| Literature DB >> 31835513 |
Quanhang Xiang1, Chao Wang1, Hong Zhang1, Wen Lai1, Hongkui Wei1,2, Jian Peng1,2.
Abstract
With recent bans on the growth-promoting use of antibiotics, alternative strategies are needed to improve the performance of agricultural animals. Here, the effects of dietary supplementation with Clostridium butyricum and a combination of Saccharomyces boulardii and Pediococcus acidilactici were assessed on laying performance, egg quality, oxidative status, and gut health in laying hens. A total of 8208 Lohmann pink laying hens were divided into 3 treatment groups, with each group replicated 12 times (n = 228). Hens in the control group (CON) were provided a basic diet devoid of added antibiotics and probiotics. Treatment group 1 (T1) received the same base diet supplemented with 0.5 g/kg C. butyricum, and the diets of treatment group 2 (T2) supplemented with S. boulardii (0.05 g/kg) and P. acidilactici (0.1 g/kg) for the entirety of the 5-week trial. The data indicated that C. butyricum supplementation resulted in a significant reduction in ADFI, a significant increase in feed conversion, eggshell strength, and the CP% of albumen (dry matter, DM) relative to CON. The probiotic-treated hens exhibited decreased reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels in ileum and cecum, and reduced malondialdehyde (MDA) in serum. In conclusion, dietary supplementation with C. butyricum may be beneficial with respect to hen performance, egg quality, and gut health.Entities:
Keywords: C. butyricum; P. acidilactici; S. boulardii; egg quality; gut health; laying hens; laying performance
Year: 2019 PMID: 31835513 PMCID: PMC6940752 DOI: 10.3390/ani9121110
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animals (Basel) ISSN: 2076-2615 Impact factor: 2.752
Composition and nutrition levels of the based diet 1.
| Items | Content | Items | Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ingredients | % | Nutrient levels | |
| Corn | 63 | ME/(MJ/kg) | 10.92 |
| Soybean meal | 24 | Crude protein, % | 15.73 |
| Limestone | 8 | Lysine, % | 0.82 |
| Premix 2 | 5 | Methionine, % | 0.41 |
| Total | 100 | Calcium, % | 3.32 |
1 Values are expressed on an air-dried basis. 2 The premix provided the following per kg of diets: 17.0 × 104 IU VA; 5.04 × 104 to 10.0 × 104 IU VD3; 366 mg DL-α-tocopheryl acetate; 48.0 mg menadione nicotinamide bisulfite (MNB, vitamin K3); 172 mg pantothenic; 32.1 mg thiamine nitrate; 97.2 mg vitamin B2; 425 mg nicotinamide; 144 mg Cu; 640 mg Fe; 1620 mg Mn; 1520 mg Zn.
Different probiotics effect on laying performance of laying hens.
| Item | CON | T1 | T2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ADFI | 105.5 ± 1.80 a | 104.1 ± 1.14 b | 105.2 ± 1.61 ab | 0.083 |
| Average egg weights (g) | 57.2 ± 0.42 | 57.1 ± 0.46 | 57.3 ± 0.34 | 0.4923 |
| Feed conversion (g of feed/g of egg) | 1.97 ± 0.04 a | 1.92 ± 0.03 b | 1.95 ± 0.03 ab | 0.0341 |
| Laying rate (%) | 93.8 | 94.4 | 94.5 | 0.4777 |
| Mortality (%) | 2.01 | 1.83 | 2.44 | 0.3445 |
| Average cracked egg percent/% | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.0957 |
a,b Means without a common superscript with a row differ significantly (p < 0.05). CON = basal diet (BD), T1 = BD plus 0.5 g/kg diet C. butyricum preparation, T2 = BD plus 0.1 g/kg diet P. acidilactici and 0.05 g/kg S. boulardii preparation. ADFI = average daily feed intake.
Effect of different probiotics on the egg quality of laying hens.
| Item | CON | T1 | T2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Egg shape index | 77.81 ± 1.15 | 76.44 ± 3.01 | 77.07 ± 0.90 | 0.234 |
| Eggshell strength, kg/cm2 | 4.77 ± 0.27 a | 4.41 ± 0.33 b | 4.86 ± 0.37 a | 0.0044 |
| Haugh unit | 83.20 ± 5.94 | 82.65 ± 5.82 | 82.98 ± 4.09 | 0.9678 |
| Albumen height, mm | 7.08 ± 0.89 | 6.93 ± 0.78 | 6.95 ± 0.58 | 0.8791 |
| Yolk color | 7.33 ± 0.26 a | 7.07 ± 0.27 b | 7.11 ± 0.29 ab | 0.055 |
| Eggshell thickness, um | 346.42 ± 8.16 | 347.57 ± 11.66 | 344.68 ± 8.28 | 0.7569 |
| Yolk percentage, % | 25.80 ± 0.72 | 26.46 ± 1.53 | 26.14 ± 0.93 | 0.3553 |
| Yolk CP%/DM | 30.53 ± 0.55 | 31.49 ± 1.48 | 30.57 ± 1.48 | 0.3479 |
| Albumen CP%/DM | 81.06 ± 1.63 b | 82.65 ± 0.91 a | 82.27 ± 0.57 ab | 0.0809 |
| Yolk Fat%/DM | 55.97 ± 1.89 | 54.52 ± 1.77 | 55.77 ± 1.64 | 0.1091 |
| Cholesterol content of yolk, % | 3.16 ± 0.65 | 2.90 ± 0.17 | 2.94 ± 0.21 | 0.3046 |
a,b Means without a common superscript with a row differ significantly (p < 0.05). CON = basal diet (BD), T1 = BD plus 0.5 g/kg diet C. butyricum preparation, T2 = BD plus 0.1 g/kg diet P. acidilactici and 0.05 g/kg S. boulardii preparation. CP = crude protein, DM = dry matter.
