Dietary effects of commercial probiotics on growth performance, digestibility, and intestinal morphometry of broiler chickens
- 139 Downloads
This study compared five commercially available probiotics vis-à-vis antibiotic growth promotant (AGP) supplementation and absence of feed additive based on efficiency, intestinal morphometry, and energy digestibility in improving broiler chicken production. A total of 630 straight run (Cobb) day-old broiler chicks were distributed to seven treatments following a completely randomized design, with ten replicates per treatment and nine birds per replicate per cage. Dietary treatments consisted of basal diet in combination with the following: without probiotics and AGP supplementation (treatment 1); 75 ppm each of chlorotetracycline (CTC) and Zn bacitracin (treatment 2); probiotic A, Bacillus subtilis (treatment 3); probiotic B, Bacillus subtilis (treatment 4); probiotic C, Enterococcus faecium (treatment 5); and probiotic D, Bacillus subtilis (treatment 6); probiotic E, Enterococcus faecium, Bifidobacterium spp., Pediococcus spp., and Lactobacillus spp. (treatment 7). At day 42, energy digestibility was determined by fasting three randomly selected birds from each treatment for 12 h and then subjecting them to their corresponding dietary treatments. Excreta were collected and pooled after 24 h of feeding. Pooled excreta were weighed, oven-dried, and subjected to energy analyses after 3-day collection. Apparent total tract metabolizable energy was then computed. At day 47, three birds were randomly selected per treatment for intestinal morphometry (villi height and crypt depth) of the duodenum, jejunum, and ileum. Dietary supplementation using probiotics showed no significant effect on overall body weight, weight gain, feed consumption, feed efficiency, dressing percentage, mortality, harvest recovery, carcass quality parameters (e.g., meat to bone ratio and abdominal fat content), intestinal morphometry, and energy digestibility. Birds under treatment 7 (basal feed + probiotic E) generated the highest income over feed and chick cost.
KeywordsProduction performance Carcass quality Probiotics Antibiotic growth promotant Apparent Metabolizable Energy Intestinal morphometry
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Aceret, A.G. 1988. Commercial growth promotants on the performance of broilers (MS Thesis, University of the Philippines Los Baños).Google Scholar
- Balotoc, A.T. 1992. Zinc bacitracin, zeolite and live yeast culture in broiler diets. (Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis, University of the Philippines Los Baños).Google Scholar
- Dizaji, B. R., Zakeri, A., Golbazfarsad, A., Faramarzy, S., and Ranjbari, O. 2013 Influences of Different Growth Promoters on Intestinal Morphology of Broiler Chickens. European Journal of Experimental Biology, 3(2):32–37Google Scholar
- Flores, H.R. 2003. Effects of different batches of liquid probiotics on the performance of broilers (Unpublished BS Thesis, University of the Philippines Los Baños).Google Scholar
- Lope, C. 2003. The performance of broilers fed with probiotics in drinking water, in feed or both. (Unpublished BS Thesis, University of the Philippines Los Baños).Google Scholar
- Mohnl, M. 2006. Benefits from using biomin c-x and biomin imbo in poultry production. Biomin Newsletter, 4–37.Google Scholar
- Mountzouris, K.C., P. Tsirtsikos, E. Kalamara, S. Nitsch, G. Schatmayr, and K. Fegeros. 2007. Evaluation of the Efficacy of a Probiotic Containing Lactobacillus, Bifido bacterium, Enterococcus, and Pediococcus strains in Promoting Broiler Performance and Modulating Cecal Microflora Composition and Metabolic Activities. Poultry Science 86:309–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Olnood, G., Beski S.M.S, Choct, M., And Iji, P.A. 2015. Novel Probiotics: Their Effects on Growth Performance, Gut Development, Microbial Community and Activity of Broiler Chickens. Chinese Association of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co.,Ltd.Google Scholar
- Otutumi, L.K., Gois, B.M., Garcia E.R. and Loddi, M.M. 2012. Variations on the efficacy of probiotics in poultry. Probiotic in Animals, Everlon Cid Rigobelo, IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/50058.
- Panda, A.K., Reddy, M.R., Ramarao, S.V. and Praharaj, N.K. 2000. Effect of dietary supplementation of probiotic on performance and immune response of layers in decline phase of production. Indian Journal of Poultry Science, 3, 102–104.Google Scholar
- Pelicia, K., Mendes, A.A., Saldanha E.S.P.B., Pizzolante, C.C., Takashi, S.E., Moreira, J., Garcia, R.G., Quinteiro, R.R., Paz, I.C.L.A., and Komiyama, C.M. 2004. Use of prebiotics and probiotics of bacterial and yeast origin for free-range broiler chickens. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-635X2004000300006.
- Piao X.S., Han, I.K., Kim, J.H., Cho, W.J., Kim, Y.H., Chao, L. 1999. Effects of enzyme, phytase, and yeast supplementation on the growth performance and pollution reduction of chickens. Applied and Environmental Microbiology Journal, 65(11), 4981–6.Google Scholar
- Ramlah, A.H. and Tan, C.K. 1995. Effects of probiotic supplementation on broiler performance. Perlanika Journal of Tropical Agricultural Science, 18(2), 109–112.Google Scholar
- Roughani, E., Arab, M. and Akbarian, A. 2007. Effects of probiotic and other feed additives on performance and immune response of broiler chicks. Department of Animal Science, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.Google Scholar
- Samli, H.E., Senkoylu, N., Koc, M., Kanter, M,. and Agma, A. 2007. Arch. Effect of a dietary supplementation combining a probiotic and a natural anticoccidial in broiler chickens. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 61(1), 42–49.Google Scholar
- Santoso, U., Tanaka, K. and Othani S. 1995. Effects of dried Bacillus cultures on growth of lipogenic enzymes in female chicks. British Journal, 7, 123–129.Google Scholar
- Singh, S. K, Niranjan, P. S, Singh, U. B, Koley S, Verma, D.N. 2009. Effects of dietary supplementation of probiotics on broiler chicken. Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology, 9, 23–24.Google Scholar
- Snel, J. H., J. M. Harmsen, P. W. Van De Wielen, And B. A. Williams. 2002. Dietary strategies to influence the gastrointestinal microflora of young animals, and its potential to improve intestinal health. Pages 37–69 in Nutrition and Health of the Gastrointestinal Tract. M. C. Block, ed. Wageningen Academic Publishing, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
- Talebi, A., Amirzadeh, B., Mokhtar, B., and Gahri, H. 2008. Production of organic acids by probiotic Lactobacilli can be used to reduce pathogen load in poultry. PLOS ONE, 37(5), 509–512.Google Scholar
- Tanaka, K. and Santoso, S. 2000. Fermented product from Bacillus subtillis inhibits lipid accumulation and ammonia production of broiler chickens. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science, 13, 78–80.Google Scholar
- Weis, J., Hrnčár, C., Pál, G., Baraňska, B., Bujko, J., and Malíková, L. 2011. Effect of probiotic strain Enterococcus faecium M74 supplementation on the carcass parameters of different hybrid combination chickens. Scientific Papers: Animal Science and Biotechnologies, 44(1). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266440078_Effect_of_Probiotic_Strain_Enterococcus_faecium_M74_Supplementation_on_the_Carcass_Parameters_of_Different_Hybrid_Combination_Chickens