乳酸杆菌对肉鸡生长性能影响的Meta分析

doi:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2020.01.017

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】利用荟萃分析（Meta分析）研究日粮中添加乳酸杆菌对肉鸡生长性能的影响,以期为肉鸡生产提供一定的理论和数据参考。【方法】从国内外数据库中共检索出符合分析要求的24篇文献,包括25项试验,8 702个研究对象。采用Review Manager（version 5.3）,计算各生长性能指标的标准化均数差SMD（乳酸杆菌组和对照组均数的差值除以两组标准差平均值的商）,根据不同研究使用的样本数量、指标测定的标准差,确定不同研究结果的权重值,汇总多个相互独立的研究结果。根据I ²统计量对纳入文献的生长性能数据进行异质性检验,通过漏斗图及egger检验分析纳入文章的发表偏倚并进行敏感性分析。由于本次分析各项指标均存在显著异质性,故采用随机效应模型对连续型数据进行分析,并根据乳酸杆菌菌种进行亚组分析,探讨不同乳酸杆菌对肉鸡生长性能的影响效果。【结果】从试验全期来看,饲粮中添加乳酸杆菌显著提高肉鸡的平均日增重（SMD=1.53,P＜0.001）,显著降低料重比（SMD=-1.50,P＜0.001）,对采食量无显著影响（P=0.470）。分别分析肉鸡前期（1—21日龄）和后期（22—42日龄）的生长数据发现,乳酸杆菌显著提高肉鸡前期平均日增重（SMD=1.05,P＜0.001）,有提高后期日增重的趋势（SMD=0.52,P=0.090）,显著降低前期料重比（SMD=-1.31,P＜0.001）和后期料重比（SMD=-0.94,P＜0.001）。从SMD的数值上可以看出,乳酸杆菌对肉鸡前期的促生长效果优于后期。漏斗图及egger分析表明,前期F/G（P=0.012）和后期ADFI（P=0.006）偏倚性达到显著水平,其他指标的偏倚性不显著（P＞0.05）;敏感性分析发现,日增重和料重比的分析结果稳定。异质性检验发现,各生长指标存在显著异质性（P＜0.001）,根据乳酸杆菌菌种进行亚组分析,可降低Meta分析结果的异质性。亚组分析显示,植物乳酸杆菌对肉鸡全期日增重（1.98,P＜0.001）和饲料转化效率（-1.66,P＜0.001）的促进作用优于干酪乳杆菌（0.51,-0.68,P≤0.02）和约氏乳杆菌（1.15,-0.16,P ≤0.02）。【结论】Meta分析表明,乳酸杆菌可改善不同阶段肉鸡的日增重和饲料转化效率,对采食量无显著影响。不同乳酸杆菌的促进作用存在差异,其中植物乳杆菌的促进作用最优。

关键词: 乳酸杆菌, 肉鸡, 生长性能, Meta分析

Abstract:

