The influence of prophylactic biopreparations on preservation and microbiocenosis of chickens
The cultivation of organic birds is an important stage in ensuring the population, in particular children, a source of quality and easily digestible protein. The use of antibiotics with a prophylactic purpose in organic livestock is prohibited at the legislative level. Therefore, this new direction in agriculture requires professional scientific support and effective natural prophylaxis as an alternative to antibiotics. The research was conducted in a certified organic poultry farm. The purpose of the production trial of the probiotic and the new postbiotic drug on chickens was to compare their effectiveness with respect to the productivity and consistency of the poultry. The results were compared with the data of the control group of chickens and experimental groups among themselves. In addition, there was a link between the performance of chickens with the functional state of intestinal microbiocenosis and the corrective effect of these drugs. The expressed prophylactic effect of the tested drugs on the best of 20–22% preservation of chickens, as well as on higher body weight gain was established. The death of the control group chickens was due to dysbiosis of digestion with the domination of E. coli in the intestine. The study of intestinal microbiocenosis showed significantly higher concentrations of lactobacillus in the chickens of both experimental groups compared with the control group. Due to the competitive substitution of lactobacilli, the amount of E. coli in the intestines of chickens in experimental groups was reduced, where the test drugs were used. Excessive E. coli in the intestines of the control group chickens could provoke inflammation in the intestine and the development of clinical manifestations of colibacillosis. As a consequence – recorded a high percentage of deaths of chickens in this group. Thus, correction of microendocology of poultry intestines may be carried out by prophylactic preparations based on living representatives of symbiotic microflora (probiotics) or compositions of their useful metabolites (postbiotics). Such a correction occurs naturally, without violating the traditional mechanisms of interaction within the microbiological pool.
Cicenia, A., Scirocco, A., Carabotti, M., Pallotta, L., Marignani, M. & Severi, C. (2013). Postbiotic activ-ities of Lactobacilli-derived factors. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 48(1), 18–22. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000231.
Crandall, S.P., Seideman, G.S., Ricke, C.A., & O’Bryan, А. (2009). Organic poultry: сonsumer perceptions, oppor-tunities, and regulatory issues. The journal of applied poultry research, 18(4), 795–802. doi: 10.3382/japr.2009-00025.
Dal Bosco, A., Mugnai, C., Mattioli, S., Rosati, A., Rug-geri, S., Ranucci, D., & Castellini, C. (2016). Transfer of bioactive compounds from pasture to meat in or-ganic free-range chickens. Poultry Science, 95(10), 2464–2471. doi: 10.3382/ps/pev383.
Gabriel, I. (2005). La microflore digestive des volailles: facteurs devariation et consequences pour
l’animal. INRAProd. Anim., 18, 309–322. https://prodinra.inra.fr/record/77832.
Hadzalo, Ya.M., & Kaminskyi, V.F. (2016). Naukovi osnovy vyrobnytstva orhanichnoi produktsii v Ukraini : monohrafiia. Natsionalna akademiia ah-rarnykh nauk Ukrainy, Natsionalnyi naukovyi tsentr “Instytut zemlerobstva NAAN”. K.: Ahrarna nauka (in Ukrainian).
Harda, S.O., Danylenko, S.H., & Lytvynov, H.S. (2014). Biotekhnolohichni aspekty analizu mikroflory silsko-hos-podarskoi ptytsi. Biotechnologia acta, 7(4), 25–34. http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/biot_2014_7_4_4 (in Ukrainian).
Hilmi, M., Dolberg, F., & Clarke, B. (2019). Product and profit from poultry. Second Edition. Publisher: FAO. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/slm_agronoticias/2012/06-15/Publicacion1.pdf.
Kalmykova, A.I. (2001). Probiotiki: terapiya i profilakti-ka zabolevanij, ukreplenie zdorov'ya. Novosibirsk (in Russian).
Kucheruk, M.D., Zasiekin, D.A., Dymko, R.O., & Shcherbyna, O.A. (2017). Sanitarno-hihiienichni umovy utrymannia ptytsi za orhanichnoho vy-roshchuvannia yak chynnyk produktyvnosti. Biore-sursy i prorodokorystuvannia Ukrainy, 9(5–6), 116–124. http://journals.nubip.edu.ua/index.php/Bio/article/view/9605 (in Ukrainian).
Kumar, D., Pornsukarom, S., & Thakur, S. (2019). Antibi-otic Usage in Poultry Production and Antimicrobial-Resistant Salmonella in Poultry. Food Safety in Poul-try Meat Production. Chapter: 3. Publisher: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-05011-5_3.
Macer, D. (2019). Ethical Poultry and the Bioethics of Poultry Production The Journal of Poultry Science, 56(2), 79–83. doi: 10.2141/jpsa.0180074.
Udo, H.M.J., Asgedom, A.H., & Viets, T.C. (2006). Model-ing the impact of interventions in village poultry sys-tems. Agricultural Systems, 88(2–3), 255–269. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2005.04.001.
Zinchenko, E.V., Panin, A.N., & Panin, V.A. (2003). Prak-ticheskie aspekty primenenij probiotikov. Veteri-narnyj konsul'tant, 3, 12–14 (in Russian).
Abstract views: 29 PDF Downloads: 12