SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.56 número1Efecto de la inclusión de L-carnitina en la productividad y calidad del huevo de gallinas ponedoras Hy-Line Brown® índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

  • No hay articulos citadosCitado por SciELO

Links relacionados

  • No hay articulos similaresSimilares en SciELO

Compartir


Cuban Journal of Agricultural Science

versión impresa ISSN 0864-0408versión On-line ISSN 2079-3480

Cuban J. Agric. Sci. vol.56 no.1 Mayabeque ene.-mar. 2022  Epub 01-Mar-2022

 

Animal Science

Effect of dry fermented rumen liquor on productive indicators of replacement White Leghorn laying hens

Bárbara Rodríguez1  * 
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0740-9346

Lourdes Savón1 
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9880-0310

A. Elías†

Magaly Herrera1 
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2641-1815

1Instituto de Ciencia Animal, Carretera Central, km 47 ½, San José de las Lajas, Mayabeque, Cuba

Abstract

A total of 840 animals, from 1 to 126 days of age, randomly distributed into four experimental treatments, were used for evaluating the effect of including 0, 1, 2 and 3 % of dry fermented ruminal liquor in the diet on productive performance. Viability of hens was higher than 96 %, which shows that these treatments had no negative effects on health. Feed intake was not affected by the product. However, at 84 d, feed conversion (P=0.0003) and liveweight (P=0.0008) improved with respect to the group in which it was not included. From day 1 to 126, only differences were found between the 2 % treatment and the untreated group for feed conversion (4.51 vs. 4.76, P=0.0245) and liveweight (1419 vs. 1349, P=0.0360). Mean liveweight of the batch, in each stage, had a coefficient of variation lower than 8, which corresponds to a uniformity superior to 90 %, which indicates that it was good. No effect of treatment on ovary and oviduct development was found. Dry fermented ruminal liquor improved liveweight and feed conversion of replacement layers with high viability and uniformity. Results suggest the use of this product up to 3 % in the diet of this poultry category.

Keywords: poultry; rumen content; fermentation; additive

Biological additives are frequently used in production systems with positive effects on animal feed and health (Wang et al. 2020). Rumen content is one of the pollutants with the greatest environmental effect, since it produces a large organic load in the effluents of slaughterhouses. However, it is a valuable nutrient source for animal feed, as it represents the undigested part of ruminant feed, as well as a large microbial load and rumen fermentation products (Sugiarto et al. 2014). It is suggested that it contains microorganisms such as Lactobacilli spp, Saccharomyces spp, actinomycetes and fermentable fungi (among others) that live in symbiosis in it. Therefore, it can be considered as a mixed culture of efficient microorganisms, which together with its nutritional characteristics and its great availability, enables different reuse alternatives (Cherdthong et al. 2015 and Castro et al. 2018).

One of the inconveniences that rumen content may present is its preservation or conservation, due to its great humidity. Fermentation is one of the technologies used to preserve and improve feed quality. According to Zhu et al. (2020), fermentation is a dynamic process that modifies the chemical composition and physical properties of foods. In poultry, fermented foods or products have demonstrated the potential to improve morphological and intestinal digestive function, as well as to modulate the intestinal microbial ecosystem (Hu et al. 2016 and Li et al. 2020).

Egg production has the function of preparing the bird for a long productive life. Therefore, it is necessary to develop its metabolic capacity, so that it creates sufficient reserves to sustain high egg production (Rodríguez 2021). García et al. (2016) pointed out that, during the replacement stage, an adequate development of the digestive tract and the immune system must be achieved, as well as good health. To achieve the aforementioned objectives, biological additives are frequently used with positive effects on productive, physiological and health indicators. Therefore, in this study, the effect of including dry fermented ruminal liquor (DFRL) in the diet on productive indicators of replacement laying hens was determined.

Materials and Methods

The study was developed in the poultry experimental unit of the Institute of Animal Science, located in San José de las Lajas municipality, Mayabeque province. Mean environmental temperature was 27.4 °C and relative humidity was 78 %.

