![Sample our Bioscience journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5925/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Bioscience.jpg"})
Abstract
1. The objective of this experiment was to study two feeding methods, which could potentially act on the gut microflora, the structure and/or the function of the digestive tract and thereby improve the performance of broilers.
2. Four dietary treatments were studied: a negative control (wheat based) with no additives (C), a positive control with 0·01 g/kg avilamycin (AV), a treatment with 0·6 g/kg fructo-oligosaccharides (FOS) and a treatment with the same composition as treatment C but in which a part or all (400 g/kg) of the wheat was given as whole wheat and a concentrate supplement (WW). The measurements were: the performance from 0 to 6 weeks, the bacterial counts at 3 and 6 weeks, the digestive tract morphology and the activity of some intestinal enzymes at 3 weeks.
3. The birds given AV had better daily live weight gain (DLWG) and feed conversion ratio (FCR) compared to treatment C. The birds given FOS had a lower feed intake and a lower DLWG than the birds on treatment C but their FCR was significantly improved. WW resulted in a numerically lower feed intake and a significantly lower DLWG than treatment C. With AV, the number of aerobic mesophilic bacteria in the caeca was reduced at 3 weeks. With WW, gizzard and pancreas weights were greater and the surfaces of the ileal crypts were larger. An increased activity of leucine aminopeptidase (LAP) in the duodenum was found for treatments AV, FOS and WW.
4. In conclusion, in this study, treatments WW and FOS reduced DLWG, which may have been due to a lower feed intake during the whole period. With WW, the FCR was not affected, maybe because of both positive and negative effects on digestive tract (higher gizzard and pancreas development and LAP activity; larger crypts). However, FOS improved FCR, which may be partly explained by the higher LAP activity.
Acknowledgements
This work was financed by the European programme ‘Poultryflorgut’ (2005–2008). The authors also wish to thank Harold Rigoreau for animal care, Jean-Marc Hallouis, Anne-Marie Chagneau, Angelique Travel and Bertille Tharrault for helping with the sampling, and Nathalie Meme for the help with the bacterial analysis.