Cargando…
The potential for inoculating Lactobacillus animalis and Enterococcus faecium alone or in combination using commercial in ovo technology without negatively impacting hatch and post-hatch performance
The poultry industry has recently undergone transitions into antibiotic free production, and viable antibiotic alternatives, such as probiotics, are necessary. Through in ovo probiotic inoculation, beneficial microflora development in the gastrointestinal tract may occur prior to hatch without negat...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8913989/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31420659 http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps/pez441 |
_version_ | 1784667589955289088 |
---|---|
author | Beck, Chrysta N. McDaniel, Christopher D. Wamsley, Kelley G.S. Kiess, Aaron S. |
author_facet | Beck, Chrysta N. McDaniel, Christopher D. Wamsley, Kelley G.S. Kiess, Aaron S. |
author_sort | Beck, Chrysta N. |
collection | PubMed |
description | The poultry industry has recently undergone transitions into antibiotic free production, and viable antibiotic alternatives, such as probiotics, are necessary. Through in ovo probiotic inoculation, beneficial microflora development in the gastrointestinal tract may occur prior to hatch without negatively impacting chick performance. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to observe the impacts of the injection of probiotic bacteria individually or combined into fertile broiler hatching eggs on hatch and live performance characteristics. A total of 2,080 fertile broiler hatching eggs were obtained from a commercial source. On day 18 of incubation, 4 in ovo injected treatments were applied: 1.) Marek's Disease (HVT) vaccination, 2.) L. animalis (∼10(6) cfu/50μl), 3.) E. faecium (∼10(6) cfu/50μl), and 4.) L. animalis + E. faecium (∼10(6) cfu & ∼10(6) cfu/50μl each). On day of hatch, hatchability and hatch residue data were recorded. A portion of male chicks from each treatment were placed in a grow-out facility for a 21 d grow-out (18 chicks/pen × 10 pens/treatment = 720 male chicks) with a corn and soy bean meal-based diet without antibiotics or antibiotic alternatives. Performance data and gastrointestinal samples were collected on days 0, 7, 14, and 21. Results indicated no differences in all hatch parameters between treatments (P > 0.05) except for % pipped, where the L. animalis treatment had lower % pipped eggs compared to the HVT control and E. faecium treatments (P = 0.04). No differences were observed in body weight gain or mortality (P > 0.05). Probiotic treatments altered gastrointestinal tissue length, weight, and pH. This resulted in all in ovo injected probiotic treatments increasing feed conversion ratio (FCR) from days 7 to 14 as compared to the control (P = 0.01). Differences in FCR were not observed in any other week of data collection (days 0 to 7, 14 to 21, or 0 to 21; P > 0.05). Although probiotics altered live performance from days 7 to 14, these data suggest that in ovo inoculations of L. animalis and E. faecium in combination are viable probiotic administration practices that potentially improve hatch characteristics and gastrointestinal tract development. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8913989 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89139892022-03-12 The potential for inoculating Lactobacillus animalis and Enterococcus faecium alone or in combination using commercial in ovo technology without negatively impacting hatch and post-hatch performance Beck, Chrysta N. McDaniel, Christopher D. Wamsley, Kelley G.S. Kiess, Aaron S. Poult Sci Article The poultry industry has recently undergone transitions into antibiotic free production, and viable antibiotic alternatives, such as probiotics, are necessary. Through in ovo probiotic inoculation, beneficial microflora development in the gastrointestinal tract may occur prior to hatch without negatively impacting chick performance. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to observe the impacts of the injection of probiotic bacteria individually or combined into fertile broiler hatching eggs on hatch and live performance characteristics. A total of 2,080 fertile broiler hatching eggs were obtained from a commercial source. On day 18 of incubation, 4 in ovo injected treatments were applied: 1.) Marek's Disease (HVT) vaccination, 2.) L. animalis (∼10(6) cfu/50μl), 3.) E. faecium (∼10(6) cfu/50μl), and 4.) L. animalis + E. faecium (∼10(6) cfu & ∼10(6) cfu/50μl each). On day of hatch, hatchability and hatch residue data were recorded. A portion of male chicks from each treatment were placed in a grow-out facility for a 21 d grow-out (18 chicks/pen × 10 pens/treatment = 720 male chicks) with a corn and soy bean meal-based diet without antibiotics or antibiotic alternatives. Performance data and gastrointestinal samples were collected on days 0, 7, 14, and 21. Results indicated no differences in all hatch parameters between treatments (P > 0.05) except for % pipped, where the L. animalis treatment had lower % pipped eggs compared to the HVT control and E. faecium treatments (P = 0.04). No differences were observed in body weight gain or mortality (P > 0.05). Probiotic treatments altered gastrointestinal tissue length, weight, and pH. This resulted in all in ovo injected probiotic treatments increasing feed conversion ratio (FCR) from days 7 to 14 as compared to the control (P = 0.01). Differences in FCR were not observed in any other week of data collection (days 0 to 7, 14 to 21, or 0 to 21; P > 0.05). Although probiotics altered live performance from days 7 to 14, these data suggest that in ovo inoculations of L. animalis and E. faecium in combination are viable probiotic administration practices that potentially improve hatch characteristics and gastrointestinal tract development. Elsevier 2019-12-17 /pmc/articles/PMC8913989/ /pubmed/31420659 http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps/pez441 Text en © 2019 Poultry Science Association Inc. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Beck, Chrysta N. McDaniel, Christopher D. Wamsley, Kelley G.S. Kiess, Aaron S. The potential for inoculating Lactobacillus animalis and Enterococcus faecium alone or in combination using commercial in ovo technology without negatively impacting hatch and post-hatch performance |
title | The potential for inoculating Lactobacillus animalis and Enterococcus faecium alone or in combination using commercial in ovo technology without negatively impacting hatch and post-hatch performance |
title_full | The potential for inoculating Lactobacillus animalis and Enterococcus faecium alone or in combination using commercial in ovo technology without negatively impacting hatch and post-hatch performance |
title_fullStr | The potential for inoculating Lactobacillus animalis and Enterococcus faecium alone or in combination using commercial in ovo technology without negatively impacting hatch and post-hatch performance |
title_full_unstemmed | The potential for inoculating Lactobacillus animalis and Enterococcus faecium alone or in combination using commercial in ovo technology without negatively impacting hatch and post-hatch performance |
title_short | The potential for inoculating Lactobacillus animalis and Enterococcus faecium alone or in combination using commercial in ovo technology without negatively impacting hatch and post-hatch performance |
title_sort | potential for inoculating lactobacillus animalis and enterococcus faecium alone or in combination using commercial in ovo technology without negatively impacting hatch and post-hatch performance |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8913989/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31420659 http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps/pez441 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT beckchrystan thepotentialforinoculatinglactobacillusanimalisandenterococcusfaeciumaloneorincombinationusingcommercialinovotechnologywithoutnegativelyimpactinghatchandposthatchperformance AT mcdanielchristopherd thepotentialforinoculatinglactobacillusanimalisandenterococcusfaeciumaloneorincombinationusingcommercialinovotechnologywithoutnegativelyimpactinghatchandposthatchperformance AT wamsleykelleygs thepotentialforinoculatinglactobacillusanimalisandenterococcusfaeciumaloneorincombinationusingcommercialinovotechnologywithoutnegativelyimpactinghatchandposthatchperformance AT kiessaarons thepotentialforinoculatinglactobacillusanimalisandenterococcusfaeciumaloneorincombinationusingcommercialinovotechnologywithoutnegativelyimpactinghatchandposthatchperformance AT beckchrystan potentialforinoculatinglactobacillusanimalisandenterococcusfaeciumaloneorincombinationusingcommercialinovotechnologywithoutnegativelyimpactinghatchandposthatchperformance AT mcdanielchristopherd potentialforinoculatinglactobacillusanimalisandenterococcusfaeciumaloneorincombinationusingcommercialinovotechnologywithoutnegativelyimpactinghatchandposthatchperformance AT wamsleykelleygs potentialforinoculatinglactobacillusanimalisandenterococcusfaeciumaloneorincombinationusingcommercialinovotechnologywithoutnegativelyimpactinghatchandposthatchperformance AT kiessaarons potentialforinoculatinglactobacillusanimalisandenterococcusfaeciumaloneorincombinationusingcommercialinovotechnologywithoutnegativelyimpactinghatchandposthatchperformance |