Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
PSIII-24 Effect of two sources of encapsulated sodium butyrate on broilers performance
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
PSIII-24 Effect of two sources of encapsulated sodium butyrate on broilers performance
Do you wish to request the book?
PSIII-24 Effect of two sources of encapsulated sodium butyrate on broilers performance
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
PSIII-24 Effect of two sources of encapsulated sodium butyrate on broilers performance
2020
Overview
The study was conducted to elucidate effects of feed supplementation with two sources of encapsulated sodium butyrate (ESB, ~30% sodium butyrate encapsulated with vegetable fat) respect to a control diet, on broilers performance. A total of 960 Ross308 one-day-old chicks were randomly distributed into 3 treatments with 16 replicates and 20 birds per replicate: CON (control diet), AD (CON + 2.19kg/tn of ESB from supplier 1) and GUSTOR (CON + 2.19kg/tn of ESB from supplier 2). Feed and water were offered ad libitum. Performance was recorded at 0, 21 and 42d at pen level, and the results presented were corrected by mortality; gut morphology from jejunum at 42 days was also recorded. Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA using the GLM procedure of SAS. Regarding body weight, some numerical differences were observed between control and groups with ESB at 21d (777g, 786g, and 784g, for CON, AD and GUSTOR, respectively) and at 41d (2719g, 2727g and 2734g, for CON, AD and GUSTOR, respectively). From 0-21d, 22-42d and 0-42d average daily feed intake (ADFI, g/d) was significantly affected by treatment (0-42d: 101b, 100b, 98a, for CON, AD and GUSTOR, respectively, P = 0.045). Feed conversion ratio (FCR) followed the same trend and was significantly improved by GUSTOR at 21 (0-21d: 1.52b, 1.52b and 1.48a for CON, AD and GUSTOR, respectively, P = 0.002) and at 42 days (0-42d: 1.59b, 1.58b and 1.56a for CON, AD and GUSTOR, respectively, P < 0.001). No differences were found in villus height and density, crypt depth and density, number of goblet cells and mucus layer in jejunum at 42d. As expected, the results showed no differences on gut morphology due to a totally encapsulated active principle without activity in the small intestine. Even though both ESB were similar, birds supplemented with ESB-GUSTOR were more efficient than birds supplemented with ESB-AD.
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Subject