Abstract: 【Objective】The purpose of present study was to analyze the effects of Lactobacillus supplements on the growth performance of broilers by meta-analysis. 【Method】A total of 24 articles, including 25 trials and 8 702 subjects, were retrieved from domestic and foreign databases. Reviewing Manager (version 5.3) was used to calculate the standardized mean difference (SMD)(the difference between Lactobacillus group and control group divided by the mean of standard deviation between the two groups). According to the number of samples used in different studies and the standard deviation determined by the indicators, the weights of different research results were determined, and several independent research results were summarized. According to I ² statistics, the heterogeneity of growth performance data was tested, and the publication bias was analyzed by funnel plot and egger test. The random effect model was used to analyze the continuous data for the significant heterogeneity of each index in this analysis and subgroup analysis was carried out according to Lactobacillus strains to explore the effects of different Lactobacillus on the growth performance of broilers.【Result】The analysis showed that Lactobacillus significantly increased the ADG (SMD=1.53, P＜0.001) and reduced the F/G (SMD= -1.50, P＜0.001) of broilers during 0-6 week period of the experiment, and had no significant effect on feed intake (P=0.470). Lactobacillus significantly increased the ADG of broilers (SMD=1.05, P＜0.001) in the growing period, and had a tendency to improve ADG (SMD=0.52, P=0.090) in the finishing period, significantly reduced the growing F/G (SMD= -1.31, P＜0.001) and the finishing F/G (SMD= -0.94, P＜0.001). The growth-promoting effect of Lactobacillus on broilers was better than that the finishing period according to the value of SMD. Funnel plot and egger analysis showed that the bias of F/G (P=0.012) and ADFI (P=0.006) in the early stage reached a significant level, while the biases of other indicators were not significant (P＞0.05). Sensitivity analysis found that random deletion of arbitrary literature data had little effect on the analysis of daily gain and feed-to-weight ratio, indicating that the above results were stable and were not affected by one or several articles. The heterogeneity test found that there was significant heterogeneity in the analysis results of each growth index (P＜0.001), indicating that the results of different literatures differed greatly, possibly due to differences in the Lactobacillus species or feeding doses used in different studies. Subgroup analysis based on Lactobacillus species could reduce the heterogeneity of the meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis showed that L. plantarum promoted the daily weight gain (1.98, P＜0.001) and feed conversion efficiency (-1.66, P＜0.001) on broiler 0-6 week period better than L. casei (0.51, -0.68, P≤0.02) and L. johnsonii (1.15, -0.16, P≤0.02). 【Conclusion】In conclusion, the meta-analysis showed that Lactobacillus could increase the daily weight gain and feed conversion efficiency of broilers at different period, and had no significant effect on feed intake. The promotion effect of Lactobacillus was different, among which L. plantarum was better.

Key words: Lactobacillus, broilers, growth performance, meta-analysis

邢爽,冯京海. 乳酸杆菌对肉鸡生长性能影响的Meta分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(1): 183-190.

Shuang XING,JingHai FENG. Effects of Lactobacillus Supplements on Growth Performance of Broilers: A Meta-Analysis[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2020, 53(1): 183-190.

