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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Beck, Chrysta N., McDaniel, Christopher D., Wamsley, Kelley G.S., Kiess, Aaron S.
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