Animals and diets. A total of 840 replacement White Leghorn L-33 laying hens were used, with mean initial liveweight of 36 ± 1.0 g/bird, from 1 to 126 d of age, which were randomly distributed into four treatments, with seven repetitions each and 30 animals/cage. Hens received food ad libitum in linear feeders and water at will through nipple drinkers, at a rate of three per cage. Beak trimming, lighting regimen and vaccination scheme were carried out according to regulations established in the Technological Manual, according to Godínez et al. (2013).

Diets were produced weekly and were formulated as isoproteic and isoenergetic, according to the recommendations cited in the Technological Manual (Godínez et al. 2013) for this poultry category. The experimental treatments were formed from the inclusion of 0 (control), 1, 2 and 3 % of DFRL in the diets, according to the growth phases: start (1 to 42 d of age) (table 1), growth (43-84 d of age) (table 2), development (85 to 112 d of age) (table 3) and pre-laying (113-126 d of age) (table 4).

Table 1 Composition and contribution of diets for start stage of replacement laying hens (1- 42 d of age) 

Ingredients DFRL inclusion levels, %
0 1 2 3
Corn meal 54.75 53.26 51.55 49.87
Soybean meal, 44 % CP 38.41 38.45 38.54 38.63
DFRL 0 1.00 2.00 3.00
Plant oil 1.40 1.87 2.50 3.12
Monocalcium phosphate 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.68
Calcium carbonate 1.74 1.72 1.71 1.70
Salt 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38
DL- methionine 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23
L- lysine 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Choline chlorite 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13
Mineral and vitamin premix* 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Calculated nutrient contribution, %
CP 21.00 21.00 21.00 21.00
ME, MJ/kg 12.17 12.13 12.13 12.13
CF 3.00 2.98 2.97 2.95
Calcium 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05
Phosphorus 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48
L-lysine 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20
DL-methionine 0.80 0.79 0.80 0.80

DFRL: dry fermented rumen liquor*Vitamin supplement: vit. A 12,000 IU; vit. D3 2,500 IU; vit. E 40 mg; vit. K 2.1 mg; thiamine 2.5 mg, riboflavin 6.0 mg, pyridoxine 5.0 mg, vit. B12 0.020 mg, nicotinic acid 35 mg, pantothenic acid 12 mg, folic acid 1 mg, biotin 0.25 mgMineral supplement: selenium 0.2 mg, iron 60 mg, copper 8 mg, zinc 70 mg, manganese 80 mg, iodine 0.80 mg, cobalt 0.5 mg

Table 2 Composition and contribution of diets for growth stage of replacement laying hens (43-84 d of age) 

Ingredients DFRL inclusion levels, %
0 1 2 3
Corn meal 53.42 51.50 50.34 48.90
Soybean meal, 44 % CP 29.50 29.72 29.75 29.78
Wheat bran 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00
DFRL 0 1.00 2.00 3.00
Plant oil 2.00 2.70 2.90 3.35
Monocalcium phosphate 1.50 1.50 1.43 1.43
Calcium carbonate 1.72 1.72 1.71 1.70
Salt 0.35 0.38 0.38 0.38
DL- methionine 0.18 0.23 0.23 0.23
L- lysine 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.25
Choline chlorite 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13
Mineral and vitamin premix* 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Calculated nutrient contribution, %
CP 18.50 18.50 18.50 18.50
ME, MJ/kg 11.92 11.92 11.92 11.92
CF 3.48 3.48 3.48 3.45
Calcium 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.00
Phosphorus 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.45
L-lysine 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20
DL-methionine 0.80 0.79 0.80 0.80

DFRL: dry fermented rumen liquor*Vitamin supplement: vit. A 8,500 IU; vit. D3 2,000 IU; vit. E 10 mg; vit. K 2.1 mg; thiamine 1.5 mg, riboflavin 4.0 mg, pyridoxine 3.0 mg, vit. B12 0.010 mg, nicotinic acid 30 mg, pantothenic acid 10 mg, folic acid 0.6 mg, biotin 0.10 mgMineral supplement: selenium 0.2 mg, iron 60 mg, copper 8 mg, zinc 70 mg, manganese 80 mg, iodine 0.80 mg, cobalt 0.5 mg

Table 3 Composition and contribution of diets for development stage of replacement laying hens (85-112 d of age) 

