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。

IF 1.7 3区 农林科学 Q2 AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在探讨添加两种剂量的商用益生菌对生长羔羊的生产性能、瘤胃和粪便微生物组的影响。将 42 只年龄为 86.9 ± 8.0 天(体重:27.4 ± 3.7 千克)的特克塞尔或法兰西岛杂交羔羊分为三组:基础日粮不添加益生菌组(CG);基础日粮 + 1 克/只/天益生菌组(GP1)和基础日粮 + 5 克/只/天益生菌组(GP5)。实验期为 84 天。每周评估体重,每天测量干物质摄入量(DMI)和剩饭剩菜。实验结束后,羔羊被宰杀。收集粪便和瘤胃液用于微生物组分析,收集瘤胃碎片用于组织学评估。使用益生菌不影响增重,但 GP1 的青贮和 DMI 摄入量高于 CG(p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Tropical animal health and production
Tropical animal health and production 农林科学-兽医学
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
11.80%
发文量
361
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信