0
/ / 推荐

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks

链接本文: https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2020.01.017

https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/Y2020/V53/I1/183

图/表 4

表1

图1

表2

表3

参考文献 45

[1]	LEE K W, HONG Y H., LEE S H, JANG S I, PARK M S, BAUTISTA D A, RITTER G D, JEOUNG,H Y, AN D J, LILLEHOJ E P, LILLEHOJ H S . Effects of anticoccidial and antibiotic growth promoter programs on broiler performance and immune status. Research in Veterinary Science, 2012,93(2):721-728.
[2]	CHATTOPADHYAY M K . Use of antibiotics as feed additives: A burning question. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2014,5:334.
[3]	ECKERT N H, LEE J T, HYATT D, STEVENS S M, ANDERSON S, ANDERSON P N, BELTRAN R, SCHATZMAYR G, MOHNL M, CALDWELL D J . Influence of probiotic administration by feed or water on growth parameters of broilers reared on medicated and nonmedicated diets. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 2010,19(1):59-67.
[4]	FORGETTA V, REMPEL H, MALOUIN F, VAILLANCOURT J R, TOPP E, DEWAR K, DIARRA M S . Pathogenic and multidrug- resistant Escherichia fergusonii from broiler chicken. Poultry Science, 2012,91(2):512-525.
[5]	CARVALHO I T, SANTOS L . Antibiotics in the aquatic environments: A review of the European scenario. Environment International, 2016,94:736-757.
[6]	RONQUILLO M G, HERNANDEZ J C A . Antibiotic and synthetic growth promoters in animal diets: review of impact and analytical methods. Food Control, 2017,72:255-267.
[7]	ZORRIEHZAHRA M J, DELSHAD S T, ADEL M, TIWARI R, KARTHIK K, DHAMA K, LAZADO C C . Probiotics as beneficial microbes in aquaculture: An update on their multiple modes of action: A review. Veterinary Quarterly, 2016,36(4):228-241.
[8]	GAO P, MA C, SUN Z, WANG L, HUANG S, SU X, XU J, ZHANG H . Feed-additive probiotics accelerate yet antibiotics delay intestinal microbiota maturation in broiler chicken. Microbiome, 2017,5(1):91.
[9]	WANG H, NI X, QING X, ZENG D, LUO M, LIU L, LI G, PAN K, JING B . Live probiotic Lactobacillus johnsonii BS15 promotes growth performance and lowers fat deposition by improving lipid metabolism, intestinal development, and gut microflora in broilers. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2017,8:1073.
[10]	FORTE C, MANUALI E, ABBATE Y, PAPA P, VIECELI L, TENTELLINI M, TRABALZA-MARINUCCI M, MOSCATI L . Dietary Lactobacillus acidophilus positively influences growth performance, gut morphology, and gut microbiology in rurally reared chickens. Poultry Science, 2017,97(3):930-936.
[11]	APATA D F . Growth performance, nutrient digestibility and immune response of broiler chicks fed diets supplemented with a culture of Lactobacillus bulgaricus. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2008,88(7):1253-1258.
[12]	PANDA A K, RAO S V R, RAJU M V L N, SHARMA S R . Dietary supplementation of Lactobacillus sporogenes on performance and serum biochemico-lipid profile of broiler chickens. The Journal of Poultry Science, 2006,43(3):235-240.
[13]	AWAD W A, GHAREEB K, ABDEL-RAHEEM S, BÖHM J . Effects of dietary inclusion of probiotic and synbiotic on growth performance, organ weights, and intestinal histomorphology of broiler chickens. Poultry Science, 2009,88(1):49-56.
[14]	YU B, LIU J R, CHIOU M Y, HSU Y R, CHIOU P W S . The effects of probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri Pg4 strain on intestinal characteristics and performance in broilers. Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2007,20(8):1243-1251.
[15]	HAN J, WANG Y, SONG D, LU Z, DONG Z, MIAO H, WANG W, HE J, LI A . Effects of Clostridium butyricum and Lactobacillus plantarum on growth performance, immune function and volatile fatty acid level of caecal digesta in broilers. Food and Agricultural Immunology, 2018,29(1):798-807.
[16]	LIU L, NI X, ZENG D, WANG H, JING B, YIN Z, PAN K . Effect of a dietary probiotic,Lactobacillus johnsonii BS15, on growth performance, quality traits, antioxidant ability, and nutritional and flavour substances of chicken meat. Animal Production Science, 2017,57(5):920-926.
[17]	李阳, 常文环, 张姝, 郑爱娟, 刘国华, 蔡辉益, 刘伟 . 饲粮添加壳寡糖和干酪乳杆菌对肉鸡生长性能、肌肉品质及抗氧化性能的影响. 动物营养学报, 2016,28(5):1450-1461.
	LI Y, CHANG W H, ZHANG S, ZHENG A J, LIU G H, CAI H Y, LIU W . Effects of dietary chitosan oligosaccharide and Lactobacillus casei on growth performance,meat quality and antioxidant function of broilers. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2016,28(5):1450-1461. (in Chinese)
[18]	ZOU X, XIAO R, LI H, LIU T, LIAO Y, WANG Y, WU S, LI Z . Effect of a novel strain of Lactobacillus brevis M8 and tea polyphenol diets on performance, meat quality and intestinal microbiota in broilers. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 2018,17(2):396-407.
[19]	LI Z, WANG W, LIU D, GUO Y . Effects of Lactobacillus acidophilus on the growth performance and intestinal health of broilers challenged with Clostridium perfringens. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, 2018,9(1):25.
[20]	SAUVANT D, SCHMIDELY P, DAUDIN J J, ST-PIERRE N R . Meta-analyses of experimental data in animal nutrition. Animal, 2008,2(8):1203-1214.
[21]	HUANG M K, CHOI Y J, HOUDE R, LEE J W, LEE B, ZHAO X . Effects of Lactobacilli and an acidophilic fungus on the production performance and immune responses in broiler chickens. Poultry Science, 2004,83(5):788-795.
[22]	SALARMOINI M, FOOLADI M H . Efficacy of Lactobacillus acidophilus as probiotic to improve broiler chicks performance. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2010,13:165-172.
[23]	THANH N T, LOH T C, FOO H L, HAIR-BEJO M, AZHAR B K . Effects of feeding metabolite combinations produced by Lactobacillus plantarum on growth performance, faecal microbial population, small intestine villus height and faecal volatile fatty acids in broilers. British Poultry Science, 2009,50(3):298-306.
