You are here

Contents of the microflora of the intestine, retention and productivity of broiler chickens in accordance with different types and quantities of the acidifier

In two scientific-field experiments with broiler chicken cross-breeding ”Кобб-500", the goal was set to learn the influence of different dosages, forms and types of feeding the acidifier FRA LBB DRY onto the contents of the microflora of intestine, retention and productivity of broiler chickens.

The first experiment was done using three groups-analogs of broiler chickens, 46 birds per group. The broiler chickens of the first group were the control group. This group was fed a regular mixed feed. The second and third groups were fed the same mixed feed with an addition of the acidifier of FRA LBB DRY feed added; 3kg per ton of feed for the 2-nd, and 5 kg per ton for the third group.

The second experiment was done using 6 similar groups-analogs of broiler chickens, 100 birds per group, with an equal ratio of male to female chicken. Throw-out the experiment all six groups were fed the same amount of fully nutritional mixed feed, in accordance with their age growth groups. As far as drinking went, the groups were hydrated differently. Birds of the first group were getting plain water, broiler chickens of the 2, 3, 4, and 5 groups were getting a mix of FRA LBB DRY acidifier in the quantities of 1,0; 1,33; 1,66 and 2,0 ml/L accordingly. The last group, group 6, was getting a dose of liquid Norfolk antibiotic in the quantity of 1 ml/L.

As the bacteriological experiments have shown, after 7 days of feeding different doses of dry acidifier, the stool sample of the second and third groups of broiler chickens, when compared to the first group, had shown to contain less undesirable microflora in particular Escherichia coli – by 26,7 and 29,0 %, enterococcus by 21,4 and 24,7 % with a high probability of difference (P<0,01). At the same time the test samples contained higher concentration of useful microflora such as Bifidobacterium and lacto bacteria. The difference, when compared to the- test sample, was 18,3–24,1 % (P<0,01) and 16,5-17,8 % (P<0,05).

In the second experiment adding acidifier FRA LBB DRY to water for the 2, 3, 4, and 5-th groups by 1,0; 1,33; 1,66 and 2 ml/l of water had caused a decrease of escherichia coli by 12,7 % (P<0,05), 17,4 % (P<0,01), 18,8 % (P<0,01) and 16,0 % (P<0,05), enterococcus by 14,9; 20,9; 17,8; and 16,9 % with a high degree of probability (P<0,01), at the same time increasing the amount of bifidobacteria by 19,1; 20,6; 17,9 and 21,3 %, (P<0,01) and lactobacteria by 14,4; 16,5; 15,8; 12,4 % (P<0,01).

The changes that had taken place in the contents of the microflora of intestine obviously had a positive effect on digestion and processing of nutrients, which, as a result, had improved the upkeep and productivity of the broiler chickens which were exposed to the acidifier. In the first experiment departure of the broiler chickens was almost three times less than that of a control group. In the second experiment the upkeep of broilers in test groups was larger than the control by 6–7 absolute percent.

Adding an acidifier into the mixed feed also increased the rate of growth in birds. Case in point, in the first experiment the growth of the body mass of one broiler of the 2-nd and 3-rd test groups was by 5,05 and 5,23 % larger than the control group. In the second experiment, both absolute and daily weight gains of 2–5-th groups were by 3,8-4,5 % larger than those of the control group.

As far as comparing the expenses in terms of quantities of food per 1 kg of gains, both experiments have shown that test groups 2–3 and 2–5 consumed 3,4 and 2,7–4,3 % less than the control group.

Among the objective measures that show the efficiency of the experiment, we can use the European efficiency index, which in first and second experiments was 37,8-38-6, and 32,0-50,1 points higher than the control group.

Alongside with the acidifier, the experiment was also set to text the effectiveness of the use of the Norfolk antibiotic, which was given to the birds in group 6 of the second experiment. The data had shown that by absolute and daily weight gain, feed conversion, livestock retention, and European efficiency index, the birds in the 6th group definitely surpassed the control group in all categories, but fell short of the other experiment groups in almost all categories. This data lets us conclude that there is a good possibility that we can exchange the antibiotics for acidifier, with little to no loss in productivity.

In summary, the data of this microbiological research shows that including acidifier into a fixed feed has a positive impact on the broiler chicken intestines microflora, which could quite possibly be one of the factors that improves the digestion and consumption process and an improved upkeep of the birds as a result.

By the general evaluation of the results of the experiment, the optimal dosage of dry and liquid acidifier FRA LBB DRY for the broiler chickens can be considered 3kg/tons of mixed feed or 1,33 –1,66 ml/l of water.

