Prebiotics and probiotics used alone or in combination and effects on pullet growth and intestinal microbiology

A study was conducted examining the effects of prebiotics and probiotics separately and in combination on growth parameters, fecal and cecal microbiota. Six dietary treatments consisted of: 1) control, 2) control + 0.2 lb/ton calculated to contain 1 × 1010Pediococcus acidilactici/kg, 3) control + 0....

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of applied poultry research 2016-03, Vol.25 (1), p.1-11
Hauptverfasser: Hahn-Didde, D., Purdum, S.E.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 11
container_issue 1
container_start_page 1
container_title Journal of applied poultry research
container_volume 25
creator Hahn-Didde, D.
Purdum, S.E.
description A study was conducted examining the effects of prebiotics and probiotics separately and in combination on growth parameters, fecal and cecal microbiota. Six dietary treatments consisted of: 1) control, 2) control + 0.2 lb/ton calculated to contain 1 × 1010Pediococcus acidilactici/kg, 3) control + 0.2 lb/ton calculated to contain 2 × 1010 live Saccharomyces cerevisiae boulardii/kg, 4) control + 2 lb/ton yeast cell wall extract (YCWE), 5) control + 0.2 lb/ton calculated to contain 1 × 1010 /kg Pediococcus acidilactici/kg and + 2 lb/ton YCWE, and 6) control + 0.2 lb/ton calculated to contain 2 × 1010/kg live Saccharomyces cerevisiae boulardii/kg + 2 lb/ton YCWE. Dietary treatments had 10 replicates during the brooder phase; 6 replicates from grower phase through conclusion of the study. Bovan white pullets were utilized for the study. There was not a significant difference between treatments for feed intake, body weight, body weight gain or feed conversion. There were no significant differences between treatments for Salmonella enteritidis presence or fecal counts of E. coli, coliform, and Salmonella spp. Cecal E. coli and coliform counts were not affected by treatment. There was a significant treatment by time effect for Enterobacteriaceae cecal counts. Enterobacteriaceae counts increased at 16 wk of age and decreased through the study for all treatments, except for YCWE. The addition of prebiotics and probiotics, individually or in combination, did not significantly improve growth or alter the potentially pathogenic bacteria microbiology of feces or ceca in pullet chicks.
doi_str_mv 10.3382/japr/pfv051
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>oup_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_3382_japr_pfv051</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.3382/japr/pfv051</oup_id><els_id>S1056617119302016</els_id><sourcerecordid>10.3382/japr/pfv051</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-34c3ea65f1245aa2b2113adb397df4eeb7872b8b59fca5606eb376ea679bf7c33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE9LAzEQxYMoWKsnv0BOXmRtstlstkcp_oOCHvQckuykpmw3S5JW-u1Nu3oTPM0M83tvhofQNSV3jDXlbK2GMBvsjnB6giaUM1GQionT3BNeFzUV9BxdxLgmpGSkKSfIvwXQzidnIlZ9i4fgf8dthBarzveAfcCux8ZvtOtVcr4_smAtmBRxHodt10HCq-C_0udx6foEMWW8wxtnjq6dX-0v0ZlVXYSrnzpFH48P74vnYvn69LK4XxaGVSIVrDIMVM0tLSuuVKlLSplqNZuL1lYAWjSi1I3mc2sUr0kNmok6K8RcW2EYm6Lb0TefjjGAlUNwGxX2khJ5yEoespJjVpm-GWm_Hf4B-QhC_n3nIMhoHPQGWhdyFrL17k_dN8SQgX0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Prebiotics and probiotics used alone or in combination and effects on pullet growth and intestinal microbiology</title><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Hahn-Didde, D. ; Purdum, S.E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Hahn-Didde, D. ; Purdum, S.E.</creatorcontrib><description>A study was conducted examining the effects of prebiotics and probiotics separately and in combination on growth parameters, fecal and cecal microbiota. Six dietary treatments consisted of: 1) control, 2) control + 0.2 lb/ton calculated to contain 1 × 1010Pediococcus acidilactici/kg, 3) control + 0.2 lb/ton calculated to contain 2 × 1010 live Saccharomyces cerevisiae boulardii/kg, 4) control + 2 lb/ton yeast cell wall extract (YCWE), 5) control + 0.2 lb/ton calculated to contain 1 × 1010 /kg Pediococcus acidilactici/kg and + 2 lb/ton YCWE, and 6) control + 0.2 lb/ton calculated to contain 2 × 1010/kg live Saccharomyces cerevisiae boulardii/kg + 2 lb/ton YCWE. Dietary treatments had 10 replicates during the brooder phase; 6 replicates from