Different probiotics effect on antioxidative status in serum, ileum, and cecum of laying hens.
| Item | CON | T1 | T2 |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Serum | ROS (U/mL) | 5.64 ± 1.25 | 6.60 ± 2.39 | 6.09 ± 3.28 | 0.7313 |
| T-SOD (U/mL) | 80.37 ± 12.01 | 81.79 ± 8.09 | 82.83 ± 10.8 | 0.4654 | |
| MDA (nmol/mL) | 16.82 ± 4.57 a | 13.40 ± 3.86 b | 15.80 ± 5.56 ab | 0.0386 | |
| Ileum | ROS (U/mL) | 4.12 ± 0.47 a | 3.57 ± 0.34 b | 3.94 ± 0.48 a | 0.0017 |
| T-SOD (U/mL) | 101.27 ± 13.4 | 88.04 ± 23.69 | 111.56 ± 22.96 | 0.3091 | |
| GSH-PX (U/mL) | 132.00 ± 103.96 | 159.34 ± 103.71 | 67.75 ± 42.2 | 0.1613 | |
| Cecum | ROS (U/mL) | 3.81 ± 0.41 a | 3.08 ± 0.24 b | 3.64 ± 0.34 a | 0.0009 |
| T-SOD (U/mL) | 57.87 ± 16.16 | 52.09 ± 15.97 | 55.00 ± 14.44 | 0.5541 | |
| GSH-PX (U/mL) | 117.08 ± 74.91 | 57.74 ± 30.00 | 143.12 ± 160.82 | 0.3833 |
a,b Means without a common superscript with a row differ significantly (p < 0.05). CON = basal diet (BD), T1 = BD plus 0.5 g/kg diet C. butyricum preparation, T2 = BD plus 0.1 g/kg diet P. acidilactici and 0.05 g/kg S. boulardii preparation. ROS = reactive oxygen species, T-SOD = total superoxide dismutase, GSH-PX = glutathione peroxidase, MDA = malondialdehyde.
Figure 1Effect of different probiotics on ileum and cecum morphology in laying hens. CON = basal diet (BD), T1 = BD plus 0.5 g/kg diet C. butyricum preparation, T2 = BD plus 0.1 g/kg diet P. acidilactici and 0.05 g/kg S. boulardii preparation.
Effect of different probiotics on ileum and cecum morphology in laying hens.
| Intestinal Segment | Item | CON | T1 | T2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ileum | villus height | 488.51 ± 92.18 b | 650.60 ± 169.29 a | 649.47 ± 191.44 a | <0.0001 |
| crypt depth | 187.10 ± 37.92 b | 196.18 ± 49.84 ab | 207.74 ± 54.222 a | 0.0008 | |
| villus width | 317.38 ± 115.76 | 310.19 ± 77.30 | 354.11 ± 109.75 | 0.508 | |
| villus/crypt | 2.77 ± 0.78 b | 3.58 ± 1.33 a | 3.24 ± 1.01 a | 0.0026 | |
| cecum | villus height | 1178.39 ± 187.56 c | 1531.50 ± 287.69 a | 1310.61 ± 238.16 b | <0.0001 |
| crypt depth | 197.16 ± 38.93 | 186.64 ± 36.45 | 193.73 ± 36.09 | 0.3794 | |
| villus width | 322.65 ± 80.66 a | 282.21 ± 91.54 b | 293.17 ± 85.75 ab | 0.0338 | |
| villus/crypt | 6.20 ± 1.60 b | 8.76 ± 2.38 a | 7.06 ± 2.14 b | <0.0001 |
a–c Means without a common superscript with a row differ significantly (p < 0.05). CON = basal diet (BD), T1 = BD plus 0.5 g/kg diet C. butyricum preparation, T2 = BD plus 0.1 g/kg diet P. acidilactici and 0.05 g/kg S. boulardii preparation.
Figure 2Effect of different probiotics on the mRNA levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines. CON = basal diet (BD), T1 = BD plus 0.5 g/kg diet C. butyricum preparation, T2 = BD plus 0.1 g/kg diet P. acidilactici and 0.05 g/kg S. boulardii preparation.