P133 Effect of the probiotic Ecobiol in energy reduced diets
Ortiz A.1, Gracia M.2, Honrubia P.1, Mallo J.J.1
1NOREL
2Imasde
S.A., Madrid, Spain
Agroalimentaria S.L., Madrid, Spain
[email protected]
Ecobiol in energy reduced diets
SUMMARY
Probiotics can increase nutrient digestibility excreting enzymes in the gastrointestinal tract.
This way, supplementing the diet with a probiotic can relax the diet formulation requirements
making it cheaper. To determine if the addition of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens CECT 5940
(ECOBIOL) allows a reduction of nutrient concentration in the diet, 160 one-day-old Cobb
chicks were allocated at random to 4 different treatments (T1: Control diet; T2 Control diet +
1 kg/ton ECOBIOL 106 CFU/gr of feed; T3 Energy Reduced (ER) diet; T4 ER diet + 1 kg/ton
ECOBIOL 106 CFU/gr of feed). ER consisted on 26 Kcal/kg less in the starter feed and 25.7
Kcal/kg less in the finisher feed. Mash feeds and water were offered ad libitum. BW, ADG,
ADFI and FCR were recorded for the 0-42 days fattening period. Data were analyzed using a
2x2 factorial design with the energy concentration of the diet and the Ecobiol
supplementation as the factors using a GLM model. The interaction between diet and Ecobiol
was added to the model. There were no significant differences in the interaction. Overall
performance was not affected by the energy reduction. ECOBIOL supplemented birds tended
to have better FCR both from 21-42 (1.85 vs. 1.95; P < 0.1) and 0-42 days (1.76 vs. 1.85; P <
0.1). ECOBIOL tended to enhance animal performance but a more aggressive energy
reduction is needed to be able to observe a probiotic compensation for such effect.
Probiotic, digestibility, amyloliquefaciens, energy.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of the present study was to determine if the addition of Bacillus
amyloliquefaciens spores (Ecobiol) to the diet could compensate a nutrient reduction in the
diet. The study was conducted in the NOREL’s experimental farm sited in León (Spain).
According to literature, probiotics can improve performance by different modes of
action as: digestive enzymes excretion, lactic acid production (Kaupp, 1925), positive effect
on immune system effect (Corthesy, 2007; Herich, 2002; Klasing, 2007; Ljungh, 2006;
Siragusa, 2012; Jerzsele, 2011).
The high capacity of B. amyloliquefaciens to produce enzymes is well known by
several industries as: sugar and paper (Zar et al. 2012) detergent and pharmaceuticals
(Schallmey et al. 2004) and dairy processing (Selvamohan et al. 2012).
This enzyme excretion might be helpful in the digestion of the feed helping animals’
enzyme apparatus and therefore increasing the digestibility.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
One hundred and sixty Cobb chicks (males and females) were housed in a clean and
disinfected room. Each cage had a feeder and a drinker. Diets were administered ad libitum.
Cages dimensions are specified in table 1.
Table 1. Cages dimensions
Period
1-21 days
21-42 days
Cage (cm)
110x63x33
99x91x41.6
Four different diets were used in the trial:

T1: Control Diet

T2: Control Diet + 1 kg/ton ECOBIOL

T3 : Energy reduced diet (ER)

T4: ER + 1 kg/ton ECOBIOL
The nutrient reduction in the experimental diets was according the following table.
Table 2. Nutrient reduction
EMA, Kcal/Kg
Digestible Lysine %
Digestible Methionine %
Digestible Threonine %
0-21 days
-26.00
-0.015
-0.004
-0.01
21-42 days
-25.7
-0.014
-0.004
-0.01
Main diets constituents were: corn, barley and soy. Proximal diet analysis is detailed in table
3
Table 3. Diets proximal analysis
0-21
EMA, Kcal/Kg
CP %
Fiber %
Crude Fat %
Total Lysine
Total Methionine
Total Threonine
Total Phosphorus
21-42
3,000
21
4.3
8.4
1.27
0.57
0.84
0.66
The following parameters were measured:

Body weight at day 0, 21 and 42

Feed consumption for 0-21 and 21-42 periods

FCR and DWG were calculated accordingly
3,050
20
4.1
8.6
1.1
0.47
0.76
0.58

Mortality

Abnormal situations and comments were also recorded
Raw data was sent to Imasde Agroalimentaria S.L for the statistical analysis. A 2x2
factorial design in which energy concentration and Ecobiol supplementation were the factors
was used. The interaction between diet and Ecobiol supplementations was added to the
model.
RESULTS
Table 4. Zootechnical parameters
0-21 days
21-42 days
Treatment
DWG
FCR
FBW
DWG
ADFI
FCR
FBW
0.0533
1.6425
0.7183b
0.0798
0.1559
1.9578
2.3932
0.0319b
0.0521
1.6344
0.7061b
0.0870
0.1547
1.7818
2.5323
T3
0.0340ab
0.0539
1.5873
0.7492ab
0.0807
0.1573
1.9484
2.4439
T4
0.0351a
0.0522
1.4894
0.7727a
0.0816
0.1555
1.9159
2.4853
EEM (N=4)
0.0006
0.0019
0.0568
0.0135
0.0029
0.0047
0.0572
0.0642
P
0.0182
0.8831
0.2558
0.0182
0.3258
0.9830
0.1639
0.4920
T1
0.0325b
T2
ADFI
Table 5. Overall zootechnical parameters
0-42 days
Treatment
DWG
ADFI
FCR
FBW
T1
0.0561
0.1046
1.8647
2.3932
T2
0.0594
0.1034
1.7419
2.5323
T3
0.0573
0.1056
1.8413
2.4439
T4
0.0583
0.1039
1.7847
2.4853
EEM (N=4)
P
0.0015
0.4920
0.0029
0.9536
0.0451
0.2603
0.0642
0.4920
Table 6. Factorial analysis
FBW
0-21 days
21 days 42 days DWG ADFI
Nutrients
Ecobiol
EEM
(n=8)
Probab.
21-42 days
FCR
DWG ADFI
0-42 days
FCR
DWG ADFI
FCR
Normal
0.712
2.463
0.032
0.053
1.638
0.083
0.155
1.8698
0.058
0.104
1.803
Reduced
0.761
2.465
0.034
0.053
1.538
0.081
0.156
1.9321
0.058
0.105
1.813
No
0.734
2.419
0.033
0.054
1.615
0.080
0.157
1.9531
0.057
0.105
1.853
YES
0.739
2.509
0.033
0.052
1.562
0.084
0.155
1.8488
0.059
0.104
1.763
0.010
0.045
0.001
0.001
0.040
0.002
0.003
0.040
0.001
0.002
0.032
Nutrient
s
Ecobiol
0.004
0.978
0.004
0.849
0.103
0.449
0.811
0.297
0.978
0.799
0.833
0.683
0.185
0.683
0.455
0.368
0.184
0.761
0.093
0.185
0.626
0.070
Nut*Eco
0.212
0.461
0.212
0.899
0.444
0.288
0.957
0.234
0.461
0.932
0.477
CONCLUSIONS
We couldn’t observe a performance decrease due to the nutrient reduction, this makes
very difficult to draw conclusions. But in this study we could observe a better FCR in the
supplemented animals, so ECOBIOL demonstrate its capacity to enhance productive
parameters. Numerically, the FCR is worse in the reduced group, also if we compare T2
(nutrient reduction) vs. T4 (nutrient reduction + ECOBIOL), FCR is better in T4. A more
aggressive nutrient reduction is needed to be able to observe a probiotic compensation for
such effect.
LITERATURE
CORTHÉSY B., H. R. GASKINS, A. MERCENIER. 2007. Cross-Talk between Probiotic
Bacteria and the Host Immune System. Journal of Nutrition. 137: 781S-790S
HERICH R., M. LEVKUT. 2002. Lactic acid bacteria probiotics and immune system.
Veterinary Medicine-Czech. 47:169-180
JERZSELE Á., K. SZEKÉR, P. GÁLFI, M. PUYALTO, P. HONRUBIA, J. J. MALLO.
2011. Effects of protected sodium-n-butyrate (BP70), its combination with essential oils
(BP70+EO) and of a B. amyloliquefaciens probiotic (Ecobiol) in a necrotic enteritis artificial
infection model in broilers. 2011 international Poultry Scientific Forum proceedings. Abs. 1
KAUPP B. F. AD R. S. DEARSTYNE. 1925. The effects of lactic acid on B. pullorum, B.
avisepticus and B. sanguinarium and its possible role in the control of intestinal diseases of
poultry. Poultry Science. 4: 242-249
KLASING K. C. 2007. Nutrition and the immune system. British Poultry Science. 48: 525537
LJUNGH A. AND T. WADSTRÖM. 2006. Lactic acid bacteria as Probiotics. Current Issues
Intestinal Microbiology. 7: 73-90
SCHALLMEY, M., SINGH, A., WARD, O. P. (2004). Developments in the use of Bacillus
species for industrial production. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 50; 1-17.
SELVAMOHAN, T., RAMADAS, V., SATHYA, T. A. (2012). Optimization of lipase
enzyme activity produced by Bacillus Amyloliquefaciens isolated from rock lobster Panlirus
Homarus. International Journal of Modern Engineering Research, 2; 4231-4234
SIRAGUSA G. R. 2012. Modern probiology- Direct fed microbials and the avian gut
microbiota. Proceedings of the Australian Poultry Science Symposium. 23. 120:133
ZAR, M. S., ALI, S., HAQ, I. (2012) Optimization of the alpha amylase production from
Bacillus amyloliquefaciens IIB-14 via parameter significance analysis and response surface
methodology. African Journal of Microbiology Research, 6; 3845-3855.