Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T00:07:30.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feeding broilers with dry whey powder and whey protein concentrate affected productive performance, ileal digestibility of nutrients and cecal microbiota community

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2017

C. Pineda-Quiroga ,
A. Camarinha-Silva ,
D. Borda-Molina ,
R. Atxaerandio ,
R. Ruiz  and
A. García-Rodríguez
C. Pineda-Quiroga*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production, Neiker-Tecnalia, Granja Modelo de Arkaute, 01080 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain
A. Camarinha-Silva
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart 70599, Germany
D. Borda-Molina
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart 70599, Germany
R. Atxaerandio
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production, Neiker-Tecnalia, Granja Modelo de Arkaute, 01080 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain
R. Ruiz
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production, Neiker-Tecnalia, Granja Modelo de Arkaute, 01080 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain
A. García-Rodríguez
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production, Neiker-Tecnalia, Granja Modelo de Arkaute, 01080 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Dietary interventions are a common practice in the poultry industry to promote optimal performance and health of animals. Here, we aim at assessing the influence of supplementing broiler diets with dry whey powder (DWP) and whey protein concentrate (WPC) on nutrient coefficient of apparent ileal digestibility (CAID) and productive performance. Cecal microbiota composition was also determined using Illumina amplicon sequencing. Dietary treatments were control diet (no supplementation of DWP or WPC), 60-DWP (60 g/kg of DWP), and 80-WPC (80 g/kg of WPC). One-day-old male broilers were randomly assigned to one of three treatments, and housed in floor pens. In Trial 1, 90 1-day-old chicks were allocated to three pens/treatment, with 10 birds/pen, during 21 days for CAID evaluation. Diet 60-DWP increased Ca CAID (P=0.041), while diet 80-WPC improved Ca and P CAID (P<0.001 and 0.002, respectively) when compared with control diet. In Trial 2, 810 one-day-old chicks were allocated to nine pens/treatment, with 30 birds/pen, during 42 days. Feeding chickens with 60-DWP and 80-WPC increased their BW, average daily gain (ADG) and feed intake (FI) during the starter (P<0.001 for all variables) and grower-finisher periods (P<0.001 for BW and FI, and P=0.048 for ADG), and during the entire feeding period (P<0.05), when compared with control diet. Diets 60-DWP and 80-WPC reduced the feed conversion ratio of chickens during the starter period (P<0.001 and 0.003, respectively), while 60-DWP reduced this parameter during the entire feeding period (P=0.048), when compared to control diet. At day 42, cecal microbial communities of chickens that were fed with 60-DWP and 80-WPC differed from those fed with control diet (R=0.776, P=0.008; and R=0.740, P=0.008, respectively). The abundance of Bacteroides fragilis, Bacteroides spp., Escherichia coli/Shigella flexneri and Megamonas furniformis increased when 60-DWP and 80-WPC diets were offered, while the presence of Helicobacter pullorum decreased. Lactobacillus salivarius consistently increased in chickens with better feed conversion ratio, which were those fed with 60-DWP. The results obtained in the present study indicate that growth of chickens is improved by DWP and WPC supplementation because of a higher mineral digestibility, increased feed intake and modulation of cecal microbiota communities.

