mohamed-Ali Ayadi, Radhouane Gdoura.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasing consumer demand for healthier food products has led to the development of governmental policies regarding health claims in many developed countries. In this context, contamination of poultry by food-borne pathogens is considered one of the major problems facing the progress of the poultry industry in Tunisia. RESULT: Zeolite (Clinoptilolites) was added to chicken feed at concentrations 0,5% or 1% and was evaluated for its effectiveness to reduce total flora in chickens and its effects on performance of the production. The broilers were given free and continuous access to a nutritionally non-limiting diet (in meal form)that was either a basal diet or a' zeolite diet' (the basal diet supplemented with clinoptilolite at a level of 0,5% or 1%). It was found that adding zeolite in the broiler diet significantly (p < 0,05) reduced total flora levels, as compared to the control, on the chicken body. In addition, it was found that zeolite treatment had a positive effect on performance production and organoleptic parameters that were measured and mainly on the increase level of Omega 3 fatty acid.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22394592 PMCID: PMC3364149 DOI: 10.1186/1476-511X-11-35
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Lipids Health Dis ISSN: 1476-511X Impact factor: 3.876
Composition of feed mixtures (%) and the content of basic nutrients (g/kg)
| Nutritional values of CF1 diet | |
|---|---|
| Protein | 19 |
| Fat | 3 |
| Energy (Kcal/kg) | 2900 |
| Crude cellulose | 5 |
| P | 0,6 |
| Ca | 1 |
| Ash | 7 |
| Protein | 17 |
| Fat | 3 |
| Energy (Kcal/kg) | 3000 |
| Crude cellulose | 4 |
| P | 0,6 |
| Ca | 1 |
| Ash | 6 |
Semi-quantitative mineralogical composition and chemical microanalysis of the natural zeolite, which was added in the diet
| Chemical Component | %WT |
|---|---|
| 65-71.3 | |
| 11.5-13.1 | |
| 2,7-5,2 | |
| 2,2-3,4 | |
| 0,7-1,9 | |
| 0,6-1,2 | |
| 0,2-1,3 | |
| 0,1-0,3 | |
| 84 | |
| 8 | |
| 4 | |
| 4 | |
| Traces | |
| < 0,5 | |
Figure 1Effects of different treatments on total flora prevalence in broiler intestine 25 g of sample was mixed in 225 ml of buffered peptone water. Appropriate decimal dilutions were performed and 1 ml of each required dilution was then transferred into a Petri dish with 15 ml of tempered PCA agar. When solidified, Petri dishes were incubated at 30 ± 1°C for 72 h ± 3 h. Only plates containing less than 300 colonies but greater than 10 were used for enumeration.
Effect of Zeolite in broiler diet on production performance
| control | 0,5% zéolite | 1% zéolite | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total fat (%) | 2,27 ± 0,23 | 2,52 ± 0, 3 | 2.23 ± 0,3 |
| Crude protein (%) | 69,83 ± 2,35 | 67,74 ± 3,46 | 69,89 ± 1,74 |
| Ash (%) | 1,34 ± 0,35 | 1,56 ± 0,23 | 1,43 ± 0,17 |
| Dry matter (%) | 28,46 ± 2,03 | 29,15 ± 1,79 | 27,8 ± 0,81 |
| Body weight (kg) | 2,24 ± 0,12 | 2,17 ± 0,16 | 2,44 ± 0,10 |
Effect of Zeolite dietary supplementation on intramuscular fatty acid composition (% total fatty acids)
| Fatty acids (%) | control | 0,5% zeolite | 1% zeolite |
|---|---|---|---|
| Myristic acid (C14:0) | 0,41 ± 0,02 | 0,30 ± 0,02 ad | 0,24 ± 0,02 ad |
| Palmitic acid (C16:0) | 21,28 ± 0,40 | 19,02 ± 0,15 a | 19,48 ± 0,28 a |
| Stearic acid (C18:0) | 5,50 ± 0,27 | 3,91 ± 0,32 a | 4,50 ± 0,32 b |
| Palmitoleic acid (C16:1) | 12,10 ± 0,21 | 9,18 ± 0,24 af | 7,42 ± 0,23 af |
| Oleic acid (C18:1) | 40,71 ± 0,26 | 43,14 ± 1,14 ac | 44,75 ± 0,31 ac |
| Linoleic acid (C18:2) | 19,40 ± 0,24 | 23,38 ± 0,36 ac | 22,77 ± 0,26 ac |
| Linolenic acid (C18:3) | 0,57 ± 0,01 | 1,03 ± 0,10 ae | 0,80 ± 0,08 be |
Each value is the mean of three determinations followed by standard deviation.
a Significant differences between the control/0,5% Zeolite and control/1% Zeolite p < 0,05.
b Significant differences between the control/0,5% Zeolite and control/1% Zeolite p < 0,01.
c Significant differences between the control/0,5% Zeolite and control/1% Zeolite p < 0,001.
d Significant differences between 0,5% Zeolite/1% Zeolite p < 0,05.
e Significant differences between 0,5% Zeolite/1% Zeolite p < 0,01.
f Significant differences between 0,5% Zeolite/1% Zeolite p < 0,001.
Figure 2Effect of Zeolite on organoleptic quality of thigh muscle. A: Hardness (N), B: Elasticity (mm), C: Chewiness (N/mm). For every formulation two repeated measurements were taken for each replicate and mean values are reported.