grower phase through conclusion of the study. Bovan white pullets were utilized for the study. There was not a significant difference between treatments for feed intake, body weight, body weight gain or feed conversion. There were no significant differences between treatments for Salmonella enteritidis presence or fecal counts of E. coli, coliform, and Salmonella spp. Cecal E. coli and coliform counts were not affected by treatment. There was a significant treatment by time effect for Enterobacteriaceae cecal counts. Enterobacteriaceae counts increased at 16 wk of age and decreased through the study for all treatments, except for YCWE. The addition of prebiotics and probiotics, individually or in combination, did not significantly improve growth or alter the potentially pathogenic bacteria microbiology of feces or ceca in pullet chicks.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1056-6171</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1537-0437</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3382/japr/pfv051</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Pediococcus ; prebiotics ; Probiotics ; pullets ; Saccharomyces cerevisiae ; yeast cell wall extract</subject><ispartof>Journal of applied poultry research, 2016-03, Vol.25 (1), p.1-11</ispartof><rights>2016 Poultry Science Association Inc.</rights><rights>2015 Poultry Science Association Inc. 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-34c3ea65f1245aa2b2113adb397df4eeb7872b8b59fca5606eb376ea679bf7c33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-34c3ea65f1245aa2b2113adb397df4eeb7872b8b59fca5606eb376ea679bf7c33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hahn-Didde, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Purdum, S.E.</creatorcontrib><title>Prebiotics and probiotics used alone or in combination and effects on pullet growth and intestinal microbiology</title><title>Journal of applied poultry research</title><description>A study was conducted examining the effects of prebiotics and probiotics separately and in combination on growth parameters, fecal and cecal microbiota. Six dietary treatments consisted of: 1) control, 2) control + 0.2 lb/ton calculated to contain 1 × 1010Pediococcus acidilactici/kg, 3) control + 0.2 lb/ton calculated to contain 2 × 1010 live Saccharomyces cerevisiae boulardii/kg, 4) control + 2 lb/ton yeast cell wall extract (YCWE), 5) control + 0.2 lb/ton calculated to contain 1 × 1010 /kg Pediococcus acidilactici/kg and + 2 lb/ton YCWE, and 6) control + 0.2 lb/ton calculated to contain 2 × 1010/kg live Saccharomyces cerevisiae boulardii/kg + 2 lb/ton YCWE. Dietary treatments had 10 replicates during the brooder phase; 6 replicates from grower phase through conclusion of the study. Bovan white pullets were utilized for the study. There was not a significant difference between treatments for feed intake, body weight, body weight gain or feed conversion. There were no significant differences between treatments for Salmonella enteritidis presence or fecal counts of E. coli, coliform, and Salmonella spp. Cecal E. coli and coliform counts were not affected by treatment. There was a significant treatment by time effect for Enterobacteriaceae cecal counts. Enterobacteriaceae counts increased at 16 wk of age and decreased through the study for all treatments, except for YCWE. The addition of prebiotics and probiotics, individually or in combination, did not significantly improve growth or alter the potentially pathogenic bacteria microbiology of feces or ceca in pullet chicks.</description><subject>Pediococcus</subject><subject>prebiotics</subject><subject>Probiotics</subject><subject>pullets</subject><subject>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</subject><subject>yeast cell wall extract</subject><issn>1056-6171</issn><issn>1537-0437</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkE9LAzEQxYMoWKsnv0BOXmRtstlstkcp_oOCHvQckuykpmw3S5JW-u1Nu3oTPM0M83tvhofQNSV3jDXlbK2GMBvsjnB6giaUM1GQionT3BNeFzUV9BxdxLgmpGSkKSfIvwXQzidnIlZ9i4fgf8dthBarzveAfcCux8ZvtOtVcr4_smAtmBRxHodt10HCq-C_0udx6foEMWW8wxtnjq6dX-0v0ZlVXYSrnzpFH48P74vnYvn69LK4XxaGVSIVrDIMVM0tLSuuVKlLSplqNZuL1lYAWjSi1I3mc2sUr0kNmok6K8RcW2EYm6Lb0TefjjGAlUNwGxX2khJ5yEoespJjVpm-GWm_Hf4B-QhC_n3nIMhoHPQGWhdyFrL17k_dN8SQgX0</recordid><startdate>20160301</startdate><enddate>20160301</enddate><creator>Hahn-Didde, D.</creator><creator>Purdum, S.E.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Poultry Science Association, Inc</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160301</creationdate><title>Prebiotics and probiotics used alone or in combination and effects on pullet growth and intestinal microbiology</title><author>Hahn-Didde, D. ; Purdum, S.E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-34c3ea65f1245aa2b2113adb397df4eeb7872b8b59fca5606eb376ea679bf7c33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Pediococcus</topic><topic>prebiotics</topic><topic>Probiotics</topic><topic>pullets</topic><topic>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</topic><topic>yeast cell wall extract</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hahn-Didde, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Purdum, S.E.</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Journal of applied poultry research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hahn-Didde, D.</au><au>Purdum, S.E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Prebiotics and probiotics used alone or in combination and effects on pullet growth and intestinal microbiology</atitle><jtitle>Journal of applied poultry research</jtitle><date>2016-03-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>11</epage><pages>1-11</pages><issn>1056-6171</issn><eissn>1537-0437</eissn><abstract>A study was conducted examining the effects of prebiotics and probiotics separately and in combination on growth parameters, fecal and cecal microbiota. Six dietary treatments consisted of: 1) control, 2) control + 0.2 lb/ton calculated to contain 1 × 1010Pediococcus acidilactici/kg, 3) control + 0.2 lb/ton calculated to contain 2 × 1010 live Saccharomyces cerevisiae boulardii/kg, 4) control + 2 lb/ton yeast cell wall extract (YCWE), 5) control + 0.2 lb/ton calculated to contain 1 × 1010 /kg Pediococcus acidilactici/kg and + 2 lb/ton YCWE, and 6) control + 0.2 lb/ton calculated to contain 2 × 1010/kg live Saccharomyces cerevisiae boulardii/kg + 2 lb/ton YCWE. Dietary treatments had 10 replicates during the brooder phase; 6 replicates from grower phase through conclusion of the study. Bovan white pullets were utilized for the study. There was not a significant difference between treatments for feed intake, body weight, body weight gain or feed conversion. There were no significant differences between treatments for Salmonella enteritidis presence or fecal counts of E. coli, coliform, and Salmonella spp. Cecal E. coli and coliform counts were not affected by treatment. There was a significant treatment by time effect for Enterobacteriaceae cecal counts. Enterobacteriaceae counts increased at 16 wk of age and decreased through the study for all treatments, except for YCWE. The addition of prebiotics and probiotics, individually or in combination, did not significantly improve growth or alter the potentially pathogenic bacteria microbiology of feces or ceca in pullet chicks.</abstract><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><doi>10.3382/japr/pfv051</doi><tpages>11</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1056-6171
ispartof Journal of applied poultry research, 2016-03, Vol.25 (1), p.1-11
issn 1056-6171
1537-0437
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_3382_japr_pfv051
source EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Pediococcus
prebiotics
Probiotics
pullets
Saccharomyces cerevisiae
yeast cell wall extract
title Prebiotics and probiotics used alone or in combination and effects on pullet growth and intestinal microbiology
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T04%3A34%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-oup_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Prebiotics%20and%20probiotics%20used%20alone%20or%20in%20combination%20and%20effects%20on%20pullet%20growth%20and%20intestinal%20microbiology&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20applied%20poultry%20research&rft.au=Hahn-Didde,%20D.&rft.date=2016-03-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=11&rft.pages=1-11&rft.issn=1056-6171&rft.eissn=1537-0437&rft_id=info:doi/10.3382/japr/pfv051&rft_dat=%3Coup_cross%3E10.3382/japr/pfv051%3C/oup_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_oup_id=10.3382/japr/pfv051&rft_els_id=S1056617119302016&rfr_iscdi=true