Keywords

lactoseproteinLactobacillus salivariusHelicobacter pullorumpoultry
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , April 2018 , pp. 692 - 700
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Association of Official Analytical Chemists 2007. Official methods of analysis, 18th edition. AOAC, Gaitherburg, MD, USA.Google Scholar
Beski, SSM, Swick, RA and Iji, PA 2015. Specialized protein products in broiler chicken nutrition: a review. Animal Nutrition 1, 47–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biddle, A, Stewart, L, Blanchard, J and Leschine, S 2013. Untangling the genetic basis of fibrolytic specialization by Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcaceae in diverse gut cummunities. Diversity 5, 627–640.Google Scholar
Bindels, LB, Delzenne, NM, Cani, PD and Walter, J 2015. Towards a more comprehensive concept for prebiotics. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology 12, 303–310.Google Scholar
Borges, V, Santos, A, Correia, CB, Saraiva, M, Ménard, A, Vieira, L, Sampaio, DA, Pinheiro, M, Gomes, JP and Oleastro, M 2015. Helicobacter pullorum isolated from fresh chicken meat: antibiotic resistance and genomic traits of an emerging foodborne pathogen. Applied Environmental Microbiology 81, 8155–8163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caporaso, JG, Lauber, CL, Walters, WA, Berg-Lyons, D, Lozupone, CA, Turnbaugh, PJ, Fierer, N and Knight, R 2011. Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions of sequences per sample. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108, 4516–4522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danzeisen, JL, Kim, HB, Isaacson, RE, Tu, ZJ and Johnson, TJ 2011. Modulations of the chicken cecal microbiome and metagenome in response to anticoccidial and growth promoter treatment. PLoS One 6, e27949.Google Scholar
Denbow, DM 2000. Gastrointestinal anatomy and physiology. In Sturkie’s avian physiology (ed. GC Whittow), pp 299–325. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA.Google Scholar
De Vos, P, Garrity, GM, Jones, D, Krieg, NR, Ludwig, W, Rainey, FA, Schleifer, K and Whitman, WB 2009. Bergey’s manual of systematic bacteriology, the revised road map to the phylum Firmicutes. Springer, New York, USA.Google Scholar
European Commision Regulation 2003. Council Directive 1831/2003/EC of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition. The Official Journal of the European Union, L 268, 29–43.Google Scholar
FEDNA 2008. Necesidades nutricionales de pollos de carne. In Necesidades nutricionales para avicultura: Pollos de carne y aves de puesta (ed. R Lázaro and GG Mateos), pp. 15−25. Fundación Española para el Desarrollo de la Nutrición Animal, Madrid, España.Google Scholar
Gaggìa, F, Mattarelli, P and Biavati, B 2010. Probiotics and prebiotics in animal feeding for safe food production. International Journal of Food Microbiology 141, 15–28.Google Scholar
Gulsen, N, Coskun, B, Umucalilar, HD, Inal, F and Boydak, M 2002. Effect of lactose and dried whey supplementation on growth performance and histology of the immune system in broilers. Archiv für Tierernaehrung 56, 131–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huyghebaert, G, Ducatelle, R and Van Immerseel, F 2011. An update on alternatives to antimicrobial growth promoters for broilers. The Veterinary Journal 187, 182–188.Google Scholar
Kermanshahi, H and Rostami, H 2006. Influence of supplemental dried whey on broiler performance and cecal flora. International Journal of Poultry Science 5, 538–543.Google Scholar
Kozich, JJ, Westcott, SL, Baxter, NT, Highlander, SK and Schloss, PD 2013. Development of a dual-index sequencing strategy and curation pipeline for analyzing amplicon sequence data on the MiSeq Illumina sequencing platform. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 79, 5112–5120.Google Scholar
Matin, HR, Dashtbin, F and Salari, J 2013. Absorption and macromineral interactions in broiler production: an overview. Global Veternaria 11, 49–54.Google Scholar
Messaoudi, S, Manai, M, Kergourlay, G, Prévost, H, Connil, N, Chobert, JM and Dousset, X 2013. Lactobacillus salivarius: bacteriocin and probiotic activity. Food Microbiology 36, 296–304.Google Scholar
