| Literature DB >> 30651986 |
Abstract
Poultry is widely produced and consumed meat globally. Its demand is expected to continue increasing to meet the animal protein requirement for ever-increasing human population. Thus, the challenge that poultry scientists and industry face are to produce sufficient amount of poultry meat in the most efficient way. In the past, using antibiotics to promote the growth of poultry and manage gut microbiota was a norm. However, due to concerns over potential fatalistic impacts on food animals and indirectly to humans, their use as feed additives are banned or regulated in several jurisdictions. In this changed context, several alternative strategies have been proposed with some success that mimics the functions of antibiotics as growth promoters and modulate gut microbiota for their beneficial roles. These include the use of probiotics, prebiotics, organic acids, and exogenous enzyme, among others. Gut microbiota and their metabolic products improve nutrient digestion, absorption, metabolism, and overall health and growth performance of poultry. This paper reviews the available information on the effect of feed additives used to modulate intestinal microbiota of poultry and their effects on overall health and growth performance. Understanding these functions and interactions will help to develop new dietary and managerial strategies that will ultimately lead to enhanced feed utilization and improved growth performance of poultry. This review will help future researchers and industry to identify alternative feed ingredients having properties like prebiotics, probiotics, organic acids, and exogenous enzymes.Entities:
Keywords: Enzymes; Microbiota; Organic acids; Poultry; Prebiotics; Probiotics
Year: 2019 PMID: 30651986 PMCID: PMC6332572 DOI: 10.1186/s40104-018-0310-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anim Sci Biotechnol ISSN: 1674-9782
Presence of dominant microbiota in the ceca of chicken
| Dominant microbiota | Reference | No. of genera | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Firmicutes | Wei et al. [ | 13 phyla and 117 genera | > 900 species-equivalent OTUs, defined at 0.03 phylogenetic distance |
| Wang et al. [ | 133 OTUs within 41 genera considered | Genera differed between the fresh and reused litter for the cecal digesta samples. More abundance in d 10 than d 35 | |
| 10% previously known species, 35% previously known genus but unknown species, and 55% unknown genus | Apajalahti et al. [ | > 640 species from 140 genera | Consider bacterial community rather than talking about individual species. |
| Clostridiaceaen (65%), | Albazaz and Bal [ | ||
| Zhu et al. [ | Microbiota from ceca of mature birds fed standard commercial diet | ||
| Lachnospiraceae (47%), Ruminococcaceae (19%), | Apajalahti and Vienola [ | Average cecal microbiota composition of commercial broiler chicken farms | |
| Bacteroidetes (> 18%), Tenericutes and Proteobacteria (1%–5%) and at family level Ruminococcaceae, Bacteroidaceae, uncultured Clostridiales, and Streptococcaceae | Witzig et al. [ | Microbiota present in ceca | |
| Gong et al. [ | Present in cecal mucosa |
Fig. 1The major bacterial habitats and concentration in the gastrointestinal tract of chicken