Hussain M, Aizpurua O, Pérez de Rozas A, París N, Guivernau M, Jofré A, Tous N, Ng'ang'a Z W, Alberdi A, Rodríguez-Gallego E, Kogut M H, Tarradas J
IRTA, Animal Nutrition, Mas Bové, 43120 Constantí, Catalonia, Spain; MoBioFood Research Group, Department of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, c/Marcel·lí Domingo n°1, 43007 Tarragona, Spain.
Center for Evolutionary Hologenomics, Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Poult Sci. 2024 Dec;103(12):104401. doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2024.104401. Epub 2024 Oct 10.
Minimizing the utilization of antibiotics in animal production is crucial to prevent the emergence of antimicrobial resistances. Thus, research on alternatives is needed to maintain productivity, sustainability, and animal health. To gain a comprehensive understanding of probiotics' modes of action on performance, intestinal microbiota, and gut health in poultry, 3 probiotic strains (Enterococcus faecalis CV1028 [EntF], Bacteroides fragilis GP1764 [BacF], and Ligilactobacillus salivarius CTC2197 [LacS]) were tested in 2 in vivo trials. Trial 1 comprised of a negative control group fed basal diet (BD) and 3 treatment groups that received BD with EntF, BacF and LacS. Trial 2 included a negative control group, a positive control group with Zinc-Bacitracin as antibiotic growth promoter (AGP), and 2 groups treated with a blend of probiotics (EntF+BacF+LacS) during 0 to 10 or 0 to 35 d, respectively. Wheat-soybean-rye based diets without exogenous enzymes were used as a challenge model to induce intestinal mild- or moderate-inflammatory process in the gut. In Trial 1, individually administered probiotics improved FCR at 8 d compared to Control, but these positive effects were lost in the following growing periods probably due to the high grade of challenging diet and a too low dose of probiotics. In Trial 2, both Probiotic treatments, administered only 10 or 35 d, significantly improved FCR to the same extent as of the Antibiotic group at the end of the trial. Although the performance between antibiotic and probiotic mixture showed similar values, microbiota analysis revealed different microbial composition at 7 d, but not at 21 d. This suggests that modes of action of the AGP and the tested probiotic blend differ on their effects on microbiome, and that the changes observed during the first days' posthatch are relevant on performance at the end of the study. Therefore, the probiotics administration only during the first 10 d posthatch was proven sufficient to induce similar performance improvements to those observed in birds fed antibiotic growth promoters throughout the whole experimental trial.
尽量减少动物生产中抗生素的使用对于预防抗菌药物耐药性的出现至关重要。因此，需要开展关于替代方案的研究，以维持生产力、可持续性和动物健康。为全面了解益生菌对家禽生产性能、肠道微生物群和肠道健康的作用模式，在两项体内试验中对3种益生菌菌株（粪肠球菌CV1028 [EntF]、脆弱拟杆菌GP1764 [BacF]和唾液乳杆菌CTC2197 [LacS]）进行了测试。试验1包括一个饲喂基础日粮（BD）的阴性对照组和3个处理组，处理组分别在基础日粮中添加EntF、BacF和LacS。试验2包括一个阴性对照组、一个以杆菌肽锌作为抗生素生长促进剂（AGP）的阳性对照组，以及分别在0至10天或0至35天期间用益生菌混合物（EntF+BacF+LacS）处理的2个组。以不含外源酶的小麦-大豆-黑麦日粮作为挑战模型，以诱导肠道轻度或中度炎症过程。在试验1中，与对照组相比，单独施用益生菌在第8天时改善了饲料转化率，但在随后的生长阶段这些积极作用消失了，这可能是由于挑战性日粮的等级较高且益生菌剂量过低。在试验2中，两种益生菌处理（仅在第10天或第35天施用）在试验结束时均显著改善了饲料转化率，达到了与抗生素组相同的程度。尽管抗生素和益生菌混合物之间的生产性能表现出相似的值，但微生物群分析显示在第7天时微生物组成不同，而在第21天时没有差异。这表明AGP和测试的益生菌混合物的作用模式在对微生物组的影响方面存在差异，并且在孵化后最初几天观察到的变化与研究结束时的生产性能相关。因此，事实证明，仅在孵化后前10天施用益生菌足以诱导出与在整个实验期间饲喂抗生素生长促进剂的禽类中观察到的类似的生产性能改善。
