Effect of antibiotic substitution with Saccharomyces cerevisiae and probiotic on hematic parameters and growth performance of broilers

Al-Ali, Safaa A.; AL-Taee, Shahbaa Kh.; Al-Sabaawy, Hadil B.

doi:10.33899/ijvs.2023.137187.2648

Journals List

Effect of antibiotic substitution with Saccharomyces cerevisiae and probiotic on hematic parameters and growth performance of broilers

Iraqi Journal of Veterinary Sciences

Article 16, Volume 37, Issue 3, July 2023, Pages 667-673 PDF (762.73 K)

Document Type: Research Paper

DOI: 10.33899/ijvs.2023.137187.2648

Authors

Safaa A. Al-Ali¹; Shahbaa Kh. AL-Taee¹; Hadil B. Al-Sabaawy^* ²

¹Department of Pathology and Poultry Disease, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Mosul, Mosul, Iraq

²Department of Pathology and Poultry Diseases, Collage of Veterinary Medicine, University of Mosul, Mosul, Iraq

Abstract

The pan about the usage of antibiotics in chicken feed in different parts of the world, and rising customer demand for poultry products free of antibiotics has heightened the attention of poultry researchers and producers in identifying appropriate substitution to such alternatives. The present research was aimed to study the effects of dietary supplemented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae, probiotics and mixing of them (S. cerevisiae and probiotic) on growth performances, activity of the immunity organs (thymus and bursa of Fabricius) and hematological profile, a total of 60 one day old birds were randomly divided into 4 band (n=15) (T1-T4). T1 band (control), T2 provided with 3 g/kg of S. cerevisiae, T3 provided with 200g/1000L of water and T4 provided with mixing of S. cerevisiae and probiotic. body weight was measured at zero, 7, 14, 21, 28 and 35 days and represented highly significant at P<0.05 in T4 band in contrast to the last band, as well intestine weights and immunity organs weights in T2, T3 and T4 showed high significant variation at P<0.05 when compared with T1 (control band), in addition to the person correlation weights between T4 which showed height significant variation in intestinal weights with immunity organs and Bursa of Fabricius was highly significant with thymus gland, from our results we concluded that supplemented of chicken diet with S. cerevisiae and probiotic improved growth performance, immunity organs activity, hemoglobin concentration and packed cell volume.

Highlights

Recently, people have resorted to using an -alternative to antibiotics.
These alternative materials have apparent effects on the immune system.
The -person correlation test showed high significant variation between the immunity organs and intestine.

Keywords

Substitution antibiotic; Probiotic; Immunity organs; Correlation test

Full Text

Introduction

While most of the commercial strains of broilers are characterized by a rapid rate of both growth and conversion, the expression of these bioactivities can be reach to the peak of their expression by the availability and the high efficiency of such an essential factor related to the intestinal tract of these broilers which translated by the high rate and high efficiency of both the digestion and the absorption (1,2) Antibiotics have been used to promote both the growth and control of the diseases in these broilers, however random and irrational usage of these antibiotic might cause a bacterial resistance, the dietary supplements are one of the important sources which, when added to the diet lead to an improvement-in the physical condition (3) and increasing body weight (4,5). S. cerevisiae are examples of these supplements (6-8). On the other side, Studies showed that Saccharomyces cerevisiae could be used as a substitute for improving the physical condition of the broilers as well as their immunity, specifically by improving the rate of digestion and the length of the villi (9-11). Both of these dietary supplements work directly on the Intestinal microflora by enhancing symbiosis through improving the proliferation of beneficial bacteria in the intestinal tract. Probiotics are another example of dietary supplements added to broilers food to enhance their nutritional value and maintain their gut health by increasing beneficial bacteria (12,13). These probiotics are also known for their role in boosting the immune system (14,15). Currently, the consumption of probiotics via food products are in high demand (16,17). the beneficial benefits of living probiotic cells in the gastrointestinal tract have been investigated (18-20), where the researchers have been focusing on the immediate consequences problems of the gastrointestinal tract (21).

Thus, the current work was designed to study the effects of dietary supplements with S. cerevisiae and probiotics, a correlation between the lymphatic organs and the digestive system within the groups, and their effects on growth performance and hematobiochemical test of broilers chicken in Mosul City.

