medigraphic.com

2000, Number 1

Next >>

Vet Mex 2000; 31 (1)

Evaluation of antibiotics as growth promoters in broiler diets with and without a restricted feeding program

Reyes SE, Morales BE, Ávila GE

Language: English/Spanish
References: 40
Page: 1-9
PDF size: 55.47 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Two experiments were carried out with broilers to evaluate the effect of two growth promoters on feed intake, body weight gain, feed efficiency (kg feed:kg gain), weight of the small intestine, mortality and dressing percentage. Growth promoters were added to sorghum-soybean meal-corn gluten meal basal diets with 3 040, 3 100 and 3 180 kcal of ME/kg and 21.5, 18.5 and 17.5% of crude protein, for starter (0 - 21 days), grower (22 - 42 days) and finisher (43 - 49 days) rations, respectively. In Experiment 420 chicks were used in a completely randomized design in a 3 ´ 2 factorial arrangement of treatments. One factor was the use of a growth promoter (none control, flavophospholipol and avoparcin) and the other, the feeding system (restricted _to decrease ascites syndrome_ or ad libitum). Broilers were housed in electrically heated battery brooders. Experiment 2 used 750 chicks kept in floor pens and the same growth promoter treatments, but under restricted feeding only. In Experiment 1, the use of growth promoters had no effect on feed intake but body weight gain and feed efficiency were better (P ‹ 0.05) with avoparcin than with the control diet. Feed intake and body weight gain were higher (P ‹ 0.01) with ad libitum feeding than with restricted feeding but feed efficiency was similar in both feeding systems. The small intestine weighed less (P ‹ 0.05) in the avoparcin than in the control group, but weight was similar in both feeding systems. Total mortality increased more (P ‹ 0.1) in the avoparcin-than in the control group, but mortality due to ascites syndrome was similar in both factors. In Experiment 2, feed intake was lower (P ‹ 0.05) in the avoparcin group than in the flavophospholipol or the control one. Body weight gain and the weight of the small intestine were similar among treatments. Feed efficiency was better (P ‹ 0.05) in the avoparcin group than in the flavophospholipol or the control one. There were no statistical differences for total mortality. Ascites syndrome was similar among treatments. No differences were found for dressing percentages and histological changes in any of the experiments. Results indicate that avoparcin improves body weight gain and feed efficiency compared to the control group, both under ad libitum and restricted feeding conditions.


REFERENCES

  1. 1. Cuca GM, Ávila GE, Pro MA. Alimentación de las aves. 8a ed. México (DF): Universidad Autónoma de Chapingo, 1996.

  2. 2. Walton JR. Aspectos de seguridad de los promotores de crecimiento. Memorias del Primer Seminario Latinoamericano Albac en la Nutrición Animal; 1981 agosto 7; México (DF). México (DF): Alpharma, 1981b:81-91.

  3. 3. Jerningan MA, Miles RD, Arafa AS. Probiotics in poultry nutrition - a review. Wlds Poultry Sci J 1985;41:99-107.

  4. 4. Douglas DD. Biotechnology in the modern poultry industry. Nicholasville (Ky): Alltech, 1988.

  5. 5. Bell DJ, Freeman BM. Physiology and biochemistry of the domestic fowl. Vol 1. London (UK): Academic Press Inc., 1971.

  6. 6. Moore PR, Evenson A, Luckey TD, McCoy E, Elvehjem CA, Hart EB. Use of sulfasuxidine, streptothricin and streptomycin in nutritional studies with the chick. J Biol Chem 1946;165:437-441.

  7. 7. Stokstad ELR, Jukes TH, Pierce J, Page Jr AC, Franklin AL. The multiple nature of the animal protein factor. J Biol Chem 1949;180:617-625.

  8. 8. Stokstad ELR, Jukes TH. Further observations on the "animal protein factor". Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1950;73:523-528.

  9. 9. Couch JR, Atkinson RL. Vitamin B12 APF concentrates and antibiotics in Turkey rations. Feedstuffs 1950;22:57.

  10. Hill DC, Branion HD, Slinger SJ. Influence of environment on the growth response of chicks to penicillin. Poultry Sci 1952;31:920-923.

  11. Wallace HD. Biological responses to antibacterial feed additives in diets of meat producing animals. J Anim Sci 1970;31:1118-1126.

  12. Visek WJ. The mode of growth promotion by antibiotics. J Anim Sci 1978;46:1480-1489.

  13. Fagerberger DJ, Quarles CL, George BA, Fenton JM, Rollins LD, Williams LP, Hancok CB. Effect of low level chlortetracycline feeding on subsequent therapy of Escherichia coli infection in chickens. J Anim Sci 1978;46:1397-1412.

  14. Walton JR. Modos de acción de la zinc-bacitracina. Memorias del Primer Seminario Latinoamericano Albac en la Nutrición Animal; 1981 agosto 7; México (DF). México (DF): Alpharma, 1981a:29-53.

  15. Davison TF, Freeman BN. Physiological aspects of growth promotion in poultry. Vet Res Com 1983;7:59-68.

  16. Stutz MW, Johnson SL, Judith RF, Muir LA. Effect of the antibiotic thiopeptin on Clostridium perfringens and growth and feed efficiency of broiler chicks. Poultry Sci 1983a;62:1333-1338.

