Effect of Exogenous Emulsifier (Lyso-Phospholipid) Supplementation in the Broiler Diet, on the Feed Intake and Growth Performance During Grower Phase

ABSTRACT

The objective of this experiment was to investigate the effect of supplementation of an exogenous emulsifier (lyso-phospholipid) in the diet of growing broilers on growth performance and digestibility. A total of 1224 Ross-308 ten day old broiler chicks were distributed into two experimental treatments in such a way that each treatment had twelve replicates with fifty-one birds per replicate. Two experimental diets were formulated with and without emulsifier supplementation according to the nutrition standards of Ross 308. Feed intake and body weight gain of the broilers were measured on a daily basis and feed conversion ratio was also calculated. Nutrient digestibility was determined on the 25^th day of age. Analysis of variance under completely randomized design technique was used to analyze the data. Feed intake was increased (p<0.05) by supplementation of emulsifier in the broiler diet on theat 12th, 13th, 21th, 22th, 23th, 24th, and 25th days. Bodyweight gain was not affected (p>0.05) with or without emulsifier supplementation in the broiler diet during 11-25 days of life. However, feed conversion ratio was effected (p<0.05) by emulsifier supplementation and increased from days 21-25th. Nutrient digestibility (dry matter, fat, and crude protein) in the grower phase was decreased (p<0.05) by supplementation of emulsifier in the diet. It can be concluded that supplementation of an exogenous emulsifier in the diet did not show positive effect on the growth performance during the grower phase of broilers, while nutrient digestibility showed adverse effect. Emulsifier supplementation should be tested after 25 days of the life of broilers.

Keywords:
Age; additivies; broiler chicks; carcass; Ross 308

INTRODUCTION

Poultry production has gained special attention in the growth of economy of the world especially in developing countries. However, many challenges (health and production) still need to be addressed to achieve maximum output (Abbas et al., 2019; Mehmood et al., 2019; Rahman et al., 2019; Shehata et al., 2019; Khater et al., 2020). Good feed with proper nutrient optimization is the primary concern in broiler diet for proper growth, development and good economics (Ashraf et al., 2019; Asad et al., 2019; Sarwar et al., 2019; Mujahid et al., 2019). Among other nutrients, energy supply shows considerable effect on the cost of feed formulation. To fulfill the demand of energy, different fats and oils are being added in the feed to reduce the dustiness, improve the palatability, efficiency of feed and growth performance of broilers (Nayebpor et al., 2007; Febel et al., 2008; Azman & Ciftci, 2014; Mehmood et al., 2020). However, the digestibility of fat reduces due to the addition of fat in the diet during early age (Siyal et al., 2017; Ward et al., 2019). For the absorption of fatty acids from the small intestine, fatty acids agglomerate and form lipid micelles. This mechanism is resolved by the natural emulsifier in the digestive tract of broilers like bile salts and pancreatic lipase (Noy & Sklan, 1998). During the early age of broilers, absorption of fats is less due to the immaturity of digestive organs and less secretions of bile salts and lipases (Noy & Sklan, 1995). This incapacity of the organs leads to less digestion and absorption of fats due to the insufficiency of the development of mixed micelles in the small intestine of the broilers (Leeson & Atteh, 1995; Raheel et al., 2019).

Different emulsifiers are added in the feed of broilers to improve the emulsification process by enhancing the activity of lipases and consolidate the fatty acids into lipid micelles, which directly improve the digestion and absorption of fats (Zhang et al., 2011). Zaho & Kim, (2017) reported that supplementation of exogenous emulsifiers in the diet improved the digestibility of fats and the performance of broilers. Similarly, it was reported that Lysophospholipid based emulsifier in the diet enhances the efficiency of feed, digestibility and productive performance of the chicken (Zampiga et al., 2016; Zainb et al., 2019).

Similarly, Zaefarian et al. (2015) publicized that lysolecithin emulsifier supplemented with different fat sources enhanced body weight gain (BWG) and improved feed conversion ratio (FCR) during 1-21 days of broilers. In contrast, Khonyoung et al. (2015) reported that there was an increase in the BWG and a decrease in the FCR of broilers by the addition of exogenous emulsifiers in the diet during the 7^th -21^st days only. Boontiam et al. (2017) concluded that the addition of a natural emulsifier (lysophospholipids) increased BWG and improved feed intake (FI) and FCR of broilers during starter (0-7 days), grower (8-21 days) and finisher (22-35 days) phases.

