Effects of dietary fiber on growth performance, slaughter performance, serum biochemical parameters, and nutrient utilization in geese.

We investigated the effects of dietary fiber on growth performance, slaughter performance, serum biochemical parameters, and nutrient utilization in geese. A total of 468 one-day-old healthy male Yangzhou goslings with similar body weight were randomly divided into 3 groups with 6 replicates per group and 26 geese per replicate. The geese were then raised for 70 days on diets with a dietary fiber level of 2.5% (Group I), 6.1% (Group III), or 4.3% for d one to 28 and 6.1% for d 29 to 70 (Group II). The geese in Groups II and III had higher body weight, higher average daily gain, and lower ratio of feed to gain compared with those in Group I (P < 0.05 for each comparison). The geese in Groups II and III had greater body-size measurements (half-diving length, body length, keel length, and shank circumference), heavier viscera (heart, gizzard, proventriculus, duodenum, jejunum, ileum, and cecum), greater slaughter yield (semi-eviscerated carcass yield, eviscerated carcass yield, and breast yield), lower serum levels of alanine transaminase, uric acid, and blood urea nitrogen, and higher serum levels of glucose and high-density lipoprotein compared with those in Group I (P < 0.05 for each comparison). The geese in Groups II and III exhibited greater utilization of energy and crude protein compared with those in Group I (P < 0.05). Taken together, the results suggest that the low-fiber diet had negative effects on growth performance, slaughter performance, serum biochemical parameters, and nutrient utilization. As herbivorous poultry, geese depend on dietary fiber for normal performance. Dietary fiber is thus an essential nutrient for geese.

Relationship between six-minute walking test and pulmonary function and ventilatory drive in patients with airflow limitation.

BACKGROUND: We studied the correlation between exercise tolerance and pulmonary function, arterial blood gases, and ventilatory drive in patients with airflow limitation (AFL). METHODS: Forty-one patients (36 men, 5 women, mean age 63.6 +/- 10.3 years) with forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) < 75% and FEV1/forced vital capacity (FVC) < 75% were enrolled. All patients were clinically stable with no impairment of the lower extremities. On the first day of the study, pulmonary function test (PF), including FVC, FEV1, diffusion capacity (DLCO), and residual volume (RV)/total lung capacity (TLC) was measured by plethysmography. On the next day, ventilatory drive P0.1 were measured before drawing blood gases. Then, a 6-minute walking test with pulse-oxymetry and end tidal CO2 monitoring was performed. Ventilation efficiency (O2SATp & ETCO2) was recorded every 6 seconds during exercise. RESULTS: The walking distance (WD) was significantly correlated to PF: FVC%, FEV1%, DLCO%, and RV/TLC. There was also a significant correlation between resting arterial blood gases (PaO2, PaCO2, SatO2) and PF (FVC%, FEV1%, DLCO% and RV/TLC). The SatO2 at the end of exercise was highly correlated to PF (FVC%, FEV1%, DLCO% and RV/TLC). Gas exchange parameters: PaO2, PaCO2, O2SATa, O2SATp at rest, and O2SATp at the end of exercise were also significantly related to WD. CONCLUSION: The magnitude of exercise intolerance in patients with AFL was not only significantly correlated to the impairment of pulmonary function, but also closely related to gas exchange during exercise. Therefore, limitation of ventilation could be identified earlier using an exercise test.

The effect of incentive spirometry on chest expansion and breathing work in patients with chronic obstructive airway diseases: comparison of two methods.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive airway diseases (COAD), characterized by mucus hypersecretion, lead to exercise intolerance. Incentive spirometry has been used to prevent postoperative pulmonary atelectasis. METHODS: To compare the efficacy of two incentive spirometers, Coach (volume-oriented) and Triflo (flow-oriented), in the work of breathing in COAD patients, 22 patients were randomized in this study: 12 patients (Triflo-II group) initially used Triflo-II for 10 minutes and then Coach for the same period. In contrast, the Coach group, including 10 patients, started with Coach followed by Triflo-II. After receiving incentive spirometry, lung expansion and work of breathing were assessed. RESULTS: Patients in the Coach group significantly increased chest wall expansion (p = 0.041), as compared with patients using Triflo-II. Similarly, there was also a significantly increased abdominal wall expansion in the Coach group (p = 0.0056), compared with that in the Triflo-II group. The need of accessory muscle assistance for breathing in the Coach group was significantly less than in the Triflo-II group (p = 0.047). It was easier for patients in the Coach group to start a breath (p = 0.0058) than for those in the Triflo-II group. For the entire group, 17 patients (77.3%) preferred Coach to assist their breathing, and only 4 patients (18.2%) favored Triflo-II. CONCLUSION: COAD patients achieved a larger expansion of the chest and abdomen with a Coach device. Our data provide a good rationale for an outcome study on the use of incentive spirometer in COAD patients.