Methods and materials

Ethical approve

At the University of Mosul, faculty of medicine, and based on the conical of ethics of animal extermination, the current work was accepted according to UM.VET.2022.021.

Experimental design

The experiment was conducted in the animal house of the College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Mosul, A total of 60 birds one day old age and mixed gender were used in the current work. They were gained from a private hatchery, and the main material was saccharomyces cerevisiae and probiotics. The birds were randomly divided into four groups. T1 as a control, T2 supplemented with 3 g/kg of saccharomyces cerevisiae, T3 supplemented with probiotic 200g/1000L of drinking water according to the manufacturer’s instructions and T4 supplemented with mixing of S. cerevisiae and probiotic. Throughout the experiment, food and water were provided ad libitum, and the Cobb Broiler management Guides recommendations for the environmental temperature program were followed.

Body weight

All broilers were wing-banded, and their body weights were determined-Randomly. broilers were assigned to remediation using individual broilers body weights after removing the lightest and heaviest ones, and chick's weights were taken at 0, 7, 14, 21, 28 and 35 on the last day of the experiment.

Somatic index

Furthermore, the immunity organs (Thymus and bursa of Fabricius) and intestine organs for each group were removed and weights during the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th killing.

Collection of blood sample

Blood samples were collected at the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th weeks of the experiment from the heart and wing veins according to the age of the birds. A total of 15 blood samples were collected from the treatment and control group into a clean and sterilized tube containing EDTA for measurement of blood hematology, including packed cell volume (PCV) and hemoglobin concentration (Hb) (22).

Statistical analysis

In order to determine the influences of S. cerevisiae and probiotics on hematobiochemical and growth performances of broilers in Mosul city, all results were statistically analyzed by using one-way ANOVA and T test at P<0.05 (23,24).

Results

Effects of S. cerevisiae, probiotic and their mixing on body weights

As shown in table 1, the effects of S. cerevisiae on BW during 7 and 14 and 21 and 28 and 35 days showed height significant variation at P<0.05 as well the T4 supplemented with a mixing (S. cerevisiae and probiotic) showed significant differences in contrast to the probiotic and control group.

Table 1: Effect of S. cerevisiae probiotic and mixing of them on bird’s body weight (kg) during 35 days

Groups	0 days	7 days	14 days	21 days	28 days	35 days
Control	39.40±1.35^ab	77.40±0.64^d	113.20±1.56^c	205.00±1.58^d	499.40±2.30^c	870.00±±1.58^d
S. cerevisiae	38.20±1.01^b	86.80±0.90^a	139.00±1.58^a	286.60±2.51^a	57800±6.44^a	1160.00±1.58^a
Probiotic	32.80±1.41^c	82.80±1.39^b	125.40±1.10^b	231.40±1.34^c	503.40±3.51^c	900.00±6.04^c
Mixed	40.80±1.50^a	80.80±0.92^c	126.00±1.58^b	246.60±1.25^b	516.20±1.35^b	1040.00±1.58^b

*Indicates significant differences between the two treatments at P<0.05. NS indicates that there are no significant differences between the two treatments.

Effects of S. cerevisiae, probiotic and mixing on intestinal weights during the experimental periods

The effects of S. cerevisiae on intestine weights are presented in table 2, and the treated groups during the 2^nd, 3^rd, and 5^th weeks showed highly significant variation when compared with the control group. As shown in table 3, the effects of probiotics on -intestinal weights represented significant height variation at 7 days during the experimental period-when compared with the control group. As represented in table 4 the effects of mixing S. cerevisiae and probiotics on the intestinal weight showed significant variation at 21 days in contrast to 35 days, while the 28 days represented a significant difference when compared with another group.

Table 2: Effects of S. cerevisiae on bird’s intestine weights (kg) during 35days

	7 days		14 days		21 days		28 days		35 days
	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont
Mean	4.70	4.32	9.28	6.50	13.50	11.62	32.83	29.15	46.80	35.36
SD	0.25	0.20	0.95	1.54	0.39	0.74	4.77	1.57	0.36	6.32
T	2.102^NS		2.664^**		3.867^NS		1.270^**		3.130^**
Sig.	0.103		0.05		0.018		0.273		0.035

*Indicates significant differences between the two treatments at P<0.05. NS indicates that there are no significant differences between the two treatments.

Table 3: effects of probiotic on intestine weights (kg)

	7 days		14 days		21 days		28 days		35 days
	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont
Mean	1.45	5.40	4.32	9.15	6.50	12.23	11.62	33.12	29.15	45.60
SD	0.04	0.08	0.20	0.85	1.54	1.26	0.74	3.39	1.57	9.53
T	8.86^**		2.610^NS		0.721^NS		1.842^NS		1.551^NS
Sig.	0.001		0.059		0.511		0.139		0.196

*Indicates significant differences between the two treatments at P<0.05. NS indicates that there are no significant differences between the two treatments.

Table 4: Effects of S. cerevisiae and probiotic on intestine weights (Kg)

	7 days		14 days		21 days		28 days		35 days
	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont
Mean	1.05	4.44	4.32	7.32	6.50	18.08	11.62	41.56	29.15	42.22
SD	0.04	0.09	0.20	0.55	1.54	0.24	0.74	5.70	1.57	1.87
T	1.021^NS		0.869^NS		14.328**		3.636*		1.803^NS
Sig.	0.365		0.434		0.000		0.022		0.146

* Indicates that there are significant differences between the two treatments at P<0.05. ** Indicates that there are highly significant differences between the two treatments at P<0.01. NS indicates that there are no significant differences between the two treatments.

Effects S. cerevisiae on immunity organs

The results in a table 5 showed significant height variation in the weight of immunity organs during 7, 14 and 35 days in contrast to weights of these organs at 21 and 28 that showed no significant differences in the bursa of Fabricius weights in contrast to the control group. The effects of S. cerevisiae on thymus weights showed height significance on thymus weights during 7, 14, 21 and 35 days in contrast to weights of these organs at 28 days that showed no significant differences in thymus weights when compared with the control group.

Table 5: Effects of S. cerevisiae on bursa fabrics weights (%)

	7 days		14 days		21 days		28 days		35 days
	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont
Mean	0.08	0.15	0.13	0.22	0.22	0.65	0.39	1.36	0.66	0.80
SD	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.04	0.20	0.02	0.52	0.02
T	8.497		11.13		2.157		2.330		3.196
Sig.	0.001^**		0.001^**		0.097^NS		0.080^NS		0.033^*

* Indicates significant differences between the two treatments at P<0.05. **Indicates that there are highly significant differences between the two treatments at P<0.01. NS indicates that there are no significant differences between the two treatments.

Table 6: Effects of S. cerevisiae on thymus weights (%)

	7 days		14 days		21 days		28 days		35 days
	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont
Mean	0.10	0.20	0.11	0.38	0.24	0.95	0.68	1.79	1.43	3.36
SD	0.00	0.04	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.04	0.00	0.08	0.60	0.00
T	3.990^*		30.01^**		12.322^**		1.007^NS		3.041^*
Sig.	0.016		0.00		0.000		0.371		0.038

Effects probiotic on immunity organs

Table 7 shows the effects of probiotics on immunity organs, Bursa, weights do not represent significant differences during 21, 28 and 35 days, while it showed the highest differences at 7 and 14 days, as well the thymus gland showed height significant variation at 7 days and 14 days, while weights during 21, 28 and 35 did not differ significantly between the group.

Table 7: shows the effects of probiotics on bursa fabrics weights (%)

	7 days		14 days		21 days		28 days		35 days
	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont
Mean	0.211	0.132	0.351	0.218	0.437	0.393	1.720	0.660	0.850	0.610
SD	0.002	0.003	0.001	0.001	0.015	0.200	0.510	0.520	0.131	0.100
T	33.00^**		28.721^**		0.374^NS		2.521^NS		2.521^NS
Sig.	0.000		0.000		0.728		0.065		0.065

**Indicates that there are highly significant differences between the two treatments at P<0.01. NS indicates that there are no significant differences between the two treatments.

