Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T07:00:52.152Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficiency evaluation of alternative antibiotic growth promoters on Iranian Ross broiler performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2017

H. Ziaie ,
M. Bashtani ,
H. Farhangfar ,
P. Rowlinson  and
M.A. Karimi Torshizi
H. Ziaie
Affiliation:
Birjand University, Birjand, Islamic Republic of Iran
M. Bashtani
Affiliation:
Birjand University, Birjand, Islamic Republic of Iran
H. Farhangfar*
Affiliation:
Birjand University, Birjand, Islamic Republic of Iran
P. Rowlinson
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
M.A. Karimi Torshizi
Affiliation:
Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
*
Email:hfarhangfar2003@yahoo.co.uk
Get access

Extract

A number of feed additives including antibiotics have been widely used in the poultry industry for several decades. The manipulation of gut function and microbial habitat of domestic animals with feed additives has been recognized as an important tool for improving growth performance and feed efficiency (Collington et al, 1990). Recently, the concerns about possible antibiotic residues and disease resistance have aroused great caution in the usage of antibiotic in the animal industry (Ricke et al, 2005). The ban on the use of antibiotic as feed additives has accelerated and led to investigations of alternative feed additives in animal production. The primary alternatives to enhance gut function and growth performance to date include acidification of feed, feeding probiotic organisms, and prebiotic compounds (Patterson and Burkholder, 2003). The main aim of the present research was to evaluate the efficiency of alternative antibiotic growth promoters on growth performance in Iranian Ross broiler performance.

Type
Posters
Information
Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science , Volume 2008 , 2008 , pp. 272
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Collington, G. K., Park, D. S., Armstrong, D. G. 1990. The influence of inclusion of either an antibiotic, probiotic in the diet on the development of digestive enzyme activity in the pig. British Journal of. Nutrition 64: 59–70.Google Scholar
Patterson, J. A., and Burkholder, K. M. 2003. Prebiotic feed additives: Rational and use in pig. Pages 319–332 in proc. 9th Int. Symp. Digest. Physiol. Pigs. Banff, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
Ricke, S. C., Kundinger, M. M., Miller, D. R., and Keeton, J.T. 2005. Alternatives to antibiotics. Chemical and physical antimicrobial and foodborne pathogen response. Journal of Poultry Science 84:667–675 Google Scholar