Nollet, L, van der Klis, JD, Lensing, M and Spring, P 2007. The effect of replacing inorganic with organic trace minerals in broiler diets on productive performance and mineral excretion. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 16, 592–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pineda-Quiroga, C, Atxaerandio, R, Zubiria, I, Gonzalez-Pozuelo, I, Hurtado, A, Ruiz, R and García-Rodríguez, A 2017. Productive performance and cecal microbial counts of floor housed laying hens supplemented with dry whey powder alone or combined with Pediococcus acidilactici in the late phase of production. Livestock Science 195, 9–12.Google Scholar
Prasai, TP, Walsh, KB, Bhattarai, SP, Midmore, DJ, Van, TT, Moore, RJ and Stanley, D 2016. Biochar, bentonite and zeolite supplemented feeding of layer chickens alters intestinal microbiota and reduces Campylobacter load. PLoS One 11, e0154061.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Proszkowiec-Weglarz, M and Angel, R 2013. Calcium and phosphorus metabolism in broilers: effect of homeostatic mechanism on calcium and phosphorus digestibility. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 22, 609–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qaisrani, SN, Van Krimpen, MM, Kwakkel, RP, Verstegen, MWA and Hendriks, WH 2015. Dietary factors affecting hindgut protein fermentation in broilers: a review. World’s Poultry Science Journal 71, 139–160.Google Scholar
Radfar, M and Farhoomand, P 2008. The role of probiotic and source of lactose as feed additives on performance and gut improvements in broilers. Asian Journal Animal and Veterinary Advances 3, 179–182.Google Scholar
Rinttilä, T and Apajalahti, J 2013. Intestinal microbiota and metabolites – implications for broiler chicken health and performance. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 22, 647–658.Google Scholar
Saint-Cyr, MJ, Haddad, N, Taminiau, B, Poezevara, T, Quesne, S, Amelot, M, Daube, G, Chemaly, M, Dousset, X and Guyard-Nicodème, M 2017. Use of the potential probiotic strain Lactobacillus salivarius SMXD51 to control Campylobacter jejuni in broilers. International Journal of Food Microbiology 247, 9–17.Google Scholar
Sergeant, MJ, Constantinidou, C, Cogan, TA, Bedford, MR, Penn, CW and Pallen, MJ 2014. Extensive microbial and functional diversity within the chicken cecal microbiome. PLoS One 9, e91941.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singh, P, Karimi, A, Devendra, K, Waldroup, PW, Cho, KK and Kwon, YM 2013. Influence of penicillin on microbial diversity of the cecal microbiota in broiler chickens. Poultry Science 92, 272–276.Google Scholar
Smithers, GW 2015. Whey-ing up the options – yesterday, today and tomorrow. International Dairy Journal 48, 2–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, D, Geier, MS, Denman, SE, Haring, VR, Crowley, TM, Hughes, RJ and Moore, RJ 2013. Identification of chicken intestinal microbiota correlated with the efficiency of energy extraction from feed. Veterinary Microbiology 164, 85–92.Google Scholar
Stanley, D, Hughes, RJ, Geier, MS and Moore, RJ 2016. Bacteria within the gastrointestinal tract microbiota correlated with improved growth and feed conversion: challenges presented for the identification of performance enhancing probiotic bacteria. Frontiers of Microbiol 7, 1–13.Google Scholar
Szczurek, W, Szymczyk, B, Arczewska-Włosek, A, Józefiak, D and Alloui, MN 2013. The effects of dietary whey protein concentrate level on performance, selected intestinal tract and blood parameters, and thiobarbituric acid reactive substances in the liver and breast meat of broiler chickens. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 22, 342–353.Google Scholar
Tellez, G, Dean, CE, Corrier, DE, Deloach, JR, Jaeger, L and Hargis, BM 1993. Effect of dietary lactose on cecal morphology, pH, organic acids, and Salmonella enteritidis organ invasion in Leghorn chicks. Poultry Science 72, 636–642.Google Scholar
Torok, VA, Hughes, RJ, Mikkelsen, LL, Perez-Maldonado, R, Balding, K, MacAlpine, R, Percy, NJ and Ophel-Keller, K 2011. Identification and characterization of potential performance-related gut microbiotas in broiler chickens across various feeding trials. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 77, 5868–5878.Google Scholar
Turnbaugh, PJ, Hamady, M, Yatsunenko, T, Cantarel, BL, Duncan, A, Ley, RE, Sogin, ML, Jones, WJ, Roe, BA, Affourtit, JP, Egholm, M, Henrissat, B, Heath, AC, Knight, R and Gordon, JI 2009. A core gut microbiome in obese and lean twins. Nature 457, 480–484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Pineda-Quiroga et al supplementary material 1

Pineda-Quiroga et al supplementary material

Download Pineda-Quiroga et al supplementary material 1(File)
File 454.1 KB