Effet chez le porcelet d'une exposition à un régime co-contaminé en ...

Table 9 : Outcome of yeast cell walls effects in mycotoxin contaminated diets in different speciesAnimalspeciesmycotoxinconcentrationAdditivesconcentrationChickens AF (5 ppm) 0.05-0.1%Chickens AF (2 ppm) 0.05-0.1%Chickens AF (2 ppm) 0.075 %Chickens T-2 (8.1 ppm) 0.1%PigsPigsT-2 (up to 2.1ppm)DON (4.44ppm)0.2%0.2 %Outcome of feed additive effectsPerformance: improvement in body weightOrgans: restoration of relative weights of liver, proventriculus and heartSystemic response: positive effects on serum biochemical parametersPerformance : no dataOrgans : decline in the number and severity of pathological lesions in liver, bursaof Fabricius, thymus and spleenSystemic response : no dataPerformance: no dataOrgans: Subacute dietary intake of AF altered nonenzymatic components (CP, alb,vit A, â-carotene, Vit E) of antioxidant defense systems.Systemic response: yeast glucomannan was not sufficient to ameliorate theoxidative damagePerformance: no dataOrgans: partial protection of the feed additive alone and further protection incombinaison with organic selenium against antioxidant depletion and lipidperoxydation in liverSystemic response: no dataPerformance: no difference on performance whatever the dietsOrgans: no lesions were observed regardless of T-2 toxin dose or glucomannansupplementationSystemic response: protective effect against AFB 1 immunotoxicity during thevaccinal responsePerformance: Feeding of the mycotoxin-contaminated diets resulted in a decreasein feed intake and live weight gain by 28% and 14% when compared to the controlgroup.Organs: no dataSystemic response: The addition of glucomannan mycotoxin adsorbent to pigletReferencesStanley etal. (1993)Karaman etal. (2005)Çinar et al.(2008)Dvorska etal. (2007)Meissonnieret al. (2009)Dänicke etal. (2007)