Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T18:11:22.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dietary resin acid composition as a performance enhancer for broiler chickens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

H. Kettunen ,
E. van Eerden ,
K. Lipiński ,
T. Rinttilä ,
E. Valkonen  and
J. Vuorenmaa
H. Kettunen*
Affiliation:
Sciandics, Karamäentie 16, FI-12400 Tervakoski, Finland
E. van Eerden
Affiliation:
Schothorst Feed Research, Meerkoetenweg 26, 8218 NA Lelystad, The Netherlands
K. Lipiński
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition and Feed Science, University of Warmia and Mazury, Oczapowskiego 5, 10-718, Olsztyn, Poland
T. Rinttilä
Affiliation:
Alimetrics Ltd, Koskelontie 19, FI-02920 Espoo, Finland
E. Valkonen
Affiliation:
Hankkija Ltd, Peltokuumolantie 4, FI-05800 Hyvinkää, Finland
J. Vuorenmaa
Affiliation:
Hankkija Ltd, Peltokuumolantie 4, FI-05800 Hyvinkää, Finland
*
*Corresponding Author: Hannele Kettunen Email: hakettunen@hotmail.com Cell: +358-45-6477170
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Resin acid composition (RAC) has previously been shown to inhibit the growth of the Gram-positive bacterial species Clostridium perfringens in vitro and to modulate the ileal microbiota of broiler chickens. The following trials examined the effect of RAC on broiler chickens in two experiments. In experiment 1, 1400 one-day-old Ross 308 broilers were divided into two coccidiostat treatments: chemical (CC) and ionophore (IC), which were further divided into two RAC dosages: 0 and 0.5 g/kg. All diets were supplemented with xylanase, β-glucanase and phytase feed enzymes. The birds were raised in a commercial-type environment without additional microbial challenge during the 42-day trial. RAC improved the body weight gain by 3.3% and feed conversion ratio by 5.7% with CC, and improved footpad lesion scores with IC but had no effect on the litter quality. Experiment 2 was a 35-day subclinical necrotic enteritis (NE) challenge trial with 510 male Ross 308 chickens. The dietary treatments included a non-challenged, non-supplemented control and four NE challenged treatments with dietary RAC supplementation at 0, 1, 2, and 3 g/kg. The birds were challenged with Eimeria maxima on day nine and C. perfringens on day 14. While RAC at 1 g/kg significantly increased bird weight gain during the challenge, it did not affect the microbial or short chain fatty acid (SCFA) profiles. In contrast, RAC at 3 g/kg reduced the abundance of the Lactobacillus group and tended to reduce the abundance of genus Bifidobacterium and the total numbers of eubacteria. These experiments suggest that dietary RAC at a moderate dose positively affected broiler performance. However, changes in caecal microbiota populations may not have influenced the observed performance effects of RAC.