[24]	LOH T C, THANH N T, FOO H L, HAIR-BEJO M, AZHAR B K . Feeding of different levels of metabolite combinations produced by Lactobacillus plantarum on growth performance, fecal microflora, volatile fatty acids and villi height in broilers. Animal Science Journal, 2010,81(2):205-214.
[25]	PENG Q, ZENG X F, ZHU J L, WANG S, LIU X T, HOU C L, THACKER P A, QIAO S Y . Effects of dietary Lactobacillus plantarum B1 on growth performance, intestinal microbiota, and short chain fatty acid profiles in broiler chickens. Poultry Science, 2016,95(4):893-900.
[26]	SHEN X, YI D, NI X, ZENG D, JING B, LEI M, BIAN Z, ZENG Y, LI T, XIN J . Effects of Lactobacillus plantarum on production performance, immune characteristics, antioxidant status, and intestinal microflora of bursin-immunized broilers. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 2014,60(4):193-202.
[27]	TAHERI H R, MORAVEJ H, TABANDEH F, ZAGHARI M, SHIVAZAD M . Efficacy of combined or single use of Lactobacillus crispatus LT116 and L.johnsonii LT171 on broiler performance. British Poultry Science, 2010,51(5):580-585.
[28]	刘磊, 朱立贤 . 芽孢乳杆菌对肉仔鸡生产性能、肠道发育和微生物菌群的影响. 动物营养学报, 2011,23(12):2136-2142.
	LIU L, ZHU L X . Effects of Sporolactobacillus on performance, intestinal development and microflora of broilers. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2011,23(12):2136-2142. (in Chinese)
[29]	梁海威, 朱海洋, 张琳, 白明昧, 张建营, 秦贵信, 甄玉国 . 植物乳杆菌对肉鸡生长性能和血清生化指标的影响. 中国畜牧兽医, 2015,42(3):589-596.
	LIANG H W, ZHU H Y, ZHANG L, BAI M M, ZHANG J Y, QIN G X, ZHEN Y G . Effect of Lactobacillus plantarum on growth performance and serum biochemical indices of broilers. China Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Medicine, 2015,42(3):589-596.(in Chinese)
[30]	林显华, 李春凤, 王静, 王芳, 谷巍 . 植物乳杆菌对肉鸡生长性能和蛋白质消化率的影响. 饲料广角, 2013(14):28-30.
	LIN X H, LI C F, WANG J, WANG F, GU W . Effects ofLactobacillus plantarum on growth performance and protein digestibility of broilers. Feed China, 2013(14):28-30.(in Chinese)
[31]	赵巍, 孙喆, 王欣, 付丽, 梁海威, 甄玉国 . 灭活植物乳杆菌培养物对肉仔鸡生长性能、盲肠菌群及血清生化指标的影响. 中国兽医学报, 2016,36(8):1440-1445.
	ZHAO W, SUN Z, WANG X, FU L, LIANG H W, ZHEN Y G . Effect of inactivated Lactobacillus cultures on growth performance, cecal microflora and serum biochemical indexes of broilers. Chinese Journal of Veterinary Science, 2016,36(8):1440-1445.(in Chinese)
[32]	刘伟学, 武文斌 . 干酪乳酸杆菌对肉鸡生长性能及消化功能的影响. 饲料与畜牧, 2011(12):8-11.
	LIU W X, WU W B . Effects ofLactobacillus casei on growth performance and digestive function of broilers. Feed and Husbandry, 2011(12):8-11.(in Chinese)
[33]	付果花 . 发酵乳杆菌-Lactobacillus fermentum F-6对肉鸡生长性能及消化功能的影响[D]. 呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学, 2010.
	FU G H . Effects of Lactobacillus fermentum f-6 on growth performance and digestive function of broiler chickens[D]. Huhhot: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 2010.(in Chinese)
[34]	SHOKRYAZDAN P, FASELEH J M, LIANG J B, RAMASAMY K, SIEO C C, HO Y W . Effects of a Lactobacillus salivarius mixture on performance, intestinal health and serum lipids of broiler chickens. PLoS One, 2017,12(5):e0175959.
[35]	DE C A, SIRRI F, MANFREDA G, MONIACI P, GIARDINI A, ZAMPIGA M, MELUZZI A . Effect of dietary supplementation with Lactobacillus acidophilus D2/CSL (CECT 4529) on caecum microbioma and productive performance in broiler chickens. PLoS ONE, 2017,12(5):e0176309.
[36]	VANTSAWA P A, UMAR T, BULUS T . Effects of probiotic Lactobacillus acidophilus on performance of broiler chickens. Research Journal, 2017,5(8):302-306.
[37]	刘乃芝, 陈静, 崔诗法, 闫福海, 谷巍 . 添加不同水平的植物乳杆菌对肉鸡生产性能和免疫机能的影响. 江西农业学报, 2012,24(6):108-111.
	LIU N Z, CHEN J, CUI S F, YAN F H, GU W . Effects of supplementing different levels of Lactobacillus plantarum on growth performance and immunity of Broilers. Acta Agriculturae Jiangxi, 2012,24(6):108-111.(in Chinese)
[38]	AIBA Y, SUZUKI N, KABIR A M, TAKAGI A, KOGA Y . Lactic acid-mediated suppression of Helicobacter pylori by the oral administration of Lactobacillus salivarius as a probiotic in a gnotobiotic murine model. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 1998,93(11):2097-2101.
[39]	DERAZ S F, KARLSSON E N HEDSTRÖM M, ANDERSSON M M, MATTIASSON B. Purification and characterisation of acidocin D20079, a bacteriocin produced by Lactobacillus acidophilus DSM 20079. Journal of Biotechnology, 2005,117(4):343-354.
[40]	AO X, ZHANG X, SHI L, ZHAO K, YU J, DONG L, CAO Y, CAI Y . Identification of lactic acid bacteria in traditional fermented yak milk and evaluation of their application in fermented milk products. Journal of Dairy Science, 2012,95(3):1073-1084.
[41]	HUSSEIN A R, KHALAF Z Z, SAMIR Z, SAMIR R . Antibacterial activity of crud Bacteriocin-like substance against food borne bacterial pathogens. Iraqi Journal of Science, 2018,59(1A):16-24.
[42]	赵红霞, 詹勇, 许梓荣 . 乳酸菌的研究及其应用. 江西饲料, 2003,1:9-12.
	ZHAO H X, ZHAN Y, XU Z R . Research and application of Lactobacillus. Jiangxi Feed, 2003,1:9-12.(in Chinese)
[43]	WILSON S, NORTON P, HAVERSON K, LEIGH J, BAILEY M . Development of the palatine tonsil in conventional and germ-free piglets. Developmental & Comparative Immunology, 2005,29(11):977-987.
[44]	VON MOLLENDORFF J W, TODOROV S D, DICKS L M T . Comparison of bacteriocins produced by lactic-acid bacteria isolated from boza, a cereal-based fermented beverage from the Balkan Peninsula. Current Microbiology, 2006,53(3):209-216.
[45]	BUJALANCE C, MORENO E, JIMENEZ-VALERA M, RUIZ- BRAVO A . A probiotic strain of Lactobacillus plantarum stimulates lymphocyte responses in immunologically intact and immunocompromised mice. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 2007,113(1):28-34.