Based on the evidences from previous researchers, emulsifiers positively effect on the feed intake and improved the growth performance of broilers (Mohammadigheisar et al., 2018; Papadopoulos et al., 2018; Li et al., 2020). But no study had yet been reported in the literature to check the effect of emulsifier in the broiler diet during the 11^th -25^th days (grower phase). Therefore, a study was planned to elaborate the impact of a natural exogenous emulsifier in the diet of broilers during the 11^th -25^th days life only.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experiment was conducted at the Research and Development Farm of Shamim Feed Mills (Pvt. Ltd.) Samma Satta Link Road, Bahawalpur, Pakistan.

Experimental design

A total of 1224 Ross 308 broiler chicks were raised. Total birds were divided into two experimental groups. Each group was assigned with twelve replicates with fifty-one birds per replicate. All the chicks were raised on concrete floor with rice husks litter material and floor space of 0.6 square feet. The birds were placed in the metal pens with dimensions of 9.2 × 4.2 × 2.5 cubic feet. All pens were equipped with automatic nipple drinkers and feeders. All the facilities were provided for the normal behavior as described by Rahman et al., (2019). A natural emulsifier Lysoforte EXTEND (lyso-phospholipids) was used in the diet. During the starter phase (1-10 days), feed was formulated without an emulsifier. However, during the grower phase (11-25 days), two experimental diets were formulated with and without emulsifier (lyso-phospholipids). Both diets were formulated according to the feeding standards of Ross 308 guidelines. All diets were formulated on digestible amino acids basis keeping lysine as reference amino acid as described in recent studies (Hussain et al., 2018; Hussain et al., 2020). Feed and water were provided ad libitum to the birds and light was provided to the birds for 24 hours as described in the recent study by (Rahman et al., 2015). During the 1st week temperature of 33-35 ºC was maintained using brooder then the temperature was reduced by 3 ºC per week.

Performance Parameters

Feed intake and BWG of birds of each pen were calculated from days 11-25 on a daily basis for the calculation of FCR. Mortality was noted on a daily basis.

Nutrient Digestibility and Chemical Analysis

Dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), and ether extract (EE) of feces were calculated for digestibility. For digestibility assay, 1% celite was used as an internal marker and was mixed in the feed for the last three days, from days 22-25. A polythene sheet was used on the litter material for fecal collection. After three days of collection, a composite sample was obtained, litter material was removed and stored in the polythene sampling bags. Then the samples were dried in the oven and used for nutrient digestibility (DM, CP, and EE), ash and AIA as methods explained by the AOAC (2000) with some modifications as describe by researchers (Muhammad et al., 2016; Niu et al., 2017; Xia et al., 2018). Then digestibility was calculated by the following formula:

Statistical Design

Data were evaluated by using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) under Completely Randomized Design (CRD) of statistical software of Minitab 17 (Minitab, 2010). Standard Error of Mean (SEM) was calculated and results were declared according to the p values.

RESULTS

The effect of natural exogenous emulsifiers in the diet of broilers on FI during 11-25 days is shown in table 2. Data showed that FI was affected (p<0.05) by supplementation of emulsifier in the diet on the 12th and 13th days. Similar trend was found on the 21st, 22th, 23th, 24th, and 25th days (p<0.05) of the trial. Feed intake was increased (p<0.05) in those broilers supplemented with emulsifier in the diet as compared to the broilers without supplementation in the diet. However, emulsifier supplementation (ES) showed no significant result (p>0.05) on the 11th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th days. Effect of the addition of emulsifier on BWG in the diet of broilersthe broiler diet is shown in table 3. Results revealed that ES in the grower phase has no effect (p>0.05) on BWG. Although there was no statistical effect of ES on BWG but numerically ES showed better BWG than a diet that was not supplemented with an emulsifier. The effect of the inclusion of the exogenous emulsifier in the diet of the broilers on FCR during the 11th -25th days is shown in the table 4. The results showed that supplementation of natural emulsifiers in the diet did not show any effect (p>0.05) on FCR of the broilers during the 11th -20th days of the trial. However, from the 21th to 25th day, better FCR was achieved in broiler birds with the diet, which was not supplemented with emulsifier as compared with the diet supplemented with an emulsifier. The effect of the emulsifier in the broiler diet broilers on the digestibility of DM, CP, and EE is shown in table 5. Results showed that there was considerable effect (p<0.05) of the addition of exogenous emulsifier in the broiler diet on DM %, CP % and EE % digestibility. The % digestibility of DM, CP, and EE was increased in the broiler’s diet, which was not supplemented with an emulsifier.

Table 1
Ingredients and nutrient composition (g/kg) of broiler diets.

Ingredients	Starter	Grower	Finisher
Corn (1CP 7.5%)	51.96	55.64	56.38
Soybean meal (CP 45%)	35.96	26.04	18.41
Canola meal (CP 38%)	5	10	15
Tallow	2.5	3.8	5.4
Mono-dicalcium phosphate	-	1.2	1.1
Dicalcium phosphate	1.5	-	-
Limestone	1.15	1.3	1.2
L-lysine	0.43	0.5	0.74
DL-Methionine	0.41	0.41	0.51
L-Threonine	0.19	0.2	0.32
L-Tryptophan	-	0.01	0.04
NaHCO3	0.1	0.1	0.1
Salt	0.3	0.3	0.3
2Vitamin premix	0.2	0.2	0.2
3Mineral premix	0.2	0.2	0.2
Choline	0.1	0.1	0.1
Total	100	100	100
Chemical Composition
Metabolizable Energy (kcal/kg)	3000	3100	3200
CP (%)	23.76	21.28	19.98
Crude Fat (%)	4.82	6.31	8.02
Lysine (%)	1.5	1.28	1.25
Methionine (%)	0.72	0.66	0.71
Phosphorous (%)	0.45	0.42	0.4
Calcium (%)	0.92	0.84	0.8

• Emulsifier Lysoforte Extend (Lyso-phospholipids) @500 g/ton

Table 2
Effect of Emulsifier on Feed Intake (g/bird) of broilers during 11-25 days.

Days	Without Emulsifier	With Emulsifier	1 SEM	2 p Value
Day 11	50.617	49.896	0.266	0.068
Day 12	55.400b	56.567a	0.313	0.015
Day 13	61.013b	62.571a	0.358	0.006
Day 14	67.883	67.318	0.416	0.347
Day 15	73.354	73.146	0.392	0.710
Day16	78.771	78.238	0.626	0.553
Day 17	84.146	84.275	0.410	0.826
Day 18	89.408	90.196	0.495	0.273
Day 19	94.717	94.767	0.540	0.183
Day 20	100.992	102.142	0.628	0.209
Day 21	106.271b	109.067a	0.826	0.026
Day 22	111.496b	114.385a	0.717	0.009
Day 23	117.492b	120.937a	0.785	0.005
Day 24	122.971b	126.564a	0.789	0.008
Day 25	127.492b	130.796a	0.793	0.007

• ¹
  Standard error of the mean of 12 replicates,
• ²
  a, b Means with different superscripts within a row differ significantly (p<0.05).

Table 3
Effect of Emulsifier on Body weight gain (g/bird) of broilers during 11-25 days.

Days	Without Emulsifier	With Emulsifier	1 SEM	2 p Value
Day 11	42.308	42.388	0.567	0.922
Day 12	45.504	45.575	0.565	0.930
Day 13	48.721	48.921	0.644	0.828
Day 14	52.062	52.367	0.637	0.738
Day 15	55.508	55.783	0.590	0.745
Day16	58.958	59.212	0.479	0.711
Day 17	62.592	63.075	0.393	0.394
Day 18	66.479	66.900	0.326	0.372
Day 19	69.825	70.117	0.211	0.338
Day 20	73.413	73.642	0.239	0.504
Day 21	77.163	76.808	0.288	0.394
Day 22	80.329	79.938	0.420	0.516
Day 23	83.525	82.983	0.522	0.471
Day 24	86.792	86.771	0.480	0.976
Day 25	90.271	90.275	0.720	0.997

• ¹
  Standard error of the mean of 12 replicates, ²a, b Means with different superscripts within a row differ significantly (p<0.05).

Table 4
Effect of Emulsifier on Feed conversion ratio of broilers during 11-25 days.