Ingredients DFRL inclusion levels, %
0 1 2 3
Corn meal 57.86 58.00 56.98 56.26
Soybean meal, 44 % CP 17.00 17.37 17.10 17.27
Wheat bran 18.50 17.00 17.00 16.30
DFRL 0 1.00 2.00 3.00
Plant oil 1.50 1.50 1.85 2,10
Monocalcium phosphate 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45
Calcium carbonate 1.92 1.92 1.85 1.85
Salt 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
DL- methionine 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17
L- lysine 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.12
Choline chlorite 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13
Mineral and vitamin premix* 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Calculated nutrient contribution, %
CP 14.56 14.59 14.50 14.50
ME, MJ/kg 11.51 11.51 11.51 11.51
CF 3.75 3.63 3.60 3.53
Calcium 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05
Phosphorus 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
L-lysine 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67
DL-methionine 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57
DFRL: dry fermented rumen liquor
*Vitamin supplement: vit. A 8,500 IU; vit. D3 2,000 IU; vit. E 10 mg; vit. K 2.1 mg; thiamine 1.5 mg, riboflavin 4.0 mg, pyridoxine 3.0 mg, vit. B12 0.010 mg, nicotinic acid 30 mg, pantothenic acid 10 mg, folic acid 0.6 mg, biotin 0.10 mg
Mineral supplement: selenium 0.2 mg, iron 60 mg, copper 8 mg, zinc 70 mg, manganese 80 mg, iodine 0.80 mg, cobalt 0.5 mg

Table 4 Composition and contribution of diets for pre-laying stage (113-126 d of age) 

Ingredients DFRL inclusion levels, %
0 1 2 3
Corn meal 61.86 60.90 56.98 56.26
Soybean meal, 44 % CP 25.90 26.25 17.10 17.27
Wheat bran 5.00 4.00 5.00 5.00
DFRL 0 1.00 2.00 3.00
Plant oil 0 0.50
Monocalcium phosphate 1.54 1.54 1.45 1.45
Calcium carbonate 4.35 4.33 1.85 1.85
Salt 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35
DL- methionine 0.10 0.10 0.17 0.17
Choline chlorite 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13
Mineral and vitamin premix* 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Calculated nutrient contribution, %
CP 16.96 17.05 16.81 16.88
ME, MJ/kg 11.63 11.64 11.63 11.63
CF 2.87 2.80 2.75 2.65
Calcium 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Phosphorus 0.45 0.44 0.44 0.44
L-lysine 0.86 0.86 0.84 0.85
DL-methionine 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.60
DFRL: dry fermented rumen liquor
*Vitamin supplement: vit. A 8,500 IU; vit. D3 2,000 IU; vit. E 10 mg; vit. K 2.1 mg; thiamine 1.5 mg, riboflavin 4.0 mg, pyridoxine 3.0 mg, vit. B12 0.010 mg, nicotinic acid 30 mg, pantothenic acid 10 mg, folic acid 0.6 mg, biotin 0.10 mg
Mineral supplement: selenium 0.2 mg, iron 60 mg, copper 8 mg, zinc 70 mg, manganese 80 mg, iodine 0.80 mg, cobalt 0.5 mg

A single batch of the product was produced in the Food Production Laboratory of the Institute of Animal Science, as described by Savón et al. (2020). For diet formulation, the bromatological composition of the DFRL was considered: 88.90 % of dry matter (DM), 9.25 % of crude protein (CP), 0.49 % of crude fiber (FB), 0.35 % of total phosphorus (tP) and 0.48 % of calcium (Ca).

Productive indicators. Productive performance was determined according to growth stages (42, 84 and 126 d of age): feed intake by the offer and rejection method, liveweight on a technical scale (SARTORIUS, Germany), with ± 0.10 g precision and feed conversion (kg/kg liveweight gain). Deaths were daily controlled, which allowed to find the viability in each stage. For uniformity, the individual liveweight of 21 birds/treatment was used for each rearing stage. At the end, 10 hens per treatment were sacrificed to evaluate ovary and oviduct development. Oviduct length and weight data, as well as ovary weight, were taken, which allowed calculating these indicators relative to liveweight.

Statistical methods. The theoretical assumptions of the analysis of variance and normality of errors were verified based on Shapiro and Wilk (1965) test and by homogeneity of variance, according to Levene (1960) test for the viability variable. As the theoretical assumptions of ANAVA were not met, the arcsine √ % transformation was used. However, the latter did not improve compliance with these assumptions, so a non-parametric Kruskal Wallis analysis of variance was performed. Conover (1999) test was applied for the comparison of mean ranges.