指标 Index	效应量 Effect size					异质性检验 Heterogeneity
指标 Index	n	SMD	95%CI	实际值变化范围 Range of increase	P值 P value	I²	P值 P value
前期（1-21日龄）Early stage (1-21 d)
ADG	3614	1.05	0.69,1.42	1.69-3.15	P＜0.001	98	P＜0.001
ADFI	3482	-0.09	-0.47,0.28	-4.49-3.39	P=0.630	98	P＜0.001
F/G	3614	-1.31	-1.86,-0.77	-0.26-0.02	P＜0.001	99	P＜0.001
后期（22-42日龄）Late stage (22-42 d)
ADG	3614	0.52	-0.08,1.12	-6.54-12.74	P=0.090	99	P＜0.001
ADFI	3482	-0.32	-1.05,0.40	-14.96-12.83	P=0.380	99	P＜0.001
F/G	3614	-0.94	-1.28,-0.59	-0.45-0.32	P＜0.001	98	P＜0.001
全期（1-42日龄）Entire stage (1-42 d)
ADG	4118	1.53	1.22,1.84	-0.74-8.58	P＜0.001	97	P＜0.001
ADFI	5706	-0.16	-0.16,0.28	-8.21-6.88	P=0.470	99	P＜0.001
F/G	5918	-1.43	-1.83,-1.03	-0.38-1.03	P＜0.001	99	P＜0.001

