Avaliação de promotores de crescimento alternativos em substituição aos convencionais sobre o desempenho, características de carcaça e morfometria intestinal em frangos de corte

• Ano de defesa: 2004
• Autor(a) principal: Corneli, Joaneis
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal de Santa Maria; BR; Zootecnia; UFSM; Programa de Pós-Graduação em Zootecnia
• Palavras-chave em Português: Promotor de crescimento; Frangos de corte; Prebiótico; Alho; Ácidos orgânicos; Growth promoters; Broilers; Prebiotic; Garlic; Organics acids; CNPQ::CIENCIAS AGRARIAS::ZOOTECNIA
• Link de acesso: http://repositorio.ufsm.br/handle/1/10838

The experiment was conducted at the Laboratory of Poultry (LAVIC) of the Department of Animal Science at Federal University of Santa Maria - RS, from November of 2003 to January of 2004 aiming to evaluate the use of prebiotics, organic acids (acidifiers), enzymes and garlic (phytotherapeutic) as alternative growth promoters, instead of the conventionals (antibiotics) commonly used in broilers feed. The amount of 480 males, day old, Cobb chicks were used, which were submitted to six experimental treatments: T1= Basic Diet (BD) without any growth promoters; T2= BD with 0.1% of garlic in powder; T3= BD with 0.2 % of garlic in powder; T4= BD with antibiotics (Zinc Bacitracina (10 g/ton) and Olaquindox (70 g/ton);T5= BD with prebiotic (mananoligossacarídeos(MOS)) and acidifier (fórmic acids (50%) + propionic acids (50%) and T6= BD whit prebiotic (mananoligossacarídeos(MOS)) and enzymes. The amount of prebiotic, acidifier and enzymes used were rated by the technical advise of the commercial products used. Twenty four experimental boxes of the 1.5 X1.5m, with 20 fowls each were used, with four replicates by treatment in a completely randomized design. The fowls were sheltered on reutilized bed wood shavings, in a mansory shed raised with animal feed based on corn and soy bean meal, ad libitum , isonutritives and divided in three phases: initial (1-21 days) bearing 22% Crude Protein (CP) and 3050 Kcal ME/Kg, growth (22-35 days) with 20% CP and 3100 Kcal ME/Kg, final (36- 43 days) with 18.5 % of CP and 3150 Kcal ME/Kg. The treatments did not show any statistic difference for the parameters: weigh gain (WG) and production factor (PF). There wasn t a significant effect on the feed intake (FI), in the phases of 1-21 and 22-35 days of live, but in the phase of 36-43 days there was a significant effect (P<005), with difference only between the treatments without growth promoters (T1) and the treatments with garlic (T2 and T3), but they did not diverge significantly from the others. Introductory the period of 1-43 days, to come different significant (P<0.05), at the feed intake (FI), of the fowls the treatments without growth promoters (T1) and with antibiotics (T4), but they did not diverge significantly from the others. The feed conversion (FC), did not differ statiscally (P>0.05) in the phases of 1-21 and 36-43 days of live the fowls. The phase of 22-35 days to come different significant (P<0.05), where the fowls submitted to treatment with antibiotics (T4) and with prebiotics + acidifier (T5), showed better feed conversion (FC) and it was statistically relevant (P<0.05), when compared with fowls of the treatment prebiotics + enzymes (T6), but the treatment with prebiotics + acidifier (T5), was not differences between them (P>0.05). In the period of 1-43 days, the fowls submitted to treatment with antibiotics (T4) showed better feed conversion (FC) and it was statistically relevant (P<0.05), when compared with fowls of the control treatments (T1) and prebiotics + enzymes (T6), but there were no differences between them (P>0.05). The feed conversion (FC) of the fowls submitted to the other treatments (T2, T3 and T5) did not differ statiscally (P>0.05). The results according to the intestinal morphology and carcass yield did not show significant effects (P>0.05) between the different growth promoters tested. Based on the results obtained, taking in to account the conditions of what the experiment was conducted, it was concluded that the alternative growth promoters tested did not affect negatively the characteristics of the intestinal morphology of the broilers validating them as substitutes to the conventional promoters.