EFFECT OF A DIETARY SUPPLEMENTATION OF SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE MUGL 39885 ON FATTENING PERFORMANCE IN GROWING COMMERCIAL RABBITS AND A META-ANALYSIS
-
Published:2022
Issue:128
Volume:
Page:4-20
-
ISSN:2312-8402
-
Container-title:The Scientific and Technical Bulletin of the Institute of Animal Science NAAS of Ukraine
-
language:
-
Short-container-title:STBIAS
Affiliation:
1. Institute of animal science of NAAS of Ukraine
Abstract
A study was conducted to determine the effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae supplementation in the diet of growing rabbits on their mortality, fattening performance and feed conversion rates.
In a pooled analysis, supplementation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to the diet of growing rabbits caused a significant increase in final weight by 132.24 g (non-standardized average difference). According to the obtained data, there is a systematic error associated with publication bias (Egger's test, p =<0.001) and high heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 92.9 %, p<0.001). The results of the Q-test (χ2=282.733) and its p-level (<0.001) indicate the occurrence of statistically significant heterogeneity and the null hypothesis which states that all studies share a common effect size was rejected. The effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae administration was not characterized by statistically significant variation in the genetic subgroups of rabbits (test for subgroup differences: p=0.759). In parallel there was a statistically significant variation in subgroups of SC dose (test for subgroup differences: p=0.04). When a higher concentration of Saccharomyces cerevisiae was used, the average final weight in the experimental group was 209.23 g higher than the final weight in the control group. When a lower concentration of SC was used, the average final weight in experiment was more than the control by 93.38 g.
In own researches Saccharomyces cerevisiae (MUGL 39885, 0.01% - 15 billion cell per gram) was added to the feed for the experimental group before granulation. After 37 days of fattening, the control group reached an average weight of 2230 g, whereas the weight for the experimental group was 2608 g, probably due to the better FCR in the experimental group. Both mentioned differences were significant. Whereas the daily feed intake did not differ in the studied groups. Comparison of the rabbit survival in each group showed no significant difference for the one-sided t-criterion (p=0.097).
Therefore, the usage of feed with Saccharomyces cerevisiae additive affects the results conceding rabbits fattening. Experimental group obtained the statistically significant best average final weight, daily gain and feed conversion ratio in the same raising conditions. It confirms the results obtained from the meta-analysis. At the same time, there is no statistically proven change in feed intake between groups, and that is a promising and important economic and ecological result.
Publisher
Institute of Animal Science of the National Academy of Agrarian Sciences of Ukraine
Reference26 articles.
1. Wang, H.; Long, W.; Chadwick, D.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, S.; Piao, X.; & Hou, Y. (2022). Dietary Acidifiers as an Alternative to Antibiotics for Promoting Pig Growth Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 289, 115320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2022.115320. 2. Carabaño, R., Badiola, I., Licois, D., & Gidenne, T. (2006). The Digestive Ecosystem and Its Control through Nutritional or Feeding Strategies. In: Maertens L., Coudert P., editors. Recent Advances in Rabbit Sciences. Melle, Belgium, 211–227. 3. Vilà, B., Esteve-Garcia, E., & Brufau, J. (2010). Probiotic Micro-Organisms: 100 Years of Innovation and Efficacy; Modes of Action. World’s Poult. Sci. J., 66, 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933910000474. 4. Havenaar, R., ten Brink, B., & Huis, J. H. J. (1992). Probiotics. Springer; Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Selection of Strains for Probiotic Use, 209–224. 5. Misiukiewicz, A., Gao, M., Filipiak, W., Cieslak, A., Patra, A. K., & Szumacher-Strabel, M. (2021). Review: Methanogens and methane production in the digestive systems of nonruminant farm animals. Animal, 15(1), 100060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2020.100060
|
|