Effects of Coated Acidifier on Growth Performance, Gastrointestinal Environments and Serum Biochemical Indices of Broilers in Different Environments

ZHU Yujing; WU Yuntong; JI Wenyan; SHAO Caimei; ZHANG Yong

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2012.05.013

2012 >Issue 5: 886 - 896

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2012.05.013

Feed Science and Technology

Effects of Coated Acidifier on Growth Performance, Gastrointestinal Environments and Serum Biochemical Indices of Broilers in Different Environments

ZHU Yujing ,
WU Yuntong ,
JI Wenyan ,
SHAO Caimei ,
ZHANG Yong

Expand

1. College of Animal Science and Veterinary, Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang 110866, China;
2. Liaoning Well Hope Agri-Tech Co., Ltd., Shenyang 110164, China

Received date: 2011-11-02

Online published: 2012-04-29

Fold

Abstract

This experiment was conducted to study the effects of dietary coated acidifier (CA) based on corn-soybean meal on growth performance, gastrointestinal environments and serum biochemical indices of broilers in different environments. A total of 960 18-day-old healthy Cobb 500 broilers were used in a 2?4 completely randomized design, and then air quality of chicken houses was improved by spraying harmful gas adsorbent. Chicken houses with spraying powder defined as a clean environment, and without spraying powder defined as a poor environment. The chicken were randomly assigned to four groups (control group, 0.10% fumaric acid group, 0.03%CA group, 0.05%CA group) in each environment with four replicates in each group and thirty broilers in each replicate. Broilers fed in two different chicken houses, and the trial lasted for 25 days. The results showed as follows: 1) in different environments, the average daily feed intake of 0.03%CA group were significantly higher than that of control group and 0.10% fumaric acid group (P<0.01), and the amount of cecal Lactobacillus of 0.03%CA group was significantly higher than that of control group and 0.10% fumaric acid group (P<0.05); the amount of cecal Bifidobaccteria of 0.05%CA group was significantly higher than that of other groups (P<0.01); there was no effect on gastrointestinal pH (P>0.05). 2) In the clean environment, the serum total protein content of 0.03%CA group was significantly lower than that of other groups (P<0.01), the amount of cecal Escherichia coli of 0.05%CA group was significantly lower than that of 0.10% fumaric acid group and 0.03%CA group (P<0.05). 3) In the poor environment, the amount of cecal Escherichia coli of 0.03%CA group was significantly lower than that of other groups (P<0.05), and the amount of jejunal Lactobacillus of 0.05%CA group was significantly higher than that of other groups (P<0.05). 4) The interaction of CA and environment had extremely significant effect on the average daily feed intake, the amount of cecal Escherichia coli and Bifidobacteria, activity of serum alkaline phosphatase and super oxide dismutase (P<0.01), and the interaction of CA and environment had significant effect on the amount of Lactobacillus in cecum and jejunum (P<0.05). In conclusion, dietary CA can improve the intestinal micro-ecological environment and growth performance of broilers. In addition, better effects can be found in the clean environment.

Key words： coated acidifier; broilers; gastrointestinal environments; serum biochemical indices; environmental factor

Cite this article

ZHU Yujing , WU Yuntong , JI Wenyan , SHAO Caimei , ZHANG Yong . Effects of Coated Acidifier on Growth Performance, Gastrointestinal Environments and Serum Biochemical Indices of Broilers in Different Environments[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2012 , (5) : 886 -896 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2012.05.013

References

[1] MONTAGNE L,PHSKE J R,HAMPSON D J.A review of interactions between dietary fibre and the intestinal mucosa,and their consequences oil digestive health in young non-ruminant animals[J].Animal Feed Science Technology,2003,108:95-117.

[2] ISLAM M Z,KHANDAKER Z H,COWDHURY S D,et al.Effect of citric acid and acetic acid on the performance of broilers[J].Journal of the Bangladesh Agricultural University,2008,6(2):315-320.
[3] RIEKE S C.Perspectives on the use of organic acids and short chain fatty acids as antimicrobiais[J].Poultry Science,2003,82(4):632-639.
[4] LAN Y,VERSTEGEN M W A,TAMMINGA S,et al.The role of the eommensal gut microbial community in broiler chickens[J].Worlds Poultry Science,2005,61:95-104.

