Всероссийский научно-исследовательский институт физиологии, биохимии и питания животных – филиал Федерального государственного бюджетного научного учреждения «Федеральный научный центр животноводства – ВИЖ имени академика Л.К. Эрнста»
ABSTRACT. The aim was to study effectiveness of a new probiotic (tetralaktobakterin, TLB) in broiler chickens. Seven day old chickens of cross "COBB 500" were divided into three groups of 38 each: I − control (RR, basic diet), II − OR + additive TLB, III − OR + additive TLV, heat-inactivated. Growing period was 42 days. In the experiment, there were assessed body weight (weekly, by individually weighing), phagocytic and bactericidal activity, lysozyme, albumin, total protein, glucose in blood serum. Microflora of the digestive tract was studied by seeding decimal dilutions of the cecum contents on differential diagnostic media, followed by taking into account the colonies. There were studied the most important groups of microorganisms: bifidobacteria, lactobacilli, salmonella, E. coli, enterococci and fungi of the genus Candida. Supplementing the native and inactivated probiotics had an impact on the absorption of the dry matter of feed. Live weight of broiler chickens at the end of the period in groups II and III was higher by 2.7% (P<0.05) and 2.1% (P<0.1) vs control respectively. The bird of groups II and III excreted fewer solids vs control (P<0.05). Although these groups had increased absorption of fat and protein, but the major amount of assimilated dry matter accounted for carbohydrate component. In these groups, there was also recorded an increase in globulin level (P<0.05) and a tendency to increase in the number of neutrophils in the blood. Analysis of microflora in cecum showed that the administration of native probiotic has led to an increase in the number of lactobacilli in the comparison with control and with the group treated with inactivated probiotics. According to the results of the experiment concluded that the use of tetralaktobakterin leads to increase in digestibility of the carbohydrate component of the feed, in growth rate, as well as having a positive impact on the composition of the intestinal microflora and content of protein fractions in blood. The effect of probiotic, inactivated by heating, is less pronounced in comparison with native preparation.
REFERENCES
1. Backhed F., Ley R.E., Sonnenburg J.L., Peterson D.A., Gordon J.I. Host-bacterial mutualism in the human intestine. Science. 2005, 307: 1915-1920. doi: 10.1126/science.1104816
2. Blinov N.I. [Micromethod determining the phagocytic activity of blood cells]. In: Phagocytosis and immunity. Мoscow: Inst. Immunol. Publ., 1983, P. 31-32.
3. Corcionivoschi N., Drinceanu D., Stef L, Luca I., Julean C., Mingyart O. Probiotics-identification and ways of action. Innov. Rom. Food Biotechnol. 2010, 6: 1-11.
4. Emel’yanenko P.A. Doklady Vsesoyuznoi Academii Sel’skokhozyaistvennykh Nauk - Russian Agricultural Sciences. 1977, 10: 32-34.
5. Ghadban G.S. Probiotics in broiler production. Arch. Geflügelk. 2002, 66(2): 49-58.
6. Hooper L.V., Midtvedt T., Gordon J.I. How host-microbial interactions shape the nutrient environment of the mammalian intestine. Ann. Rev. Nutr. 2002, 22: 283-307. doi:10.1146/annurev.nutr.22.011602.092259
7. Karput’ I.M. In: Gematologicheskii atlas sel’skokhozyaistvennykh zhivotnykh (Hematology atlas of farm animals). Minsk: Uradzhai Publ., 1986, P. 108-111.
8. Kondrakhin I.P (Ed.). Klinicheskaya laboratornaya diagnostika v veterinarii (Clinical and laboratory diagnostics in veterinary medicine). Moscow: KolosS, 2004, 520 p.
9. Kostikov A.L., Samburov N.V. Vestnik Kurskoi gosudarstvennoi sel’skokhozyaistvennoi akademii - Bulletin of the Kursk State Agricultural Academy. 2014, 5: 62-65.
10. Koutsos E., Arias V. Intestinal ecology: Interactions among the gastrointestinal tract, nutrition, and the microflora. J. Appl. Poult Res. 2006, 15: 161-173.
11. Lutful Kabir S.M. The role of probiotics in the poultry industry. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2009, 10(8): 3531-3546. doi: 10.3390/ijms10083531
12. Mal’tseva N.N., Shkarupeta M.M., Pinegin B.V., Korshunov V.M. [Immunomodulatory properties of some microorganisms - representatives of normal intestinal microflora]. Antibiotiki i khimioterapiya - Antibiotics and Chemotherapy. 1992, 37(12): 41-43.
13. Musikasang H., Tani A., H-kittikun A., Maneerat S. Probiotic potential of lactic acid bacteria isolated from chicken gastrointestinal digestive tract. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2009, 25(8): 1337-1345. doi: 10.1007/s11274-009-0020-8
14. Nikulin V.N., Kotkova T.V., Milovanova E.A., Pikulik A.A., Petrakov E.S. [Effectiveness of the use of lactic acid bacteria, iodine and selenium in the diets of broiler chickens]. Izvestiya OGAU - Reports of Orenburg State Agrarian University. 2013, 6: 218-220.
15. Ohimain E.I., Ofongo R.T.S. The effect of probiotic and prebiotic feed supplementation on chicken health and gut microflora. Int. J. Anim. Veter. 2012, 4(2): 135-143.
16. Ovsyannikov A.I. Osnovy opytnogo dela v zhivotnovodstve (Basics of experimental work in animal husbandry). Moscow: Kolos Publ., 1976, 304 p.
17. Petrakov E.S., Nikulin V.N., Gerasimenko V.V., Kotkova T.V., Milovanova E.A., Shmal’ M.G. [Use of lactobacilli in combination with sodium selenite in the diet of broiler chickens]. Problemy biologii productivnykh zhivotnykh - Problems of Productive Animal Biology. 2013, 2: 102-109.
18. Rehman H.U., Vahjen W., Awad W.A., Zentek J. Indigenous bacteria and bacterial metabolic products in the gastrointestinal tract of broiler chickens. Arch. Anim. Nutr. 2007, 61: 319-335. doi: 10.1080/17450390701556817
19. Sarukhanov V.Ya., Isamov N.N., Mirzoev E.B., Kobyalko V.O. Sel’skokhosyaistvennaya biologiya - Agricultural Biology. 2007, 2: 119-122.
20. Tellez G., Higgins S., Donoghue A., Hargis B. Digestive physiology and the role of microorganisms. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2006, 15: 136-144.
21. Van Der Wielen P.W., Biesterveld S., Notermans S., Hofstra H., Urlings B.A., van Knapen F. Role of volatile fatty acids in development of the cecal microflora in broiler chickens during growth. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2000, 66: 2536-2540. doi: 10.1128/AEM.66.6.2536-2540.2000