Table 8: Showed the effects of probiotics on thymus weights (%)

	7 days		14 days		21 days		28 days		35 days
	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont
Mean	0.057	0.097	0.207	0.106	0.308	0.236	0.795	0.680	2.300	1.432
SD	0.003	0.002	0.002	0.003	0.058	0.001	0.380	0.000	0.010	0.603
T	21.911^**		48.519^**		2.139^NS		0.522^NS		2.493^NS
Sig.	0.000		0.000		0.099		0.629		0.067

Effects S. cerevisiae and probiotic on immunity organs

The effects of mixing S. cerevisiae and probiotics on chicken immunity organs are represented in table 9. It showed significant differences in Bursa weight during 7 and 14 days and a significant differences in weights of gland during 35 days and did not are present significant differences between the group at 21 and 28 days. Table 10 showed no significant changes in thymus weights during 14 and 28 days, while it was highly significant during zero, 7, 21 and 35 days.

Table 9: Shows the effects of mixing of them on Bursa weights (%)

	7 days		14 days		21 days		28 days		35 days
	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont
Mean	0.217	0.132	0.477	0.218	0.620	0.393	1.283	0.660	1.063	0.610
SD	0.004	0.003	0.006	0.001	0.050	0.200	0.145	0.520	0.165	0.100
T	29.963^**		77.115^**		1.901^NS		2.000^NS		4.069^*
Sig.	0.000		0.000		0.130		0.116		0.015

Table 10: Shows the effects of mixing-of them on thymus gland weights (%)

	7 days		14 days		21 days		28 days		35 days
	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont	SAR	Cont
Mean	0.157	0.106	0.310	0.236	0.973	0.680	1.740	1.432	3.453	2.042
SD	0.003	0.003	0.053	0.001	0.075	0.000	0.200	0.603	0.445	0.748
T	22.706^**		2.417^NS		6.769^**		0.840^NS		2.810^*
Sig.	0.000		0.000		0.130		0.116		0.015

Effects of S. cerevisiae, probiotic and mixing of them on hematological parameters

Figure 1 and 2, showed the effects of S. cerevisiae, probiotic and mixing of them on hemoglobin concentration and packed cell volume during the experimental period. It was highly significant differences with T4. Furthermore, T2 and T3 showed significant variation in hematological parameters compared with T1 (control). Table 11 represents the correlation ship of mixing supplemented of S. cerevisiae and probiotic on immunity organs and intestine weights, there was a highly significant difference in intestinal weights with (bursa and thymus gland weights) as well bursa of Fabricius showed highly significant variation with thymus gland weights

Figure 1: Effects of S. cerevisiae, probiotic and mixing of them on Hb concentration (gm/dl).

Figure 2: Effects of S. cerevisiae, probiotic and mixing of them PCV (%).

Table 11: Shows the effect of the correlation ship of S. cerevisiae and probiotic on thymus, bursa and intestine weight

Organs	Bursa weights	Thymus weights
Intestine	0.771**	0.933**
Bursa of Fabricius	1	0.683**

** Indicates a highly significant correlation coefficient between the T4 at P<0.01.

Discussion

cerevisiae has multiple beneficial effects on humankinds’ health and animals. According to the critical structures of these materials, it has been used in broiler and livestock as a supplemented feed and as alternative material (25). Administration of S. cerevisiae and probiotics increased body weights of the chickens during the experimental period and these related to the effects of these yeast on intestinal microflora through promoting proliferation and growth of these microflora enhances the activity of the immune system (26). Additionally, the increased energy metabolism (27), and the highly significant variation in body weights in fourth group indicated that the combination of S. cerevisiae and probiotics improvement of growth of body weights better (28-30). Furthermore, supplemented of broiler feed with S. cerevisiae showed apparent effects on the internal organ's weights, an appropriate target for assessing immunological competency in poultry is lymphoid organs (31). In chicken, bursa of Fabricius is thought to be the main lymphoid organ and is a crucial organ in the differentiation of B lymphocyte (32). Our results showed an increase in the bursa weights at 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th weeks and these contributed to the activity of yeast in increasing metabolic activity and enlargement of the lymphoid organs, an increase in bursa weight in S. cerevisiae feed chicken was related to IgA production as a boosted immunity and these result agreement with Daneshmand et al. (33), and disagreement with Lin et al. (34) who mention that feeding of broiler with S. cerevisiae had no effects on the bursa weight.

Conclusion

Using S. cerevisiae and probiotics as a safety material to the regular antibiotic used in the chicken industry, we were able to prevent infection through the action of T4 that showed the best influences on growth performance, improved immunity organs activity, and hematological parameters of broiler profile.

Acknowledgments

The researcher is beholden to the faculty of veterinary medicine at the university of Mosul for their support of this study.

Conflict of interest

The researcher acknowledges that there are non-conflicts of interest in this work.

References

Ahmed M, Talha EA, Mojahid AA, Dafaalla EM. Effect of dietary yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae supplementation on performance, carcass characteristics and some metabolic responses of broilers. Anim Vet Sci. 2015;3(5):5-10. DOI: 11648/j.avs.s.2015030501.12
Lu Z, Thanabalan A, Leung H, Akbari MR, Patterson R, Kiarie EG. The effects of feeding yeast bioactive to broiler breeders and/or their offspring on growth performance, gut development, and immune function in broiler chickens challenged with Eimeria. Poult Sci. 2019;98(12):6411-6421. DOI: 3382/ps/pez479
Kimsé M, Bayourthe C, Fortun LL, Cauquil L, Combes S, Gidenne T. Live yeast stability in rabbit digestive tract: Consequences on the caecal ecosystem, digestion, growth and digestive health. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2012;173:235-243. DOI: 1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.01.012
Rotolo L, Gai F, Peiretti PG, Ortoffi M, Zoccarato I, Gasco L. Live yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae var boulardii supplementation in fattening rabbit diet: Effect on productive, performance and meat quality. Livest Sci. 2014;162:178-184. DOI: 1016/j.livsci.2014.01.022
Belhassen T, Bonai A, Gerencsér ZS, Matics ZS, Tuboly T, Bergaoui R, Kovacs M. Effect of diet supplementation with live yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae on growth performance, caecal ecosystem and health of growing rabbits. World Rabbit Sci. 2016;24(3):191. DOI: 4995/wrs.2016.3991
Murshed MA, Abudabos AM. Effects of dietary inclusion of probiotics, prebiotics, or their combination on the growth performance of broiler chickens. Rev Bras Cienc Avic. 2015;17:99-103. DOI: 1590/1516-635.099-104
Abudabos AM, Alyemni AH, Dafalla YM, Khan RU. Effect of organic acid blend and Bacillus subtilis alone or in combination on growth traits, blood biochemical, and antioxidant status in broilers exposed to Salmonella typhimurium challenge during the starter phase. J Appl Anim Res. 2017;45:538-542. DOI: 1080/09712119.2016.1219665
Bovera F, Nizza S, Marono S, Mallardo K, Piccolo G, Tudisco R, De Martino L, Nizza A. Effect of mannan oligosaccharides on rabbit performance, digestibility, and rectal bacterial anaerobic populations during an episode of epizootic rabbit enteropathy. World Rabbit Sci. 2010;18:9-16. DOI: 4995/wrs.2010.18.02
Ghasemi HA, Kasani N, Taherpour K. Effects of black cumin seed (Nigella sativa L.), a probiotic, a prebiotic, and a symbiotic on growth performance, immune response, and blood characteristics of male broilers. Livest Prod Sci. 2014;164:128-134. DOI: 1016/j.livsci.2014.03.014
Zhang AW, Lee BD, Lee KW, Song KB, An GH, Lee CH. Effects of yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae cell components on growth performance, meat quality, and ileal mucosa development of broiler chicks. Poult Sci. 2005;84:1015-1021. DOI: 1093/ps/84.7.1015