  17. Lindsey TO, Hedde RD, Sokolek JA. Characterization of feed additive effects on the gut microflora of chickens. Poultry Sci 1985;64:27-28.

  18. Krinke AL, Jamroz D. Effects of feed antibiotic avoparcine on organ morphology in broiler chicken. Poultry Sci 1996;75:705-710.

  19. Stutz MW, Johnson SL, Judith FR. Effect of diet, bacitracin, and body weight restrictions on the intestine of broiler chicks. Poultry Sci 1983b;62:1626-1632.

  20. Dafwang II, Cook ME, Sunde ML, Bird HR. Bursal, intestinal, and spleen weights and antibody response of chicks fed suptherapeutic levels of dietary antibiotics. Poultry Sci 1985;64:634-639.

  21. Henry PR, Ammerman CB, Camphell DR, Miles RD. Effect of antibiotics on trace mineral concentration and intestinal tract weight of broiler chicks. Poultry Sci 1987;66:1014-1018.

  22. Imondi AR, Bird HR. The turnover of intestinal epithelium in the chick. Poultry Sci 1966;45:142-144.

  23. Arce MJ, Castellanos GF, Berger MM, López CC. Programas de alimentación para el control del síndrome ascítico en pollos de engorda. Memorias de la XV Convención Nacional ANECA; 1990 mayo 2-5; Cancún (Q. Roo) México. México (DF): Asociación Nacional de Especialistas en Ciencias Avícolas, A.C., 1990:169-178.

  24. Arce MJ, Berger MM, Lopez CC. Control of ascites syndrome by feed restriction techniques. J Appl Poultry Res 1992;1:1-5.

  25. Arce MJ. Densidad de energía y proteínas en dietas de pollo de engorda sobre los parámetros productivos y la mortalidad por síndrome ascítico. Memorias de la XVIII Convención Nacional ANECA; 1993 mayo 5-9; Cancún (Q. Roo) México. México (DF): Asociación Nacional de Especialistas en Ciencias Avícolas, A.C., 1993:17-23.

  26. Reyes SE, Berger MM, Castellanos GF. Efecto de la restricción alimenticia temprana sobre la ganancia de peso y la incidencia del síndrome ascítico en pollos de engorda. Memorias de la XVIII Convención Nacional ANECA; 1993 mayo 5-9; Cancún (Q. Roo) México. México (DF): Asociación Nacional de Especialistas en Ciencias Avícolas, A.C., 1993:258-264.

  27. U.S. Feed Grains Council. Manual del productor para el control del síndrome ascítico III. México (DF): U.S. Feed Grains Council, 1994.

  28. Camacho FD, López CC, Peñalva GG, Arce MJ, Ávila GE, Hargis BM. Evaluación de diferentes programas de alimentación empleados en la reducción del síndrome ascítico en pollos de engorda y su efecto sobre la composición corporal. Memorias de la XXI Convención Nacional ANECA; 1996 mayo 1-5; Cancún (Q. Roo) México. México (DF): Asociación Nacional de Especialistas en Ciencias Avícolas, A.C., 1996:415-417.

  29. Suazo OA, Salamanca CR. Efecto de tres programas de restricción alimenticia en el control del síndrome ascítico y su repercusión en los parámetros productivos del pollo de engorda. Memorias de la XXI Convención Nacional ANECA; 1996 mayo 1-5; Cancún (Q. Roo) México. México (DF): Asociación Nacional de Especialistas en Ciencias Avícolas, A.C., 1996:240-243.

  30. García E. Modificaciones al sistema de clasificación climática de Köepen para adaptarlo a las condiciones de la república mexicana. México (DF): Instituto de Geografía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 1981.

  31. Valero EG. Técnicas de histopatología en diagnóstico veterinario. México (DF): Sociedad Mexicana de Patólogos Veterinarios, 1993.

  32. SAS Institute. SAS/STAT® user's guide. Release 6.03 edition. Cary (NC): SAS Institute Inc., 1988.

  33. Steel RGD, Torrie JH. Bioestadística principios y procedimientos. México (DF): McGraw-Hill, 1988.

  34. Leeson S, Summers JD, Ferguson AE. Efficacy of avoparcin as a growth promoter for broiler chickens. Can J Anim Sci 1980;60:275-279.

  35. Pensack JM, Wang GT, Simkins KL. Avoparcin a growth-promoting feed antibiotic for broiler chickens. Poultry Sci 1982;61:1009-1012.

  36. Flores CE, Rivera GJ, Ávila GE. Efecto de la adición de avoparcina sobre la ganancia de peso y conversión alimenticia en pollos de engorda. Vet Méx 1984;15:25-29.

  37. Bartov I. Effects of energy concentration and duration of feeding on the response of broiler chicks to growth promoters. Br Poultry Sci 1992;33:1057-1068.

  38. Cyanamid International. Performance enhancers in Europe. Bruce, Belgium: Cyanamid International, Animal Health and Nutrition Division, 1992.

  39. Lewis CW, O´Beirne P. The animal feed and energy conservation properties of avotan (avoparcin). Bioresource-Technol 1994;50:259-264.

  40. Henry PR, Ammerman CB, Miles RD. Influence of virginiamycin and dietary manganese utilization and intestinal tract weight of broilers. Poultry Sci 1986; 65:321-324.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com