J. Appl. Poult. Res.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J APPL POULT RES 2007. 16:635-641. doi:10.3382/japr.2006-00127
© 2007 Poultry Science Association
This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Torres-Rodriguez, A.
Right arrow Articles by Hargis, B. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Torres-Rodriguez, A.
Right arrow Articles by Hargis, B. M.

Field Reports

Effect of Lactose as a Prebiotic on Turkey Body Weight Under Commercial Conditions

A. Torres-Rodriguez1, S. E. Higgins, J. L. S. Vicente2, A. D. Wolfenden, G. Gaona-Ramirez, J. T. Barton3, G. Tellez, A. M. Donoghue4 and B. M. Hargis5

Center of Excellence for Poultry Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville 72701

Correspondence: 5 Corresponding author: bhargis{at}uark.edu


   SUMMARY
TOP
 SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
The effect of a commercially available lactic acid bacteria probiotic (FM-B11) alone and supplemented with lactose as prebiotic was evaluated for effects on turkey BW during the brooding and growout phases under commercial conditions in 2 experiments. Tag-numbered turkey poults were given the probiotic in either drinking water or feed, and lactose was given in feed. Turkeys were reared in wire pens (4 per treatment) within the brooding house. Experiments were designed for a duration of 26 and 28 d. Only animals from experiment 1 were weighed again before slaughter. Results from both experiments indicate that groups treated with the combination of probiotic and lactose and lactose alone were heavier (P < 0.05) by 15.5 and 17.5% in experiments 1 and 2, respectively, as compared with the control groups. Market BW of turkeys from experiment 1 was higher (P < 0.05) with the combination of probiotic and lactose than the control group by 436 g. Turkeys on the probiotic alone tended to be heavier than the controls (P = 0.0693). The administration of this lactic acid bacteria-based probiotic, supplemented with lactose as prebiotic to turkey poults during the brooding phase, increased BW, and this advantage was further maintained or augmented during the growout phase.

Key Words: prebiotic • lactose • turkey poult • performance


   DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
Revisiting the old concept of probiotics with new scientific approaches has revitalized the search for health-promoting alternatives to antibiotics in the poultry industry. Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) include different species of the genera Lactobacillus, Weisiella, and Pediococcus and are well known for their potential ability to successfully displace other, potentially harmful, bacterial species within the gastrointestinal tract [1, 2]. The ability of LAB to exclude foodborne pathogens such as Salmonella spp. has been researched intensively with varying degrees of success [3]. When administered alone to commercial poults with idiopathic diarrhea, the LAB-based probiotics have been shown to exert a marginal beneficial effect on turkey BW performance that is comparable to that of antibiotics [4].

The beneficial effects of LAB can possibly be increased by genetic engineering, continued screening for better isolates, by improving the growth conditions of current isolates, or by all three. The first approach is subject to a great deal of scrutiny due to public concerns regarding the possible negative consequences of engineered genes being transferred to different organisms [5, 6]. The continual screening of new isolates requires time and resources and does not guarantee the discovery of new and better isolates. The third approach uses already proven beneficial isolates and seeks to increase their performance by improving the conditions in which the beneficial organisms grow. One method to improve growing conditions is the simple addition of nutrient sources to the microbial environment (e.g., the gastrointestinal tract) [7, 8].

Nutrients that increase or favor LAB growth, establishment, or both, may be defined as prebiotics [9]. Prebiotics must be indigestible to the animal host while remaining available to the probiotic bacteria [9]. Futhermore, a prebiotic should be included at low quantities in the animal diet so that there is negligible effect on the inclusion of other necessary dietary ingredients. In the case of poultry species, lactose hypothetically fits within the prebiotic concept, because birds cannot digest it [10], and it is therefore available to microflora in the hindgut [11]. In addition, lactose is a relatively inexpensive byproduct of the milk industry. The beneficial effects and inclusion rates of lactose as a prebiotic have not been previously explored under commercial conditions in turkeys.

