| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
ENVIRONMENT, WELL-BEING, AND BEHAVIOR |
,2
* Department of Poultry Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville 72701; Poultry Production and Product Safety Research Unit, ARS, USDA, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville 72701; and Cargill Turkey Production, LLC, Springdale, AR 72764
3 Corresponding author: bhargis{at}uark.edu
The use of defined probiotic cultures in the poultry industry has recently become more common. However, few conclusive studies regarding their efficacy under commercial conditions have been reported in the scientific literature. We conducted a study that included 118 commercial turkey hen lots, ranging from 1,542 to 30,390 hens per lot, of either Nicholas or Hybrid genetic lines, to look at the effect of a selected commercial Lactobacillus-based probiotic (FM-B11) on turkey BW, performance, and health. Sixty lots received the probiotic, whereas 58 lots were controls without probiotic. The probiotic was administered for 3 consecutive days at placement (day of age) and at move-out (around 6 wk of age, movement from brooder to grower houses). The parameters collected, calculated, and analyzed (significance level P < 0.05) were market BW, average daily weight gain, feed conversion ratio, and cost of production. There was no interaction effect between the genetic line and probiotic effect. Therefore, data from the 2 genetic lines were combined for the statistical analysis of the probiotic effect. The probiotic significantly improved market BW and average daily gain by 190 and 1.63 g, respectively. The feed conversion ratio was not statistically different between treatments (2.176 vs. 2.192 for the probiotic and control, respectively). However, the cost of production was lower in the probiotic-treated (58.37 cents/kg of live turkey) than in the control (59.90 cents/kg of live turkey) lots. Condemnation rates were not significantly different between lots. When each premise was compared by level of performance as good, fair, or poor (grouping based on historical analysis of 5 previous flocks), the probiotic appeared to increase the performance of the poor and fair farms. Use of the selected commercial probiotic resulted in increased market BW and reduced cost of production.
Key Words: probiotic • health • production cost • turkey
1 Current address: Cobb-Vantress, Inc., PO Box 1030, Siloam Springs, AR 72761.
2 Current address: Tyson Foods, Inc., 2210 West Oaklawn Drive, Springdale, AR 72762.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. M. Russell and J. L. Grimes The effect of a direct-fed microbial (Primalac) on turkey live performance J. Appl. Poult. Res., January 1, 2009; 18(2): 185 - 192. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. F. Flint and M. R. Garner Feeding beneficial bacteria: A natural solution for increasing efficiency and decreasing pathogens in animal agriculture J. Appl. Poult. Res., January 1, 2009; 18(2): 367 - 378. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. P. Higgins, S. E. Higgins, J. L. Vicente, A. D. Wolfenden, G. Tellez, and B. M. Hargis Temporal Effects of Lactic Acid Bacteria Probiotic Culture on Salmonella in Neonatal Broilers Poult. Sci., August 1, 2007; 86(8): 1662 - 1666. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