[5] WOLFENDEN A D,VICENTE J L,HIGGINS J P,et al.Effect of organic acids and probiotics on salmonella enteritidis infection in broiler chickens[J].International Journal of Poultry Science,2007(6):403-405.

[6] 晏家友.缓释复合酸化剂断奶仔猪消化道酸度及肠道形态和功能的影响.硕士学位论文.雅安:四川农业大学,2009.

[7] PATTERSON P H,ADRIZAL.Management strategies to reduce airemissions:emphasis dust and ammonia[J].Journal of Applied Poultry Research,2005,14:638-650.

[8] PAUL S K,HALDER G,MONDAL M K,et al.Effect of organic acid salt on the performance and gut health of broiler chicken[J].Poultry Science,2007,44:389-395.

[9] ABDEL-FATTAH S A,EL-SANHOURY M H,EI-M EDNAY N I.Thyroid activity,some blood constiuents,organs morphology and performance of broiler chicks fed supplemental organic acids[J].International Journal of Poultry Science,2008,7(3):215-222.

[10] 朱碧泉,余冰,丁雪梅,等.复合有机酸对肉鸡的营养生理效应研究[J].单胃动物营养,2007,43(11):24-27.
[11] MAHDZVI R,TORKI M.Study on usage period of dietary protected butyic acid on performance carcass characteristics,serum metabolite levels and humoral immune response of broiler chickens[J].Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances,2009,8(9):1702-1709.
[12] 袁建敏,张开臣,胡骁飞.环境因素影响肉鸡生长的研究进展[J].家畜生态学报,2007(6):135-138.

[13] TAUBE V A,NEU M E,HASSAN Y,et al.Effects of dietary additives(potassium diformate/organic acids) as well as influences of grinding intensity (coarse/fine) of diets for weaned pigiets experimentally infected with Salmonella derby or Escherichia coli[J].Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition,2009,93(3):350-358.

[14] OWENS B,TUCKER L,COLLINS M A,et al.Effects of different feed additives alone or in combination oil broiler performance,gut mieroflora and ileal histology[J].British Poultry Science,2008,49(2):202-212.

[15] AL-KASSI A G,MOHSSEN M A.Comparative study between single organic acid effect and synergistic organic acid effect on broiler performance[J].Pakistan Journal of Nutrition,2009,8(6):896-899.

[16] GEDEK B,ROTH F X,KIRCHGESSNER M,et al.Influence of fumarie acid,hydrochloric acid,sodium formate,tylosin and toyocerin on the microflora in different segment of the gastrointestinal tract.14.Investigations about the nutritive efficacy of organic acid in the rearing of piglets[J].Pig News and Information,1993,14(2):178-180.
[17] DIRKZWAGERR A,VEIDMAN B,BIKKER P.A nutritional approach for the prevention of post weaning syndrome in piglets[J].Animal Research,2005,54:231-236.

[18] SHEIKH A,TUFAIL B,GULAM A B,et al.Effect of dietary supplementation of organic acids on performance,intestinal histomorphology,and serumbiochemistry of broiler chicken[J].Veterinary Medicine International,2010,2010:479485-479491.

[19] GAUTHIER R.Intestinal health,the key to productivity: the case of organic acids //ⅩⅩⅤⅡ convencion ANECA-WPDC,Mexico:Puerto Vallarta,2002:8-10.

[20] RAHMANI H R,SPEER W.Natural additives innuence the performance and humoral immunity of broilers[J].International Journal of Poultry Science,2005,4(9):713-717.

[21] GRIMINGE P.Lipid metabolism[M].Now York:Springer-Verlag,1986.

[22] 李军.酸化剂的主要生理功能及在养猪业的应用研究[J].中国饲料添加剂,2011(1):7-11.

Options

Outlines

模态框（Modal）标题

Abstract

Cite this article

References