Marcella Oliveira Machado, Diógenes Adriano Duarte Santana, Matheus Borges de Carvalho, Rüdiger Daniel Ollhoff, Saulo Henrique Weber, Cristina Santos Sotomaior
{"title":"饲喂添加益生菌的日粮的羔羊的性能、瘤胃和粪便微生物群。","authors":"Marcella Oliveira Machado, Diógenes Adriano Duarte Santana, Matheus Borges de Carvalho, Rüdiger Daniel Ollhoff, Saulo Henrique Weber, Cristina Santos Sotomaior","doi":"10.1007/s11250-024-04161-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The present study aimed to investigate the impact of adding two doses of a commercial probiotic on productive performance, ruminal and fecal microbiome in growing lambs. Forty-two Texel or Ile de France crossbred lambs aged 86.9 ± 8.0 days (body weight: 27.4 ± 3.7 kg) were distributed into three groups: basal diet without probiotic supplementation (CG); basal diet + 1 g/animal/day of probiotic (GP1) and basal diet + 5 g/animal/day of probiotic (GP5). The experimental period was 84 days. The weight was evaluated weekly and dry matter intake (DMI) and leftovers were measured daily. At the end of the experiment, lambs were slaughtered. Feces and rumen fluid were collected for microbiome analysis and rumen fragments for histological evaluation. The use of probiotics did not affect weight gain, but GP1 showed a higher silage and DMI intake than CG (p < 0.001). The CG had a greater thickness of keratinized epithelium and stratum corneum (< 0.001) than GP1 and GP5, and greater total papilla width (p = 0.039) than GP1. There was no difference in the general abundance in the rumen and fecal microbiomes. GP5 had a higher proportion of Azoarcus and Dialister taxa in the rumen fluid (p = 0.012 and p = 0.017, respectively) and higher proportion of Treponema and Fibrobacter taxa in the fecal microbiome (p = 0.015 and p = 0.026, respectively), whereas CG had a higher proportion of Anaeroplasma than the other groups (p = 0.032). These results demonstrated the benefits of probiotics for ruminal epithelium protection and microbial diversity. However, there was no effect on performance parameters.</p>","PeriodicalId":23329,"journal":{"name":"Tropical animal health and production","volume":"56 8","pages":"319"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance, ruminal and fecal microbiome of lambs fed diets supplemented with probiotics.\",\"authors\":\"Marcella Oliveira Machado, Diógenes Adriano Duarte Santana, Matheus Borges de Carvalho, Rüdiger Daniel Ollhoff, Saulo Henrique Weber, Cristina Santos Sotomaior\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11250-024-04161-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The present study aimed to investigate the impact of adding two doses of a commercial probiotic on productive performance, ruminal and fecal microbiome in growing lambs. Forty-two Texel or Ile de France crossbred lambs aged 86.9 ± 8.0 days (body weight: 27.4 ± 3.7 kg) were distributed into three groups: basal diet without probiotic supplementation (CG); basal diet + 1 g/animal/day of probiotic (GP1) and basal diet + 5 g/animal/day of probiotic (GP5). The experimental period was 84 days. The weight was evaluated weekly and dry matter intake (DMI) and leftovers were measured daily. At the end of the experiment, lambs were slaughtered. Feces and rumen fluid were collected for microbiome analysis and rumen fragments for histological evaluation. The use of probiotics did not affect weight gain, but GP1 showed a higher silage and DMI intake than CG (p < 0.001). The CG had a greater thickness of keratinized epithelium and stratum corneum (< 0.001) than GP1 and GP5, and greater total papilla width (p = 0.039) than GP1. There was no difference in the general abundance in the rumen and fecal microbiomes. GP5 had a higher proportion of Azoarcus and Dialister taxa in the rumen fluid (p = 0.012 and p = 0.017, respectively) and higher proportion of Treponema and Fibrobacter taxa in the fecal microbiome (p = 0.015 and p = 0.026, respectively), whereas CG had a higher proportion of Anaeroplasma than the other groups (p = 0.032). These results demonstrated the benefits of probiotics for ruminal epithelium protection and microbial diversity. However, there was no effect on performance parameters.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23329,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tropical animal health and production\",\"volume\":\"56 8\",\"pages\":\"319\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tropical animal health and production\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-024-04161-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tropical animal health and production","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-024-04161-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Performance, ruminal and fecal microbiome of lambs fed diets supplemented with probiotics.
The present study aimed to investigate the impact of adding two doses of a commercial probiotic on productive performance, ruminal and fecal microbiome in growing lambs. Forty-two Texel or Ile de France crossbred lambs aged 86.9 ± 8.0 days (body weight: 27.4 ± 3.7 kg) were distributed into three groups: basal diet without probiotic supplementation (CG); basal diet + 1 g/animal/day of probiotic (GP1) and basal diet + 5 g/animal/day of probiotic (GP5). The experimental period was 84 days. The weight was evaluated weekly and dry matter intake (DMI) and leftovers were measured daily. At the end of the experiment, lambs were slaughtered. Feces and rumen fluid were collected for microbiome analysis and rumen fragments for histological evaluation. The use of probiotics did not affect weight gain, but GP1 showed a higher silage and DMI intake than CG (p < 0.001). The CG had a greater thickness of keratinized epithelium and stratum corneum (< 0.001) than GP1 and GP5, and greater total papilla width (p = 0.039) than GP1. There was no difference in the general abundance in the rumen and fecal microbiomes. GP5 had a higher proportion of Azoarcus and Dialister taxa in the rumen fluid (p = 0.012 and p = 0.017, respectively) and higher proportion of Treponema and Fibrobacter taxa in the fecal microbiome (p = 0.015 and p = 0.026, respectively), whereas CG had a higher proportion of Anaeroplasma than the other groups (p = 0.032). These results demonstrated the benefits of probiotics for ruminal epithelium protection and microbial diversity. However, there was no effect on performance parameters.
期刊介绍:
Tropical Animal Health and Production is an international journal publishing the results of original research in any field of animal health, welfare, and production with the aim of improving health and productivity of livestock, and better utilisation of animal resources, including wildlife in tropical, subtropical and similar agro-ecological environments.