As a perspective of further development, the research might look into a search of acidifiers of a different biochemical nature and of a more potent action.

Key words: broiler chickens, acidifier, antibiotic, microflora of the intestines, productivity.

 

1. Zhejnova, N.M. (2011). Fumarova kislota: prebіotik shirokogo spektru dii' [Fumaric acid: a broad spectrum of prebiotics]. Efektivne ptahіvnictvo [Effective poultry farming]. no. 2, pp. 26–28.
2. Polіshhuk, A.A. (2010). Suchasnі kormovі dobavki v godіvlі tvarin і pticі [Modern feed additives in feeding animals and poultry]. Vіsnik Poltavs'koi' derzhavnoi' agrarnoi' akademіi' [Bulletin of the Poltava State Agrarian Academy]. no.2, pp. 63–66.
3. Ferket, P. (2009). Zdorov'e zhivotnyh i pticy v mire bez antibiotikov [The health of animals and birds in the world without antibiotics]. Kombikorma [Feed]. no. 2, 87 p.
4. Imangulov, Sh.A. (2008). Ispol'zovanie probiotikov, prebiotikov i simbiotikov v pticevodstve [The use of probiotics, prebiotics and symbiotics in the poultry industr]. Metodicheskie rekomendacii [Guidelines]. Sergiev Posad, 42 p.
5. Lushnikov, K.V., Zhelamskij, S.V. (2010). Organicheskie kisloty: svojstva i spektr primenenija v sel'skom hozjajstve [Organic acids: properties and range of applications in agriculture]. Eurofarmer. no. 2, pp.14–16.
6. Kocjumbas, І.Ja., Gunchak, V.M., Stec'ko, T.І. (2013). Problemi vikoristannja antimіkrobnih preparatіv dlja stimuljuvannja rostu produktivnih tvarin ta al'ternativi i'h zastosuvannju [Problems of using antimicrobial drugs to stimulate growth of productive animals and alternative to their application]. Naukovo-tehnіchnij bjuleten' Іnstitutu bіologіi' tvarin і Derzhavnogo naukovo-doslіdnogo kontrol'nogo іnstitutu vetpreparatіv ta kormovih dobavok [Scientific and technical bulletin of the Institute of Animal Biology and the State Scientific-Research Control Institute of Veterinary Preparations and Feed Additives]. Issue 14, no. 3–4, pp. 381–389.
7. Shnejberg, Ja.I. (2009). Morfofunkcional'naja harakteristika cypljat i kur po periodam i fazam postinkubacionnogo ontogeneza [Morphofunctional characteristics of chickens and chickens by periods and phases of post-incubation ontogenesis]. Jekologo-jeksperimental'nye aspekty funkcional'noj i vozrastnoj fiziologii domashnih ptic: mezhvuz. sb. tr. Voronezh [Ecological and experimental aspects of the functional and age physiology of poultry: mezhvuz. Sat tr. Voronezh]. pp. 109–117.
8. Bessarabov, B.F., Krykanov, A.I., Mel'nikova, I.M. (2008). Vlijanie probiotikov na rost i sohrannost' cypljat [The effect of probiotics on the growth and safety of chickens]. Pticevodstvo [Poultry farming]. no.1, 25 p.
9. Egorov, I., Pan'kov, P., Rozanov, B. (2010). Probiotik laktoamilovarin stimuliruet rost cypljat [Probiotic lacto-amylovarin stimulates chick growth]. no. 8, pp. 32–33.
10. Gruhn, K. A., Zander, R., Hennig, A. Verdaulichkeit der Rjhnaehrstoffe und Aminosaure von Sojaextraktionssrot und Fischmehl bei Gefluegel. Getreidewirtschaft. 2009, Vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 248–250.
11. Gerardo Santoma Nutrition Manager, Trouw Nutrition Spain, submitted for publication by ASA-IM (American Soybean Association International Marketing). : materіali IV Mіzhn. nauk.-prakt. konf. po ptahіvnictvu, (m. Sudak, AR Krim, 22–25 veresnja 2008 r.) UAAN [materials IV International sci. pract. conf. on poultry breeding, (Sudak, AR Crimea, September 22-25, 2008) UAAS] Іnstitut ptahіvnictva, Asocіacіja «Sojuz ptahіvnikіv Ukraїni» Ptahіvnictvo: Mіzhvіd. temat. nauk. zb. H.: ІP UAAN [Institute of Poultry Farming, Association "Poultry Union of Ukraine" Poultry Farming: Intervet. thematic sciences save Kh.: IE UAAN]. 2008, Issue 61 (62), Part 1, pp. 9–16.