Bovera F, Lestingi A, Marono S, Iannaccone F, Nizza S, Mallardo K, de Martino L, Tateo A. Effect of dietary mannanoligosaccharides on in vivo performance, nutrient digestibility and caecal content characteristics of growing rabbits. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr. 2012;96(1):130-136. DOI: 1111/j.1439-0396.2011.01134.x
Ailioaie L, Litscher G. Probiotics, photobiomodulation, and disease management: Controversies and challenges. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(9):4942. DOI: 3390/ijms22094942
Milner E, Stevens B, An M, Lam V, Ainsworth M, Dihle P. Utilizing probiotics for the prevention and treatment of gastrointestinal diseases. Front Microbiol. 2021;12. DOI: 3389/fmicb.2021.689958
Palanivelu J, Thanigaivel S, Vickram S, Dey N, Mihaylova D, Desseva I. Probiotics in functional foods: Survival assessment and approaches for improved viability. Appl Sci. 2022;12(1):455. DOI: 3390/app12010455
Haghighi HR, Grong J, Gyles CL, Hayes MA, Sanei B, Parvizi P, Gisavi H, Chambers JR, Sharif S. Modulation of antibody-mediated immune response by probiotics in chickens. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2005;12:1387-1392. DOI: 1128/cdli.12.12.1387-1392.2005
Taha AM. Comparative histological and histochemical study of the ileum in two different birds. Iraqi J Vet Sci. 2021;35(3):479-87. DOI: 33899/ijvs.2020.127046.1447
Gunal M, Yayli G, Kaya O, Karahan N, Sulak O. The effects of antibiotic growth promoter, probiotic or organic acid supplementation on performance, intestinal microflora and tissue of broilers. Int J Poult Sci. 2006;5:149-155. DOI: 3923/ijps.2006.149.155
Biswas A, Dev K, Tyagi PK, Mandal A. The effect of multi-strain probiotics as feed additives on performance, immunity, expression of nutrient transporter genes, and gut morphometry in broiler chickens. Anim Biosci. 2022;35(1):64-74. DOI: 5713/ab.20.0749
Fallah R, Mirzaei E. Effect of adding L-carnitine and Protexin^® probiotic on performance and some blood parameters of ostrich chickens. Braz J Biol Sci. 2016;3(5):153. DOI: 21472/bjbs.030514
Al-Aqaby AR, Glaskovich AA, Glaskovich AA. Effectiveness of using probiotic Batcinel-K^® and CEVAC SET-K^® vaccine on some blood parameters in chickens. Iraqi J Vet Sci. 2021;35(4):611-6. DOI: 33899/ijvs.2020.127018.1439
Kumar V, Naik B, Kumar A, Khanduri N, Rustagi S, Kumar S. Probiotics media: Significance, challenges, and future perspective - A mini review. Food Prod Process Nutr. 2022;4(1):10-12. DOI: 1186/s43014-022-00098-w
Feldman B, Sink C. Laboratory urinalysis and hematology for the small animal practitioner. 1^st New York: Teton New Media; 2004.
McCormick K, Salcedo J. SPSS statistics for data analysis and visualization. USA: John Wiley and Sons; 2017. 275-302 p.
Kim TK. T test as a parametric statistic. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2015;68(6):540. DOI: 4097/kjae.2015.68.6.540
Falcão-e-Cunha L, Castro L, Maertens L, Marounek M, Pinheiro V, Freire J, Mourão JL. Alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters in rabbit feeding. World Rabbit Sci. 2007;15:127-140. DOI: 4995/wrs.2007.597
Kiarie EG, Mohammadigheisar M, Kakhki RM, Madsen MH. Impact of feeding modified soy protein concentrate in the starter phase on growth performance and gastrointestinal responses in broiler chickens through to day 42 of age. Poult Sci. 2021;100(6):101147. DOI: 1016/j.psj.2021.101147
Muniyappan M, Jeon SY, Choi MK, Kim IH. Dietary inclusion of Achyranthes japonica extract to corn-soybean meal-wheat-based diet on the growth performance, nutrient digestibility, cecal microflora, excreta noxious gas emission, and meat quality of broiler chickens. Poult Sci. 2022;101(6):101852. DOI: 1016/j.psj.2022.101852
Afsharmanesh M, Barani M, Silversides FG. Evaluation of wet-feeding wheat-based diets containing Saccharomyces cerevisiae to broiler chickens. Br Poult Sci. 2010;51(6):776-83. DOI: 1080/00071668.2010.531006
Maina AN, Thanabalan A, Gasarabwe J, Mohammadigheisar M, Schulze H, Kiarie EG. Enzymatically treated yeast bolstered growth performance of broiler chicks from young broiler breeders linked to improved indices of intestinal function, integrity and immunity. Poult Sci. 2022;101(12):102175. DOI: 1016/j.psj.2022.102175
Mohsin M, Zhang Z, Yin G. Effect of probiotics on the performance and intestinal health of broiler chickens infected with Eimeria tenella. Vaccines. 2022;10(1):97. DOI: 3390/vaccines10010097
Cazaban C, Masferrer NM, Pascual RD, Espadamala MN, Costa T, Gardin Y. Proposed bursa of fabricius weight to body weight ratio standard in commercial broilers. Poult Sci. 2015;94(9):2088-93. DOI: 3382/ps/pev230
Schat KA, Skinner MA. Avian immunosuppressive diseases and immunoevasion. Avian Immunol. 2014:275-297. DOI: 1016/b978-0-12-396965-1.00016-9
Daneshmand A, Kermanshahi H, Danesh MM, King AJ, Ibrahim SA. Effect of purine nucleosides on growth performance, gut morphology, digestive enzymes, serum profile and immune response in broiler chickens. Br Poult Sci. 2017;58(5):536-43. DOI: 1080/00071668.2017.1335859
Lin J, Comi M, Vera P, Alessandro A, Qiu K, Wang J. Effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae hydrolysate on growth performance, immunity function, and intestinal health in broilers. Poult Sci. 2023;102(1):102237. DOI: 1016/j.psj.2022.102237
Mulatu K, Ameha N, Girma M. Effects of feeding different levels of baker s yeast on performance and hematological parameters in broiler chickens. J Worlds Poult Res. 2019;9(2):38-49. DOI: 36380/jwpr.2019.5
Özsoy B, Yalçin S. The effects of dietary supplementation of yeast culture on performance, blood parameters and immune system in broiler turkeys. Ank Univ Vet Fak Derg. 2011;58:117-122. DOI: 1501/Vetfak_0000002460
Seyidoğlu N, Galip N, Sonat FA. Effect of yeast culture on growth performance, hematological and biochemical indices of New Zealand white rabbits. Uludag Univ Vet Fak Derg. 2013;32(2):11-18. DOI: 30782/uluvfd.163480
Andreeva AV, Khakimova AZ, Ivanov AI, Nikolaeva ON, Altynbekov OM. Immunomodulatory effect of the combined use of vetosporin Zh probiotic and Gumi-malysh biologically active additive. Vet World. 2021;1915-21. DOI: 14202/vetworld.2021.1915-1921
Afsharmanesh M, Sadaghi B, Silversides FG. Influence of supplementation of prebiotic, probiotic, and antibiotic to wet-fed wheat-based diets on growth, ileal nutrient digestibility, blood parameters, and gastrointestinal characteristics of broiler chickens. Comp Clin Path. 2011;22(2):245-51. DOI: 1007/s00580-011-1393-2
Osita CO, Ani AO, Ugwuowo LC, Akuru EA, Njoku S. Organ weights and biochemical indices of broiler chickens fed diets containing Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Agro-Sci. 2020;19(4):14-7. DOI: 4314/as.v19i4.3
Abdel-Latif M, Abd El-Hack M, Swelum A, Saadeldin I, Elbestawy A, Shewitsa R. Single and combined effects of Clostridium butyricum and Saccharomyces cerevisiae on growth indices, intestinal health, and immunity of broilers. Anim. 2018;8(10):184. DOI: 3390/ani8100184
Abdul-Majeed AF, Abdul-Rahman SY. Impact of breed, sex, and age on hematological and biochemical parameters of local quail. Iraqi J Vet Sci. 2021;35(3):459-64. DOI: 33899/ijvs.2020.126960.1432
Qui NH. Baker’s yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) and its application on poultry’s production and health: A review. Iraqi J Vet Sci. 2022;37(1):213-21. DOI: 33899/ijvs.2022.132912.2146

Statistics

Article View: 336

PDF Download: 205