For the productive indicators feed intake, liveweight, feed conversion, oviduct relative length, relative weights of oviduct and ovary, analysis of variance was performed, according to a completely randomized design. Mean values were compared using Duncan (1955) test in the necessary cases. For batch uniformity, descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, coefficient of variation, and confidence intervals) was applied. For data analysis, the statistical package Infostat (Di Rienzo et al. 2012) was used.

Results and Discussion

Table 5 shows that viability of replacement layers was greater than 96 %, demonstrating that DFRL had no negative effects on poultry health. The product did not influence on feed intake. However, at 84 d of age, feed conversion improved (P=0.0003) compared to the group in which it was not included. Meanwhile, in general rearing (1-126 d of age), no differences were found for this indicator among the groups with DFRL. The group with 2 % differed (P=0.0245) from those that did not receive the product (4.51 vs. 4.76, respectively).

Table 5 Productive response of replacement laying hens with the inclusion of DFRL in diets 

Productive indicators DFRL inclusion levels, % SE (±) P
0 1 2 3
General viability, % 9.64
(96.66)
SD =2.72
17.79
(99.51)
SD =1.26
16.86
(98.56)
SD =3.78
13.71
(98.09)
SD =2.62
0.1220
Feed intake, kg/hen
1-42 d of age
43-84 d of age
85-126 d of age
1-126 d of age
Feed conversion, kg/kg
1-42 d of age
43-84 d of age
85-126 d of age
1-126 d of age

2.42
1.98a
2.29
4.76a

2.48
1.88b
2.24
4.63ab

2.42
1.88b
2.18
4.51b

2.45
1.86b
2.23
4.60ab

0.04
0.02
0.03
0.05

0.5168
0.0003
0.0511
0.0245
Liveweight, g/hen
42 d of age
84 d of age
126 d of age

458
1162a
1349a

445
1215b
1385ab

450
1215b
1419b

452
1219b
1395ab

5.63
9.69
15.85

0.4534
0.0008
0.0360
a,b Different letters in the same line differ at P < 0.05
DFRL: dry fermented ruminal liquor
SD: standard deviation () means from original data

Results correspond to those of Savón et al. (2020), who found greater elongation of villi of the mucus of the small intestine and hyperplasia of cecal tonsils in broilers that consumed DFRL, which could indicate better absorption of nutrients and possible immunostimulatory effect. Similarly, DFRL, due to its richness in Lactobacillus, yeasts, organic acids with short carbonated chains and low pH, could stabilize the flora of the gastrointestinal tract and increase digestibility of dry matter and cell wall (Castro et al. 2018).

Several studies point out the beneficial effect of fermentation and lactic acid bacteria on indicators of productive performance. Authors such as Chiang et al. (2010), Missotten et al. (2013) and Sugiharto and Ranjitkar (2019) suggested that fermented products can increase the length of the small intestine to maintain the normal microbial ecosystem and improve intestinal morphology. This makes it possible to increase digestion and absorption, which translates into a better productive performance. Wu et al. (2019) found, with the use of Lactobacillus, an increase of these microorganisms in the intestine, a higher serum concentration of immunoglobulins, as well as a decrease of Escherichia coli and pH in the ileum and cecum, which favors poultry health.

Liveweight of hens, at 84 d of age, was similar in the treatments with DFRL and superior to control group (P=0.0008). However, at 126 d of age, this indicator remained similar among experimental treatments, and only 2 % was higher (P=0.0360) than the group without the product (1419 vs. 1349 g/bird, respectively). The previous is related to the best feed conversion achieved in the treatments with the product, and allowed the good body development of the animals. This is important, since the growth stage is the one with the greatest weight gain during rearing. In this period, the birds develop 90 % of their bone structure (Grandía et al. 2016), which will allow having a bird that has body reserves for laying.

At 126 d of age, regardless of the treatment, animals reached a liveweight higher than that established for this line (1,300 g/bird). This aspect should be considered for future studies, since some authors refer that overweight hens can determine lower yields in layers than those that arrive with the appropriate weight. This, in turn, means lower egg shell thickness, inferior persistence in production and greater death risk due to prolapse of the oviduct (Callejo 2011 and Martínez et al. 2013). Although García et al. (2016), when studying the effect of body weight on bioproductive indicators in White Leghorn L33 hens, found differences between production, weight and size of eggs for the group with higher body weight, higher internal egg quality (white and yolk height) was confirmed.

Batch uniformity in poultry rearing describes the variability in a population, and the more homogeneous it is, then it is expressed into better production (Itzá et al. 2011). Table 6 demonstrates that all liveweights, regardless of treatment and age, were found between the minimum and superior limits, determined with a variation coefficient lower than 8. According to Anon (2020), a poultry batch having a coefficient of variation lower than 6, as it happens in the present research, corresponds to a uniformity superior to 90 %, which indicates that it was good. This will allow maintaining egg production in accordance with the potential of this genetic line (Gous 2018).

Table 6 Effect of the inclusion of DFRL on uniformity of liveweight of replacement layers, depending on the weeks of age 

DFRL inclusion levels, % Uniformity n Mean liveweight SD CV, % IL, 5 % SL, 95 %
0 42 d of age 21 477 16.04 3.37 469 484
84 d of age 21 1.179 64.21 5.45 1.150 1.208
126 d of age 21 1.389 88.58 6.38 1.348 1.429
1 42 d of age 21 464 21.69 4.68 454 473
84 d of age 21 1.220 38.06 3.12 1.203 1.237
126 d of age 21 1.465 38.06 2.60 1.448 1.482
2 42 d of age 21 458 17.47 3.82 450 466
84 d of age 21 1.219 49.84 4.09 1.197 1.242
126 d of age 21 1.464 49.84 3.40 1.442 1.487
3 42 d of age 21 468 16.30 3.49 460 475
84 d of age 21 1.227 58.56 4.77 1.200 1.253
126 d of age 21 1.472 58.56 3.98 1.445 1.498

SD: standard deviation, CV: coefficient of variation, IL: inferior limit, SL: superior limit

DFRL: dry fermented ruminal liquor

Ovary and oviduct development of hens is closely related to their body development, so it is necessary to optimize the achievement of their development for future production.

Table 7 shows values related to ovary and oviduct of replacement layers, with the inclusion of DFRL in the diet. No treatment effect was found on these reproductive tract variables. Although a higher numerical trend was observed, with 3 % of the product in the relative length of the oviduct, and also in the relative weight of the ovary, compared to the group that did not consume the product. This indicates the need to deepen into these aspects and also consider a larger sample size.

Table 7 Relative values of ovary and oviduct of replacement layers, with the inclusion of DFRL in the diet 

Variables DFRL inclusion levels, % SE± P
0 1 2 3
Oviduct relative length, cm/kg LW 6.90 6.07 6.25 8.14 0.63 0.1087
Ovary relative weight, g/kg LW 0.36 0.44 0.38 0.42 0.02 0.0889
Oviduct relative weight, g/kg LW 0.29 0.25 0.29 0.30 0.02 0.4624

DFRL: dry fermented ruminal liquor

Conclusions

Dry fermented ruminal liquor improved liveweight and feed conversion of replacement layers, with high viability and uniformity. Results allow to suggest the use of up to 3% of this product in the diet of this poultry category.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to technicians who carried out the assembly and control of this research, as well as workers of the poultry unit and technicians and assistants of the laboratory. Gratitude is also expressed to the workers of the Institute of Animal Science, especially to colleagues of the Biostatistics department of the institute for the statistical analysis of results.

References

Anon. 2020. "Uniformidad de los broilers". Artículos técnicos. Selecciones avícolas. Available: https://seleccionesavícolas.com/avicultura/2020/04. [ Links ]

Bramwell, K. 2003. "Breeder flock uniformity can make a difference" [on line]. Available: http://poultryandeggnews.com/poultrytimes/focus/july2003/608568.html [Consulted: February 20, 2021]. [ Links ]

Callejo, A. 2011. "Alimentación y control de peso en las futuras ponedoras". OpenCourseWare Available: http://ocw.upm.es/produccion-animal/produccion-avicola/contenidos/TEMA_5/5-3-alimentacion-y-controlde-peso-en-las-futuras-ponedoras/view. [ Links ]

