|
In the short lifespan of broiler
chickens, the later that micro organisms colonise the intestinal tract, the
more vulnerable is the birds’ intestinal ecosystem. Conventional solutions
to protect the young birds typically involve feeding sub-therapeutic doses
of pharmaceutical-type antibiotics. However, there is increasing concern of
regulatory bodies and the public opinion around the world about the use of
such ‘antibiotic growth promoters’ or AGPs.
Thus the global search for new
solutions is intensifying, accelerated by the impending ban of all AGPs in
food animal feeds for the European Union in 2006. Direct-fed microbial or
probiotic products consisting of natural sources of beneficial micro
organisms already are available to help maintain the balance of the
intestinal micro flora in a range of food animal species. Now much of the
research and development is on poultry, where the challenges can be distinct
from other species. However, recent trials under farm conditions suggest
that probiotics with consistent efficacy are going to provide a reliable
solution for managing the balance of the gastro-intestinal flora in
commercial broilers.
Probiotic challenge
In the natural environment, the
intestinal tract of chickens is colonised by a broad range of micro
organisms at a very early age of the birds. By far the most typical source
of the intestinal flora is the unsterile surface of the egg, resulting from
contact with the hen in the nest. In commercial operations, however, the
colonisation of the intestinal tract is a more prolonged process due to the
high hygienic standard in the hatcheries and the lack of contact with the
natural environment.
It takes around 21 days for broilers
to develop a balanced intestinal flora, and this period represents around
50% of a broiler’s life. Unfortunately, the later the intestinal tract is
colonised, the more vulnerable the intestinal ecosystem will be to
pathogenic organisms. After the first 21 days, other challenges such as
stress, feed changes, antibiotic interventions, and disease can upset the
gastro-intestinal tract (GIT) flora and cause considerable losses.
Feed-type probiotic products
consisting of beneficial micro can help establish and maintain the balance
of the intestinal micro flora in commercial broilers. However, one of the
key factors in their efficacy is their stability during storage and feed
processing. Heat treatment and pressure during pelleting are the toughest
obstacles for beneficial micro organisms to reach the GIT.
The best natural solution to the
challenge of stability in direct-fed microbial products is to use
spore-forming beneficial strains of microbes. A spore is a livable cell
protected by its own natural coating, not encapsulated or otherwise coated
in a manufacturing process. Selecting a probiotic micro organism that has
beneficial effect in broiler chickens, however, requires a steady search for
the best candidate which stands the test under practical conditions. A
single, superior strain of spore-forming beneficial bacteria may be
preferred due to advantages in manufacturing quality assurance and in
simplicity of regulatory registration.
Feeding trials with broilers
A proprietary, thermo-tolerant,
probiotic strain of Bacillus subtilis has been tested in feeding
trials with broilers in several countries. The results obtained have shown
consistent improvement of feed conversion rate and body weight gain under a
wide variety of commercial conditions. The beneficial results obtained from
this probiotic strain have appeared to occur due to an effect over the GIT
microbiota balance, improving the intestinal health and integrity, that has
translated into a better general health and consequently enhanced
performance.
Trials in Brazil and the USA have
provided significant evidence that broiler production can be improved by
using a single strain of B. subtilis throughout the production
period.
The broiler pen trials reported here
followed an experimental model which included a negative (unsupplemented)
control, positive (antibiotic) control, and the B. subtilis probiotic
(Table).
Table
Broiler chicken performance in
recent 42-day pen trials comparing diets of negative control, antibiotic
control, and a proprietary probiotic strain of Bacillus subtilis
|
Dietary treatments
|
Body weight,
kg
|
Feed,
kg/body weight, kg
|
Mortality,
%
|
|
Brazil pen trials at Viçosa Federal
University (used litter, mash feed) |
|
Negative control |
2.519 b |
1.752 |
5.00 |
|
Avilamycin 7/5/5 ppm |
2.627 a (+4.29%) |
1.732 (-1.14%) |
5.91 (+18.2%) |
|
B. subtilis
probiotic1 |
2.614 a (+3.77%) |
1.740 (-0.68%) |
2.27 (-54.6%) |
|
USA pen trials at Virginia Diversified
Research Corp. (used litter, mash feed) |
|
Negative control |
1.856 c |
2.232 a |
4.50 a |
|
Bacitracin-MD 55 ppm |
2.045 a (+10.2%) |
1.965 b (-12%) |
2.78 b (-38.2%) |
|
B. subtilis
probiotic1 |
1.999 b (+7.70%) |
1.989 b (-10.9%) |
4.26 a (-5.33%) |
|
USA pen trials at Southern Poultry
Research, Inc. (used litter, pelleted feed) |
|
Negative control |
2.138 b |
1.833 a |
4.00 |
|
Virginiamycin 16.5 ppm |
2.169 a b (+1.45%) |
1.783 b (-2.73%) |
4.89 (+22.3%) |
|
B. subtilis
probiotic1 |
2.176 a (+1.78%) |
1.793 b (-2.18%) |
5.78 (+44.5%) |
|
Combined trials
2 |
|
Negative control |
2.171 |
1.939 |
4.50 |
|
Antibiotic control |
2.280 (+5.02%) |
1.827 (-5.78%) |
4.53 (+0.67%) |
|
B. subtilis
probiotic1 |
2.263 (+4.24%) |
1.841 (-5.05%) |
4.10 (-8.89%) |
|
a-c
Viçosa Federal University body weight, P<0.001; Southern Poultry
Research, Inc., all P<0.05; and Southern Poultry Research, Inc., body
weight, P=0.056
(means separated by LSD), and feed
conversion ratio, P<0.001.
