HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: jas.2008-1031v1 87/2/723    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Whitley, N. C. Articles by Parveen, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Whitley, N. C. Articles by Parveen, S.

Use of a commercial probiotic supplement in meat goats

N. C. Whitley^*, D. Cazac^*, B. J. Rude, D. Jackson-O’Brien^* and S. Parveen^*

^* University of Maryland Eastern Shore, Department of Agriculture, Food and Resource Sciences, Princess Anne 21853 Mississippi State University, Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences, Mississippi State, MS 65211

ncwhitle{at}ncat.edu

Abstract

Sixty-three Boer crossbred goats were used in 5 separate experiments (Exp. 1 to 5) to evaluate the effects of a commercial probiotic supplement on growth performance (Exp. 1 to 4), diet digestibility (Exp. 5), carcass traits (Exp. 3) and fecal bacterial populations (Exp. 4). Goats were fed a commercially pelleted concentrate diet and were supplemented with a commercial probiotic (PRO) that had shown anecdotal positive effects on goat growth and performance according to local goat producers or remained as controls (CON). The dose of PRO used was within the labeled dose for sheep for all studies. For Exp. 1, goat BW and feed intake were measured and G:F calculated every 7 d for 56 d. For Exp. 2-4, BW and feed intake were measured and G:F calculated every 14 d. The first d of supplementation was considered d 0. Carcass traits were also collected at slaughter on d 57 for Exp. 3 and fecal samples were collected every 14 d for microbial culture for Exp. 4. For Exp. 5, which was a digestibility trail that lasted for 10 d, animals were placed in metabolic pens for collection of feces and orts. Growth performance of goats was not impacted by probiotic supplementation, with the exception of Exp. 2 in which ADG and G:F were improved (P < 0.03) in PRO compared with CON goats on d 56 only (treatment x d interaction; P < 0.05), averaging 0.21 ± 0.02 kg/d for PRO and 0.11 ± 0.02 kg/d for CON for ADG and 0.17 ± 0.02 for PRO and 0.10 ± 0.02 for CON for G:F. Carcass weights and weights of fabricated cuts such as shoulder, loin, leg, rack, shank, and total parts as well as carcass length, leg circumference, loin eye area, and backfat were not influenced by probiotic supplementation. Apparent digestibilities of OM, DM, NDF, ADF, CP and GE (on a DM basis) were similar for PRO and CON treatments. Fecal culture analysis of Escherichia coli/coliforms, Lactobacilli and Bifidobacteria populations were not influenced by PRO treatment. Overall, although PRO treatment affected goat ADG and G:F in Exp. 2, no PRO treatment effects were noted on growth performance for Exp. 1, 3 and 4. Furthermore, PRO treatment did not affect diet digestibility, carcass traits, or fecal microbial populations in goats. In conclusion, no consistent benefits of probiotic supplementation to healthy, growing meats were noted.

Key Words: ADG • carcass traits • direct-fed microbials • growth • meat goats • probiotics

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Z. Jiang, G. Schatzmayr, M. Mohnl, and T. J. Applegate Net effect of an acute phase response--Partial alleviation with probiotic supplementation Poult. Sci., January 1, 2010; 89(1): 28 - 33. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]