指标 Index	前期（1-21日龄） Early stage (1-21 d)			后期（22-42日龄） Late stage (22-42 d)			全期（1-42日龄） Entire stage (1-42 d)
指标 Index	ADG	ADFI	F/G	ADG	ADFI	F/G	ADG	ADFI	F/G
SMD范围 The range of SMD	1.02-1.11	-0.16--0.09	-1.44--1.15	0.47-0.60	-0.41--0.27	-1.1--0.91	1.42-1.64	-0.19--0.11	-1.55--1.26
变异系数 Variation coefficient	4.04%	18.94%	6.08%	7.13%	13.75%	5.24%	3.89%	13.38%	5.93%

全期（1-42日龄） Entire stage (1-42 d)		效应量 Effect size				亚组分析异质性 Subgroup analysis for heterogeneity
全期（1-42日龄） Entire stage (1-42 d)		n	SMD	95%CI	P值 P value	I²	P值 P value	总I² Total I²
ADG	植物乳杆菌 L. plantarum	1550	1.98	1.46,2.50	P<0.001	97	P<0.001	87.4
	嗜酸乳杆菌 L. acidophilus	1124	1.58	0.72,2.44	P<0.001	98	P<0.001
	干酪乳杆菌 L. casei	364	0.51	0.19,0.83	P=0.002	79	P<0.001
	约氏乳杆菌 L. johnsonii	440	1.15	0.42,1.87	P=0.002	96	P<0.001
ADFI	植物乳杆菌 L.plantarum	1550	0.29	-0.30,0.89	P=0.330	98	P<0.001	93.7
	嗜酸乳杆菌 L. acidophilus	992	-0.41	-0.74,-0.09	P=0.010	89	P<0.001
	干酪乳杆菌 L. casei	364	0.02	-0.13,0.17	P=0.780	1	P=0.400
	约氏乳杆菌 L.johnsonii	440	0.72	-0.23,1.67	P=0.140	98	P<0.001
F/G	植物乳杆菌 L. plantarum	1550	-1.66	-2.14,-1.17	P<0.001	97	P<0.001	93.9
	嗜酸乳杆菌 L. acidophilus	1124	-0.67	-1.23,-0.10	P=0.020	97	P<0.001
	干酪乳杆菌 L. casei	364	-0.68	-0.95,-0.42	P<0.001	68	P=0.010
	约氏乳杆菌 L. johnsonii	440	-0.16	-0.29,-0.02	P=0.020	0	P=0.650