1
B. subtilis probiotic in all trials is Bacillus subtilis DSM17299
(GalliPro®) from Chr Hansen at 8x105 colony forming units
per gram of feed (CFU/g feed).
2
Combined trial means were analysed by ‘paired T-test’ simply by using
the 3 mean values for each treatment in a column compared to each
other treatment by parameter. P values for body weight were 0.139 and
0.094 between negative control and antibiotic or B. subtilis
probiotic, approaching significance. |
These three litter pen trials in
Brazil and the USA were conducted under commercial-type conditions using
standard diets, commercial broiler strains, and typical industry management
practices such as built-up litter top-dressed with fresh wood shavings. The
objective of these trials was to demonstrate growth responses and feed
conversion in broiler chickens using either the probiotic-supplemented or
AGP-supplemented diets compared to negative control diets. Researchers
averaged key performance parameters - body weight, feed conversion, and
mortality - over the three trials (Figures 1, 2, and 3).
Figures 1.,2.,3.
Summary of broiler chicken trials
in Brazil and the USA, comparing a direct-fed, single-strain Bacillus
subtilis probiotic versus conventional antibiotic growth promoter and
non-AGP controls
Note: In all trials, proprietary Bacillus
subtilis as GalliPro 8x105 from Chr Hansen
Trials in Brazil and USA
A trial was carried out at Viçosa
Federal University using Ross male broiler chicks at stocking density of
9.52 birds per square metre on used litter (one previous flock). Salinomycin
was added to the mash feeds as a coccidiostat. There were 10 replicate pens
of 22 chicks each per treatment. The experiment was conducted during the
winter. Birds treated with the proprietary B. subtilis strain showed
no significant difference when compared to avilamycin for increasing 42-day
body weight or improving feed conversion, and both treatments were
significantly better (P<0.001) in body weight than the negative control.
Another trial at Virginia Diversified
Research Corp, Harrisonburg, Virginia, placed 60 Cobb straight-run chicks
per pen (10 replicate pens/treatment) at 16.12 birds per square metre on
used litter with acovering of fresh wood shavings in a spring season trial.
Monensin at 99 ppm was added to the mash feeds as a coccidiostat. The
stocking density and used litter were applied to simulate what is found in
commercial conditions. The broiler chickens treated with either the B.
subtilis product or the AGP significantly (P<0.05) improved 42-day body
weight and feed conversion ratio compared to the negative control. The diets
with bacitracin-MD at 55 ppm significantly (P<0.05) lowered overall
mortality compared to negative control diets.
A summer pen trial was carried out at
Southern Poultry Research, Inc, in Athens, Georgia, using pelleted feeds
containing monensin at 100 ppm as a coccidiostat. Cobb male chicks were
placed 50 per pen in 36 replicate pens (9 pens per treatment) at a stocking
density of 11.62 birds per square metre. Each pen had about 10 cm of
built-up litter top-dressed with fresh pine shavings. Compared to the
negative control results, significant improvements in 42-day body weight
(P<0.056) and feed conversion ratio (P<0.001) were observed for the B.
subtilis treatment, and feed conversion ratio was better for the
virginiamycin-fed birds than for negative controls.
These trials in Brazil and the USA
showed that inclusion of the proprietary strain of Bacillus subtilis
in broiler chicken diets at a level of 8x1O5
colony forming units per gram of feed was effective at improving body weight
and
feed conversion ratio at market age
compared to negative control diets. The trials showed that the probiotic
product did not differ significantly from the respective antibiotics used as
growth promoters for improving feed conversion ratio in all trials. The
probiotic product also increased body weight of birds at the AGP level in
two of three trials. This research has suggested that a new spores-forming
probiotic strain may be recommended for use under commercial-type growing
conditions. Thus the single-strain probiotic or direct-fed microbial
approach has shown potential as an economical replacement for AGPs to
improve live performance of broiler chickens.
Employed by international
feed and food ingredients supplier Chr Hansen, Dr Carvalho is based in
Brazil and Mr Hansen is based in Denmark. Please contact Dr Carvalho at
nelson.carvalho@br.chr-hansen.com
Complete references for this article are available directly from the lead
author Dr Carvalho.
Feed
International,Vol.26,#10,november/december 2005.,Watt Publishing Co., USA
www.feedindustrynetwork.com
|