Castro, J.I.B., Chirinos, D.M.P. & Sierra, W.N.R. 2018. “Uso de líquido ruminal en agua de bebida pollos broiler criados en condiciones de altura”. Revista de Investigaciones Veterinarias del Perú, 29(4): 1259-1267, ISSN: 1609-9117. http://dx.doi.org/10.15381/rivep.v29i4.12972. [ Links ]

Carrizo, J. & Lozano, J. M. 2007. "Alimentación de la pollita de inicio de puesta". XXIII curso de especialización FEDNA. p 93. Available: http://www.produccion-animal.com.ar/produccion_aves/produccion_avicola/71-07CAP_V.pdf. [ Links ]

Cherdthong, A., Wanapat, M., Saenkamsorn, A., Supapong, C., Anantasook, N. & Gunun, P. 2015. “Improving rumen ecology and microbial population by dried rumen digesta in beef cattle”. Tropical Animal Health and Production 47(5): 921-926, ISSN: 1573-7438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11250-015-0809-4. [ Links ]

Chiang, G., Lu, W.Q., Piao, X.S., Hu, J.K., Gong, L.M. & Thacker, P.A. 2010. “Effects of feeding solid-state fermented rapeseed meal on performance, nutrient digestibility, intestinal ecology and intestinal morphology of broiler chickens”. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences23(2):263-271, ISSN: 1976-5517. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2010.90145. [ Links ]

Conover, W.J. 1999. “Practical Nonparametric Statistics”. 3erd Ed. Ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY, USA, p.584, ISBN: 978-0471160687. [ Links ]

Di Rienzo, J.A., Balzarini, M.G., González, L., Tablada, M. & Robledo, C.W. 2012. "Software estadístico y biometría". Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina. [ Links ]

Duncan, B. 1955. “Multiple range and multiple F test”. Biometrics, 11(1): 1-42, ISSN: 1541-0420. https://doi.org/10.2307/3001478. [ Links ]

García, D.M., Colas, M.C., López, W.S., Pérez, O.R., Sánchez, A.P., Lamazares, M.D.C. & Grandía, R.G. 2016. “The body weight and its effect on bioproductive indicators in White Leghorn L33 hens”. Journal of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Zootechnics. 63(3): 188-200. https://doi.org/10.15446/rfmvz.v63n3.62714. [ Links ]

Godínez, O., Pérez, M., Colas, M., Sardá, R., Madrazo, G. & Hernández, M.L. 2013. "Manual Tecnológico de Crianza de Ponedoras y sus reemplazos". La Habana, Cuba, p. 10-24. [ Links ]

Gous, R. M. 2018. “Nutritional and environmental effects on broiler uniformity”. World's Poultry Science Journal, 74(1): 21-34, ISSN: 1743-4777. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933917001039. [ Links ]

Grandía, R., Colas, M., Soroa, J., Entrena, Á., Figueroa, T., Bada, A., Jáuregui S., García I., Burón M. & Pérez, M. 2016. “El peso corporal y su efecto sobre otros caracteres morfométricos en pollitas White Leghorn L33”. Revista de Investigaciones Veterinarias del Perú, 27(2): 267-276, ISSN: 1682-3419. http://dx.doi.org/10.15381/rivep.v27i2.11659. [ Links ]

Hu, Y.N., Wang, Y.W., Li, A.K., Wang, Z.S., Zhang, X.L.T., Yun, T.L., Qiu, W. & Yin, Y.H. 2016. “Effects of fermented rapeseed meal on antioxidant functions, serum biochemical parameters and intestinal morphology in broilers”. Food and Agricultural Immunology, 27: 182-193, ISSN 1465-3443. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540105.2015.1079592. [ Links ]

Itzá, M.F., Ortiz, J.O., Vidales, H.J., Arredondo, H.A.O., Elisea, J.A.Q., Alarcón, C.A.R. & Orozco, U.M. 2011. “Características de crecimiento de pollitas de postura en relación al tipo de alojamiento”. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 46(7): 768-771, ISSN: 1678-3921. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2011000700013. [ Links ]

Levene, H. 1960. "Robust tests for the equality of variance. Contributions to Probability and Statistics". Stanford University Press. pp.278-292. [ Links ]