12. Camhbell, Y.Y., Bedford, M.R. Ensyme application for monogastric feeds: Areview. Can. Y. Anim. 2012, Issue 72, no. 5, pp. 449–466.
13. Van Immerscel, F., Russell, J.B., Flythe, V.D. The use of organic acids to combat Salmonella in poultry: a mechanistic explanation of the efficacy. Avian Pathology. 2006, Vol. 35, pp. 182–188.
14. Abdel-Fattah, S.A., El-Sanhoury, M.H., El-Mednay, N.M., Abdel-Azeem, F. Thyroid Activity, Some Blood Constituents, Organs Morphology and Performance of Broiler Chicks Fed Supplemental Organic Acids International Journal of Poultry Science. 2008, Vol. 7 (3), pp. 215–222.
15. Osobennost' podhodakompanii NOVUS korganicheskimkislotam [The peculiarity of NOVUS's approach to organic acids]. Efektivne ptahіvnictvo [Effective poultry farming]. 2009, no.12, pp. 22–25.
16. Organicheskie kisloty – jeffektivnaja al'ternativa stimuljatoram rosta [Organic acids are an effective alternative to growth stimulants]. Efektivnі kormi ta godіvlja [Efective feed that year]. 2010, no. 6, pp. 26–28.
17. Kasatkin, N.E. (2013). K voprosu o geneze stenki zheludochno-kishechnogo trakta u cypljat «Kross-288» [On the genesis of the wall of the gastrointestinal tract in chickens "Cross-288"]. Novoe v morfologiii fiziologii I biohimii domashnih zhivotnyh v uslovijah krupnyh ferm [New in morphology and physiology and biochemistry of domestic animals in large farms]. Ulyanovsk, pp. 26–29.
18. Anderson, T.S. Ensyme supplements in high bart laying ration with different protein levels. Feedstuffs. 2010, Vol. 5, pp. 56–78.
19. Petrina, Z.A., Treshhev, V.G. (2010). Jeffektivnost' razlichnyh rezhimov kormlenija cypljat-brojlerov [The effectiveness of different modes of feeding broiler chickens]. Nauchnye osnovy tehnologii proizvostva brojelrov: sb. nauch. tr. VNITIP [Scientific basis of production technology broerel: Sat. scientific tr. VNITIP]. Sergiev Posad, pp. 124–131.
20. Fisinin, V.I., Zhuravlev, I.V., Ajdinjan, T.G. (2011). Jembrional'noe razvitie pticy [Embryonic bird development]. Moscow, VO Agropromizdat, 239 p.
21. Iben, B. Ferkel fruh an festes Flitter gewohnen mit Probiotika.Absetzstess besser bewaltigen. DLZ Agrarmag. Agrobonus. 1999, Ig. 50, no.3, pp. 148–152.
22. Jadamus, A., Vahjen, W., Kuhn I. Zur wirkung des Probiotikums Toyo-Cerin in der Geflugelmast. Lomann Inform., Cuxhaven. 1999, no. 2, pp. 3–6.
23. Samudovska, Alena., Demeterova, M. Effect of water acidification on performance, carcass characteristic andsome variables of intermediary metabolism in chscks. Acta Veterinaria (Beograd). 2010, Vol. 60, (no. 4), pp. 363–370.
24. Holder, D. Zum Einzatz von antibiotischen und probiotischen Leistungsforderer in der Nutztierhaltung. Sch. R. Agrarwiss. Fak.Univ. 2008, H. 86, pp. 123–129.
25. Mulder, R.W.A.W. Probiotics as a tool against Salmonella cuntaminaition. Misset World Poultry. 2011, Vol. 7, pp. 36–37.
26. Brzoska, F., Grzybowski, R., Stecka, K., Pieszka, M. Nutritive efficiency of selected probiotic microorganisms in chicken broilers. Annals of animal science. Krakow, 2009, Vol. 26, no.4, pp. 2291–301.
27. Mountzouris, K.C., Beneas, H., Tsirtsicos, P. Efficacy of a new multi-strain probiotic product in promoting broiler performance and modulating the composition and activities of cecal microflora. International Poultry Scientific Forum, Atlanta, Georgia. 2006, p. 59.
28. Kavtarashvili, A.I., Golubov, Ja.I. (2013). Opredelenie jeffektivnosti proizvodstva pticevodcheskoj produkcii jekspress-metodami [Determination of the efficiency of production of poultry products by express methods]. Suchasne ptahіvnictvo [Contemporary Poultry Farming]. no. 2, pp. 6–9.
 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon dyachenko_2_2018.pdf226.55 KB