Lab-scale research regarding inclusion rates of lactose was conducted in the 1990s and attempted to reduce gastrointestinal tract colonization by Salmonella [12, 13, 14, 15] or Clostridium [16]. Other studies have explored lactose effects on BW performance with inconclusive results [17, 18]; inclusion rates explored at that time ranged from 2 to 12%. Most recently, Simioyi et al. [19] have demonstrated that 4% lactose added to the diet of turkeys in commercial houses reduced whole body fat content and increased BW. These inclusion rates may be above those for lactose to be considered as a prebiotic.

Recently, our laboratory has shown that a defined commercially available LAB probiotic can increase performance of turkey poults with idiopathic diarrhea [4] and increase performance of market-age turkey hen flocks [20]. Presently, we have evaluated the effect of addition of a low concentration of lactose (0.1%) as a prebiotic in combination with a selected probiotic on growth rate of turkey hens under commercial conditions. A pen system was integrated into commercial turkey brooding houses for experimental birds allowing for real world conditions in which to evaluate treatments.

The objective of these experiments was to evaluate the effect of a LAB-based probiotic alone or in combination with dietary lactose as prebiotic on turkey poult performace during the brooding phase.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
Experiment 1
Animals and Pen Set-Up in Commercial Houses.
Hybrid turkey hen poults (n = 320) at 10 d of age were all individually identified by plastic numbered tags applied to the neck skin and were randomly assigned to 4 treatments with 4 replicates each in 1.42-m2 pens made with wire panels (n = 20 per pen). The BW of experimental birds were within average ± 1 SD of the flock, previously estimated by weighing 100 randomly obtained birds. Animals were individually weighed every week until d 26 of the experiment. Pens were placed in series within the middle of the long axis of the commercial brooder house so that the poults were subjected to the conditions prevailing in the house for that flock being reared at that particular time (flock size in the house of approximately 5,000 birds). Manual waterers (18.9-L capacity) and feeders were placed in each pen to provide appropriate feed and water treatments as explained below. At the end of the experimental period (26 d), and before releasing them to the rest of the flock, animals were leg-tagged with numbered metal bands for identification before slaughter. Leg tags were applied to aid in identification of experimental animals at the time of loading. This process was acceptable to the commercial producer.

Treatments.
There were 4 treatments in this experiment, including control (no treatment received), probiotic treatment in drinking water (LAB), probiotic in drinking water plus lactose in feed (LAB + Lac), and probiotic and lactose both administered in the feed (LAB + Lac_FEED). The administration of the probiotic in drinking water was according to label directions, on d 1, 2, and 3 of the experiment, whereas when administered in feed, it was continuous for the duration of the experimental period (26 d).

The commercial probiotic product FM-B11 [21] used in these studies includes 11 species of LAB of the genera Lactobacillus, Pediococcus, and Weisiella. The liquid probiotic product (109 cfu LAB/mL) was sprayed directly onto the feed on a rotary drum mixer, at 2.5 mL/kg of feed, or diluted appropriately in drinking water. The intended final concentration of LAB for both drinking water and feed was 106 cfu/mL or gram. No attempt was made to screen for microflora populations on the experimental birds.

Fresh water was provided on a daily basis during the first week of the experiment to all the pens and then every other day thereafter. Remaining water from the previous day was discarded before adding fresh water, including that from pens receiving the probiotic in drinking water. Water intake was not measured. Whey permeate [22] was used as lactose source and was added to the feed to a final lactose concentration of 0.1%. Feeders were checked on a daily basis. Starter turkey feed was added to all pens whenever at least 1 pen required additional feed. Attempts to measure feed intake were made, however, because of excess feed waste due to difficulties in feeder adjustments within these commercial houses. Feed measurements were discontinued, because we considered that no additional information could be obtained under the circumstances.

Experiment 2
Experiment 2 was designed to corroborate observations made on experiment 1, and the experimental design was similar. As an attempt to explore the effect of the prebiotic alone, 2 different groups were included, 1 with lactose alone throughout the experimental period and a second one receiving lactose only during the first 2 wk of the experiment. The strain of turkeys used in this experiment was Nicholas-200 and was conducted on a different farm from that for experiment 1. Because these experiments were conducted on commercial operations, farms and turkey strains were assigned by our commercial cooperator.

Animals.
A total of 400 seven-day-old Nich-olas-200 turkey hen poults were assigned to 1 of 5 treatments with 4 replicates each. Similar procedures as in experiment 1 were followed for pen arrangement and animal identification and allocation to experimental treatments.

Treatments.
Five treatments were included in this experiment, including control (no treatment administered), lactose only in feed continuously (Lac), probiotic in drinking water plus lactose in feed for the first 2 wk of the experiment (LAB+Lac_2Wk), probiotic in drinking water plus lactose in feed continuously (LAB+Lac), and probiotic plus lactose administered in feed (LAB+Lac_FEED) continuously.

Feed and water treatments were prepared as described for experiment 1 above. In each experiment, standard starter feed was provided in the form of crumbles that met or exceeded nutritional recommendations for critically limiting nutrients for poults [23].

Probiotic LAB Enumeration
Intended LAB per milliliter of drinking water or gram of feed was 106 cfu. To check for actual numbers, 10-fold dilutions of drinking water and feed samples were plated on DeMan, Rogosa, and Sharpe agar plates in duplicate and incubated overnight at 37°C. The actual measured probiotic concentration in feed samples and water samples was determined. For experiment 1, enumeration of LAB in drinking water determined that 106 cfu/mL of probiotic was delivered during the days of administration. Administration of LAB through feed achieved 1.6 x 105 cfu/g. For experiment 2, enumeration of LAB in drinking water during the 3 d of treatment was consistently at 106 cfu/mL, whereas feed enumeration averaged 2 x 104 cfu/g throughout the experimental period.

Statistical Analysis
A completely randomized block design with repeated measures was applied to BW data from the experimental period (d 0 to 26 or 28 for experiment 1 and 2, respectively), with treatment and block as main effects and the interaction between the 2 effects. Each individual turkey poult was considered an experimental unit, whereas each set of 4 or 5 treatments (experiments 1 and 2, respectively) was considered a block. Statistical analysis was performed through the GLM procedures of SAS [24]. Body weight before processing (market weight) was analyzed separately. Multiple comparison procedures were performed when significance levels for ANOVA ({alpha} < 0.05) were observed, using the least significant difference test of SAS [24].


   RESULTS
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
Experiment 1
Average BW throughout the evaluation period and market-age BW are shown in Table 1Go. Body weight at the beginning of the experiment was not significantly different among groups (P > 0.05). Treatments with the combination of pro-and prebiotic, regardless of whether the probiotic was administered in drinking water or feed, showed significant difference (P < 0.001) from d 7 and throughout the experimental period (26 d) when compared with the control and probiotic alone treatments.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Body weight (g ± SE) of turkey hen poults treated with probiotic or probiotic with lactose prebiotic at selected ages throughout the experimental period and immediately before processing (experiment 1)
 
Age at slaughter was 93 d. A total of 54% (n = 163) of the originally leg-banded turkeys were weighed right before live haul. The rest of the leg-banded animals were not found in the flock or were not caught. Because this was a commercial operation, the investigators were only allowed to identify, collect, and weigh turkeys as we were able without interfering with the commercial process. Importantly, though, the animals that were successfully identified, caught, and weighed were evenly distributed among the treatment groups (see Table 1Go). Slaughter BW was significantly larger (P < 0.05) in groups that received the combination of pro-and prebiotic when compared with the control. The group that received the probiotic alone showed a trend toward significance (P = 0.0693) when compared with the control group.

Experiment 2
The values for average BW throughout the experimental period and market BW are in Table 2Go. All treatments with the combination of probiotic and prebiotic and prebiotic alone were heavier (P < 0.05) than the control group from the second week of the experiment onwards.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2. Body weight (g ± SE) of turkey hen poults treated with probiotic or probiotic with lactose prebiotic at selected ages throughout the experimental period (experiment 2)
 

   DISCUSSION
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
The 2 experiments presented indicate that the addition of the selected probiotic and lactose as a putative prebiotic was beneficial to turkey performance as manifested in increased growth rate when compared with the control groups. The main purpose of the experiments was to evaluate the effect of the combination between the probiotic and lactose as prebiotic, and that combination was proven to be effective. In experiment 1, twenty-six days after initiation of the experiment, turkeys in groups LAB+Lac and LAB+Lac_FEED were on average 15.6% heavier than birds in the control group. In experiment 2, twenty-eight days after initiation of the experiment, turkeys in these same groups were on average 17.3% heavier, in agreement with the results in experiment 1. Even though market BW of turkeys from experiment 1 was not intended to be part of the experiment, number of turkeys recovered from each treatment was very similar (see Table 1Go), which allowed for a better and more balanced analysis of this subdata set. Market BW suggests that the BW advantage obtained during the brooding phase is further increased during subsequent growth phases. The combination of pro- and prebiotic, regardless of whether the probiotic was administered in drinking water or feed, caused increased market BW as compared with the control group of 4.7 and 6.7% for LAB_DW+Lac and LAB+Lac_FEED, respectively.

In experiment 1, BW was increased in the groups given both pre- and probiotic after 1 wk of treatment. In experiment 2, the trend for combination-treated groups to segregate from the control group was not significant at wk 1 but was observed from the second week and subsequent measurements. The reasons for the observed difference in time at which statistical significance was observed between the combination groups and the controls during experiments 1 and 2 is unknown but may be due to the genetics of the experimental flocks. Experiment 1 was conducted with Hybrid turkeys, whereas turkeys in experiment 2 were Nicholas-200, different, commercially available genetic lines. The difference of 4 d in age at the beginning of each experiment may also have contributed to the slight difference in the significance in BW since the first stages of experiment 2.

To gain insight into the interaction between the probiotic and the prebiotic, partial controls were included: LAB alone in experiment 1, lactose alone and LAB+Lac_2Wk in experiment 2. The trend toward statistical significance observed in experiment 1 with the LAB group is in agreement with previous observations [20] in which the addition of the probiotic increased BW of turkeys consistently but in moderate proportion. The composition of intestinal flora in humans varies among individuals even in cases of the same genetic makeup such as twins [25], indicating that the statistical power of the studies is expected to be limited and requires many experimental units to prove significance [26]. By including a high number of experimental units, it was possible to detect a modest but significant weight difference between flocks that received the probiotic culture alone and those that did not receive probiotic in the previous report [20].

The modest response observed in the LAB group from experiment 1 along with the more substantial response observed in experiment 2 with the lactose-only group may indicate that the observed effect is provided by lactose more than the probiotic culture. The digestion of prebiotic by native LAB could also account for the beneficial effects; however, Higgins et al. [4] demonstrated that strains and combinations of probiotic cultures are not equally effective at exerting beneficial effects. The trend toward significance observed in experiment 1 with the LAB group suggests that the selected LAB strains combination used in these experiments induces a greater beneficial effect than native LAB. It has been speculated [3, 27] and reported once [28] that selected probiotic cultures can be horizontally transmitted. Furthermore, lactobacilli are able to survive in chicken litter [29]; thus, it is possible that the effects observed in the second experiment with lactose-only groups were due to horizontal transmission of the selected probiotic culture, because daily transit in and out of the experimental pens was not restricted and would allow for carrying probiotic strains from probiotic-treated into untreated pens. Increasing this possibility was the fact that the company had treated the entire flock with the probiotic product, increasing the chance that the lactose-only-treated pens would be exposed to at least low levels of the probiotic bacteria. It is possible that with inclusion of the prebiotic in the diet, the low level of exposure allowed horizontal transmission of the probiotic bacteria in experiment 2. It is possible that lactose administration alone may bring beneficial effects only when particular LAB strains are present and that lack of effect may be observed when such strains are absent. More extensive studies would be required to completely answer the question of relative importance of the pre- and probiotics as observed in these studies. To clarify whether the effects observed in these experiments are due to lactose alone or are permissive for the beneficial bacteria, work with abiotic animals or animals free of LAB is needed. Our laboratory is currently working toward addressing this question.

In the LAB+Lac_2Wk group, once lactose was discontinued from the feed at wk 2, the growth rate dropped compared with the groups that were continuously given lactose in experiment 2, indicating the importance of continuous application of the prebiotic for continued segregation of BW.

A previous report [30], in which the application of lactose and cecal microflora indicated no significant effect of latose alone on turkey poult BW supports the idea of selective beneficial microflora being present to observe the apparent beneficial effects when lactose is administered alone, as in experiment 2.

The inclusion levels of lactose as prebiotic deserves further research. There have been no reports of lactose being used as prebiotic (dietary levels below 0.5%), and thus the level used in these experiments may be subject to adjustments for different flock conditions and levels of production.


   CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
REFERENCES AND NOTES
 

  1. The administration of LAB-based probiotics and lactose as prebiotic improved turkey poult BW during the brooding period.
  2. The advantage in BW gained during that phase is further increased during the growth phase before slaughter.
  3. Lactose offers a good alternative to improve poultry production when used as prebiotic.


   FOOTNOTES
 
1 Current address: Cobb-Vantress Inc., P.O. Box 1030, Siloam Springs, AR 72761. Back

2 Current address: Sigrah Zellet de Mexico S. A. de C. V. Mariano Escobedo No. 10, Col. Tezontepec, Cuernavaca Morelos, Mexico 62250. Back

3 Current address: Tyson Foods Inc., 2210 W. Oaklawn Dr., Springdale, AR 72762. Back

4 Current address: Poultry Production and Product Safety Research Unit, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, POSC 0-303, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701. Back


   REFERENCES AND NOTES
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 

  1. Axelsson, L. 1998. Lactic acid bacteria: Classification and physiology. Pages 1–72 in Lactic Acid Bacteria: Microbiology and Functional Aspects. 2nd ed. S. Salminen and A. Von Wright, ed. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, NY.
  2. Holzapfel, W. H., P. Haberer, R. Geisen, J. Björkroth, and U. Schillinger. 2001. Taxonomy and important features of probiotic microorganisms in food and nutrition. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 73(Suppl.):365S–373S.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Patterson, J. A., and K. M. Burkholder. 2003. Application of prebiotics and probiotics in poultry production. Poult. Sci. 82:627–631.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Higgins, S. E., A. Torres-Rodriguez, J. L. Vicente, C. D. Sartor, C. M. Pixley, G. M. Nava, G. Tellez, J. T. Barton, and B. M. Hargis. 2005. Evaluation of intervention strategies for idiopathic diarrhea in commercial turkey brooding houses. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 14:345–348.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Grossman, M. R., and A. B. Endres. 2000. Regulation of genetically modified organisms in the European Union. Am. Behav. Sci. 44:378–434.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Marris, C. 2001. Public views on GMOs: Deconstructing the myths: Stakeholders in the GMO debate often describe public opinion as irrational. But do they really understand the public? EMBO Rep. 2:545–548.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  7. Orban, J. I., J. A. Patetrson, A. L. Sutton, and G. N. Richards. 1997. Effect of sucrose thermal oligosaccharide caramel, dietary vitamin-mineral level, and brooding temperature on growth and intestinal bacterial populations in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 76:482–490.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Patterson, J. A., J. I. Orban, A. L. Sutton, and G. N. Richards. 1997. Selective enrichment of bifidobacteria in the intestinal tract of broilers by thermally produced kestoses and effect on broiler performance. Poult. Sci. 76:497–500.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Roberfroid, M. B. 2001. Prebiotics: Preferential substrates for specific germs? Am. J. Clin. Nut. 73:406S–409S.
  10. Denbow, D. M. 2000. Gastrointestinal anatomy and physiology. Pages 299–625 in Sturkie’s Avian Physiology. 5th ed. G. Causey Whittow, ed. Acad. Press, San Diego, CA.
  11. Hume, M. E., L. F. Kubena, R. C. Beier, A. Hinton Jr., D. E. Corrier, and J. R. Deloach. 1992. Fermentation of [14C]lactose in broiler chicks by cecal anaerobes. Poult. Sci. 71:1464–1470.[ISI][Medline]
  12. Behling, R. G., and A. C. Wong. 1994. Competitive exclusion of Salmonella Enteritidis in chicks by treatment with a single culture plus dietary lactose. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 22:1–9.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  13. Hollister, A. G., D. E. Corrier, D. J. Nisbet, R. C. Beier, and J. R. Deloach. 1994. Comparison of effects of chicken cecal microorganisms maintained in continuous culture and provision of dietary lactose on cecal colonization by Salmonella Typhimurium in turkey poults and broiler chicks. Poult. Sci. 73:640–647.[ISI][Medline]
  14. Nisbet, D. J., D. E. Corrier, C. M. Scanlan, A. G. Hollister, R. C. Beier, and J. R. Deloach. 1994. Effect of dietary lactose and cell concentration on the ability of a continuous-flow-derived bacterial culture to control Salmonella cecal colonization in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 73:56–62.[ISI][Medline]
  15. Barnhart, E. T., D. J. Caldwell, M. C. Crouch, J. A. Byrd, D. E. Corrier, and B. M. Hargis. 1999. Effect of lactose administration in drinking water prior to and during feed withdrawal on Salmonella recovery from broiler crops and ceca. Poult. Sci. 78:211–214.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Takeda, T., T. Fukata, T. Miyamoyo, K. Sasai, E. Baba, and A. Arakawa. 1995. The effects of dietary lactose and rye on cecal colonization of Clostridium perfringens in chicks. Avian Dis. 39:375–381.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  17. Carre, B., M. P. Flores, and J. Gomez. 1995. Effects of pelleting, lactose level, polyethylene glycol 4000, and guar gum compared to pectin on growth performances, energy values, and losses of lactose, lactic acid, and water in chickens. Poult. Sci. 74:1810–1819.[ISI][Medline]
  18. Douglas, M. W., M. Persia, and C. M. Parsons. 2003. Impact of galactose, lactose, and Grobiotic-B70 on growth performance and energy utilization when fed to broiler chicks. Poult. Sci. 82:1596–1601.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Simoyi, M. F., M. Milimu, R. W. Russell, R. A. Peterson, and P. B. Kenney. 2006. Effect of dietary lactose on the productive performance of young turkeys. J. Appl. Poult Res. 15:20–27.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Torres-Rodriguez, A., J. Barton, G. Tellez, and B. M. Hargis. 2006. Health and performance analysis of commercial turkey flocks treated with a commercial Lactobacillus-based probiotic. Poult. Sci. 85:141. (Abstr.)
  21. Ivesco LLC, Springdale, AR.
  22. Whey permeate: 75% lactose, 3% protein, 10% ash, 12% moisture; Adell Corp., Adell, WI.
  23. NRC. 1994. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry. 9th ed. National Acad. Press, Washington, DC.
  24. SAS Institute. 1988. SAS User’s Guide: Statistics. SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC.
  25. Zoetendal, E. G., A. D. L. Akkermans, W. M. A. Vliet, J. A. G. M. De Visser, and W. M. De Vos. 2001. The host genotype affects the bacterial community in the human gastrointestinal tract. Microb. Ecol. Health Dis. 13:129–134.[CrossRef]
  26. Marteau, P., P. Lepage, I. Mangin, A. Suau, J. Dore, P. Pochart, and P. Seksik. 2004. Gut flora and inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 20(Suppl 4):18–23.
  27. Barbosa, T. M., C. R. Serra, R. M. La Ragione, M. J. Wood-ward, and A. O. Henriques. 2005. Screening for Bacillus isolates in the broiler gastrointestinal tract. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71:968–978.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Fritts, C. A., J. H. Kersey, M. A. Molt, E. C. Kroger, F. Yan, J. Si, Q. Jiang, M. M. Campos, A. L. Waldroup, and P. W. Waldroup. 2000. Bacillus subtilis C-3102 (Calsporin) improves live performance and microbiological status of broiler chickens. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 9:149–155.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Paco, R. S., I. L. Leme, J. A. Bottino, and A. J. P. Ferreira. 2003. Identification of Lactobacillus spp. from broiler litter in Brazil. Braz. J. Microbiol. 34:236–237.
  30. Corrier, D. E., A. Hinton, Jr., L. F. Kubena, R. L. Ziprin, and J. R. DeLoach. 1991. Decreased Salmonella colonization in turkey poults inoculated with anaerobic cecal microflora and provided with dietary lactose. Poult. Sci. 70:1345–1350.[ISI][Medline]




This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Torres-Rodriguez, A.
Right arrow Articles by Hargis, B. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Torres-Rodriguez, A.
Right arrow Articles by Hargis, B. M.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS