Probiotics and phytogenics for poultry: Myth or reality?
Probiotics and phytogenics for poultry: Myth or reality?
复制标题
DOI：
10.3382/japr.2010-00168
复制
发表时间：
2010-06-01
影响因子：
1.9
通讯作者：
Schatzmayr, G.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Applegate, T. J.;Klose, V.;Schatzmayr, G.
在世界许多地区，从家禽日粮中去除和限制亚治疗性抗生素，增强了人们对改善肠道健康和营养利用的兴趣。一些益生菌（直接饲喂微生物）和植物源性饲料添加剂正在获得市场占有率。确定的益生菌培养物具有成功的潜力，在很大程度上是因为体外筛选和选择。然而，监管审批的延迟，特别是在欧洲，阻碍了一些微生物在家禽日粮中的商业应用。植物性饲料添加剂已经在体外证明了一系列的抗菌活性，并正在建立改善鸟类生产性能的记录。营养学家对加入这些饲料添加剂犹豫不决的部分原因是：1)不熟悉，2)行业过度销售看似合理的效果，3)产品不一致，4)缺乏记录的体内生理和微生物效应，并且，在益生菌的情况下，5)缺乏持久性的记录。
Removal and restriction of subtherapeutic antibiotics from poultry diets in many parts of the world has amplified interest in improving intestinal health and nutrient utilization. Some probiotic (direct-fed microbials) and plant-derived (phytogenic) feed additives are gaining market presence. Defined probiotic cultures have the potential to succeed, in large part because of in vitro screening and selection. However, regulatory approval delays, particularly in Europe, have stymied the commercial application of some microorganisms in poultry diets. Phytogenic feed additives have demonstrated ranges of antimicrobial activities in vitro and are building a track record of improvements in bird performance. Hesitation by nutritionists to incorporate these feed additives are due in part to 1) unfamiliarity, 2) the overselling of plausible effects by industry, 3) product inconsistency, 4) a lack of documented physiological and microbiological effects in vivo, and, in the case of probiotics, 5) a lack of documentation of persistence.