Li, L., Li, W., Liu, S. & Wang, H. 2020. “Probiotic fermented feed improved the production, health and nutrient utilisation of yellow-feathered broilers reared in high altitude in Tibet”. British Poultry Science, 61:746-753, ISSN: 1466-1799. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2020.1801988. [ Links ]

Martínez, Y. A., López, Y.F., Martínez, O.Y., Olmo, C.G. & Rodríguez, R.B. 2013. “Influencia del peso vivo de gallinas ponedoras White Leghorn (L33) en la producción y calidad del huevo comercial”. Revista Granma Ciencia, 17 (1): enero-abril. ISSN: 1027-975X. [ Links ]

Missotten, J. A., Michiels, J., Dierick, N. L., Ovyn, A., Akbarian, A. & De Smet, S. 2013. “Effect of fermented moist feed on performance, gut bacteria and gut histo-morphology in broilers”. British Poultry Science, 54:627-634, ISSN: 1466-1799. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2013.811718. [ Links ]

Ríos, M. & Ramírez, L. 2012. “Aprovechamiento del contenido ruminal bovino para la ceba cunícola como estrategia para diezmar la contaminación generada por el matadero en San Alberto”Prospectiva, 10 (2):56-63, ISSN: 2216-1368. [ Links ]

Rodríguez, V.Y. 2021. "Evaluación de los indicadores productivos en ponedoras comerciales con ciclos más largos de puesta en Cuba". Avicultura.mx. Available: https://www.avicultura.mx/resultados-busqueda?busca=ponedoras&seccion=articulos. [Consulted: November 18, 2021]. [ Links ]

Romero-Treviño, E.M., Marín-Rodríguez, P., de la Cruz-Bautista, F. & González-Muñoz, A. 2017. "Valor nutritivo del contenido ruminal de bovinos sacrificados en la época de invierno en dos años consecutivos". Compendio Investigativo de academia Journal Celaya. Guanajuato, México. El libro Online. ISBN: 978-1-939982-32-2. [ Links ]

Savón, L., Sánchez, B., Elías, A., Ortega, H. J., Gutiérrez, M, Scull, I. & Herrera, M. 2020. “Effect of a dry fermented product on morphological, immunological, histological and health indicators of broilers”. Cuban Journal of Agricultural Science, 54(1): 85-94, ISSN: 2079-3480. [ Links ]

Shapiro, S. & Wilk, B. 1965. "An analyses of variant test for normality (complete simples)". Biometrika, 52(3-4): 591-611, ISSN: 1464-3510. https://doi.org/10.2307/2333709. [ Links ]

Sugiarto, A., Rosyidi, D. & Hasanuddin, A. 2014. “Protein digestibility performance and carcass quality of broilers chickens fed diets supplemented with centrifuged rumen contents”. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 26(2), Article #31, Available: http://lrrd.org/lrrd26/2/sugi26031.htm. [ Links ]

Wang, J., Ishfaq, M. Guo, Y. Chen, C. & Li, J. 2020. “Assessment of probiotic properties of Lactobacillus salivarius isolated from chickens as feed additives”. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7: 415. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00415. [ Links ]

Wu, X.Z., Wen, Z.G. & Hua, J.L. 2019. “Effects of dietary inclusion of Lactobacillus and inulin on growth performance, gut microbiota, nutrient utilization, and immune parameters in broilers”. Poultry Science, 98(10): 4656-4663. ISSN: 0032-5791. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pez166. [ Links ]

Zhu, F., Zhang, B., Li, J. & Zhu, L. 2020. “Effects of fermented feed on growth performance, immune response, and antioxidant capacity in laying hen chicks and the underlying molecular mechanism involving nuclear factor-κB”. Poultry Science, 99 (5): 2573-2580. ISSN: 0032-5791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2019.12.044. [ Links ]

Received: September 02, 2021; Accepted: January 13, 2022

*Email: brodriguez@ica.co.cu

Conflict of interest: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interests among them

Author´s contribution: Bárbara Rodríguez: Conceptualization, Investigation, Data curation, Writing – original draft.Lourdes L. Savón: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft. Arabel Elías ϯ: Conceptualization. Magaly Herrera: Formal analysis, Writing – original draft

Creative Commons License This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License