Keywords

resin acidsbroiler chickenperformancenecrotic enteritismicrobiotashort chain fatty acids
Type
Original Research
Information
Journal of Applied Animal Nutrition , Volume 5 , 2017 , e3
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Journal of Applied Animal Nutrition Ltd. 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ekstrand, C., Algers, B., and Svedberg, J. (1997) Rearing conditions and foot-pad dermatitis in Swedish broiler chickens. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 31: 167–174.Google Scholar
Dalloul, R.A., and Lillehoj, H.S. (2006). Poultry coccidiosis: recent advancements in control measures and vaccine development. Expert Review of Vaccines, 5: 143–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fallarero, A., Skogman, M., Kujala, J., Rjaratnam, M., Moreira, V.M., Yli-Kauhaluoma, J., and Vuorela, P. (2013) (+)-Dehydroabietic acid, an abietane-type diterpene, inhibits Staphylococcus aureus biofilms in vitro . International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 14: 12054–12072.Google Scholar
Furet, J.P., Firmesse, O., Gourmelon, M., Bridonneau, C., Tap, J., Mondot, S., Doré, J., and Corthier, G. (2009) Comparative assessment of human and farm animal faecal microbiota using real-time quantitative PCR. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 68: 351–362.Google Scholar
Johnson, J., and Reid, W.M. (1970) Anticoccidial drugs: Lesion scoring techniques in battery and floor-pen experiments with chickens. Experimental Parasitology, 28: 30–36.Google Scholar
Jokinen, J.J., and Sipponen, A. (2016) Refined Spruce Resin to Treat Chronic Wounds: Rebirth of an Old Folkloristic Therapy. Advances in Wound Care, 5: 198–207.Google Scholar
Kettunen, H., Vuorenmaa, J., Rinttilä, T., Grönberg, H., Valkonen, E., and Apajalahti, J. (2015) Natural resin acid –enriched composition as a modulator of intestinal microbiota and performance enhancer in broiler chicken. Journal of Applied Animal Nutrition, 3: e2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malinen, E., Rinttilä, T., Kajander, K., Mättö, J., Kassinen, A., Krogius, L., Saarela, M., Korpela, R., and Palva, A. (2005). Analysis of the fecal microbiota of irritable bowel syndrome patients and healthy controls with real-time PCR. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 100: 373–382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matsuki, T., Watanabe, K., Fujimoto, J., Takada, T., and Tanaka, R. (2004) Use of 455 16S rRNA gene-targeted group-specific primers for real-time PCR analysis of 456 predominant bacteria in human feces. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 70: 7220–7228.Google Scholar
Nadkarni, M.A., Martin, F.E., Jacques, N.A., and Hunter, N. (2002) Determination of bacterial load by real-time PCR using a broad-range (universal) probe and primers set. Microbiology, 148: 257–266.Google Scholar
Rinttilä, T., Kassinen, A., Malinen, E., Krogius, L., and Palva, A. (2004) Development of an extensive set of 16S rDNA-targeted primers for quantification of pathogenic and indigenous bacteria in fecal samples by real-time PCR. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 97: 1166–1177.Google Scholar
Savluchinske-Feio, S., Curto, M.J., Gigante, B., and Roseiro, J.C. (2006) Antimicrobial activity of resin acid derivatives. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 72: 430–436.Google Scholar
San Feliciano, A., Gordaliza, M., Salinero, M.A., and Del Corral, J.M. (1993) Abietane acids; Sources, Biological Activities, and Therapeutic Uses. Planta Medica, 59: 485–490.Google Scholar
Shen, Y.B., Piao, X.S., Kim, S.W., Wang, L., and Liu, P. (2010) The effects of berberine 484 on the magnitude of the acute inflammatory response induced by Escherichia coli 485 lipopolysaccharide in broiler chickens. Poultry Science, 89: 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepherd, E.M. and Fairchild, B.D. (2010) Footpad dermatitis in poultry. Poultry Science, 89: 2043–2051.Google Scholar
Söderberg, T.A., Johansson, A., and Gref, R. (1996) Toxic effects of some conifer resin acids and tea tree oil on human epithelial and fibroblast cells. Toxicology, 107: 99–109.Google Scholar
Tansuphasiri, U. (2002) Development of duplex PCR assay for rapid detection of enterotoxigenic isolates of Clostridium perfringens. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health, 32: 105–113.Google Scholar
Timbermont, L., Haesebrouck, F., Ducatelle, R., and Van Immerseel, F. (2011) Necrotic enteritis in broilers: an updated review on the pathogenesis. Avian Pathology, 40: 341–317.Google Scholar
Van Immerseel, F., Rood, J.I., Moore, R.J., and Titball, R.W. (2009) Rethinking our understanding of the pathogenesis of necrotic enteritis in chickens. Trends in Microbiology, 17: 32–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vuorenmaa, J. (2015) Natural resin acid contributes to improved broiler performance. International Poultry Production, 23: Number 6, pp. 17–19.Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® (2009) Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for poultry (broilers, laying hens). Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar