title: Caecal microbiota of chickens fed diets containing propolis.
abstract: The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of different levels of ethanolic extract of propolis (EEP) and raw propolis (RP) on broiler performance and on selected bacterial groups in caecal microbiota using fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) measured by fluorescent activated cell sorting. Two experiments were conducted with 120 male chicks from 1 to 21 days of age for each, raised in cages and distributed in a completely randomized experimental design; there were five replicates with four birds per experimental unit and six treatments for each experiment (trial 1 - EEP - 0, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 and 5000 ppm and trial 2 - RP - 0, 100, 200, 300, 400 and 500 ppm). Fluorescent probes were used against the bacterial groups in caecal samples collected at 21 days of age. The data were subjected to one-way anova followed by Tukey's and regression analyses were used to assess the relationship between dietary levels of EEP or RP on performance and intestinal microbiota (p < 0.05). In the trial 1, results showed that the EEP did not cause any significant (p > 0.05) modification in the performance and caecal microbiota. In the trial 2, RP inclusion did not affect the performance but changed the bacterial composition (p < 0.05). Clostridiaceae, Gammaproteobacteria excluding Enterobacteriaceae and Lactobacillus spp. showed a quadratic response (p < 0.05), with the lowest value predicted to occur at 240 ppm, 221 ppm and 213 ppm of RP respectively. The proportion of Bacteroidaceae and Gammaproteobacteria did not differ (p > 0.05) among the experimental groups. The inclusion of ethanolic extract of propolis did not affect the performance and intestinal microbiota, whereas the supplementation of raw propolis modulates the caecal microbiota composition without any effects on chicken performance.
authors.affiliation: Department of Animal Science, Universidade Estadual do Oeste do Paraná, Marechal Cândido Rondon, Brazil.
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Eyng
authors.affiliation: Department of Animal Science, Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Maringá, Brazil.
authors.forename: A E
authors.initials: AE
authors.lastname: Murakami
authors.affiliation: Lina Bioscience, Berkeley, CA, USA.
authors.forename: A A
authors.initials: AA
authors.lastname: Pedroso
authors.affiliation: Department of Biological Sciences, Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso, Tangará da Serra, Brazil.
authors.forename: C R A
authors.initials: CRA
authors.lastname: Duarte
authors.affiliation: Department of Animal Science, Instituto Federal Catarinense, Rio do Sul, Brazil.
authors.forename: K P
authors.initials: KP
authors.lastname: Picoli
mesh_terms: D000821:Animal Feed / Q000032:analysis*; D000824:Animal Nutritional Physiological Phenomena; D000818:Animals; D001419:Bacteria / Q000145:classification* / Q000187:drug effects; D002432:Cecum / Q000382:microbiology*; D002645:Chickens / Q000382:microbiology*; D004032:Diet / Q000662:veterinary*; D019587:Dietary Supplements; D004305:Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; D008297:Male; D011429:Propolis / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000494:pharmacology*
chemical_list: D011429:Propolis
keywords: antimicrobial; caecum; flow cytometry; microbiota; natural additive