Days	Without Emulsifier	With Emulsifier	1 SEM	2 p Value
Day 11	1.20	1.18	0.0152	0.385
Day 12	1.22	1.24	0.0137	0.231
Day 13	1.25	1.28	0.0140	0.184
Day 14	1.31	1.29	0.0133	0.345
Day 15	1.32	1.31	0.0107	0.512
Day16	1.34	1.32	0.0068	0.133
Day 17	1.34	1.34	0.0062	0.334
Day 18	1.35	1.35	0.0060	0.716
Day 19	1.36	1.37	0.0071	0.373
Day 20	1.38	1.39	0.0076	0.307
Day 21	1.38b	1.42a	0.0080	0.001
Day 22	1.39b	1.43a	0.0071	0.000
Day 23	1.41b	1.46a	0.0078	0.000
Day 24	1.42b	1.46a	0.0078	0.001
Day 25	1.41b	1.45a	0.0112	0.031

• ¹
  Standard error of the mean of 12 replicates,
• ^2a,b
  Means with different superscripts within a row differ significantly (p<0.05).

Table 5
Effect of emulsifier on nutrient digestibility of broiler o day 25^th.

Item	Without Emulsifier	With Emulsifier	1 SEM	2 p Value
Grower Phase (At Day 25th)
DM Digestibility (%)	95.51a	92.93b	0.516	0.005
CP Digestibility (%)	67.12a	52.38b	3.710	0.018
Fat Digestibility (%)	90.34a	85.16b	1.060	0.006

• ¹
  Standard error of the mean of 12 replicates.
• ^2a,b
  Means with different superscripts within a row differ significantly (p<0.05).

DISCUSSION

Previous researchers described that the physiological potential for the digestion and absorption of fats is reduced during the early age of broilers and improved during 1.5 to 3.5 weeks of life (Freeman, 1984; Krogdahl, 1985). Many researchers focused on providing exogenous emulsifiers in the diet for better digestion and absorption of fats (Siyal et al., 2017). However in the current study, ES decreased the digestibility of fat. In the present study, BWG was not affected by the supplementation of the emulsifier in the diet during the 11th -25th days. Similar results were reported by Upadhaya et al. (2017) that exogenous ES in the diet did not show any effect on BWG during the grower phase of the broilers. In the current study with age and development of secretory organs in broilers, digestion of fat was improved with the diet without supplementation of the emulsifier. The emulsifier intended to perform the function of fat digestion similar to that of the secretory organs, showed no significant effect in the grower phase. In contrast to the findings of the current study, Cho et al. (2012) and Wang et al. (2016) publicized that ES in the broiler diet improved the growth performance.

Feed intake was not affected during the early days of the trial but FI was increased from day 21 to 25 of age. Similar results were documented by Khonyoung et al. (2015) that FI was improved by supplementation of the emulsifier in the diet. This was due to better palatability of feed, which positively affected FI (Febel et al., 2008; Noy & Sklan, 1998). In contrast to the findings of current studies, Zhang et al. (2011) reported that FI was not affected by the addition of supplementation of exogenous emulsifier in the broiler dietbroilers. Likewise, Upadhaya et al. (2017) reported that FI was not affected by the supplementation of emulsifier in diet during grower phase of the broilers.

Ho Cho et al. (2012) described that FCR was not influenced by the supplementation of the emulsifier in the broiler diet. Similar results were obtained during 11-20 days in the current study. However, during the 21^th to 25^th days of age, FCR was increased by supplementation of an emulsifier as compared to the diet without supplementation of emulsifier. In the current study, higher FCR in broiler supplemented with emulsifier could be justified by BWG and FI. In the present study, BWG was not improved with ES in broilers, but FI was increased, which resulted in higher FCR.

Digestibility of DM, CP, and EE was decreased by supplementation of the emulsifier during the 11^th -25^th days of the trial. This may be due a reduced functioning of the digestive organs. While the results of Park et al. (2018) and Neto et al. (2011) of ES on digestiblity were in contrast to the current study that the digestibility of EE was increased, but DM and CP digestibility were not affected by ES in the diet. Similar results were reported by Ho Cho et al. (2012) and Drażbo et al. (2019) that nutrient digestibility was not affected by supplementation of the emulsifier in the broiler diet. Lesser nutrient digestibility in the birds fed diet with ES represents that ES could have an adverse effect on digestive enzymes or digestive organs that result in lower digestibility of nutrients.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, supplementation of natural exogenous emulsifiers in the diets did not show positive effect on the growth performance during the grower phase of broilers, while nutrient digestibility showed adverse impact. Emulsifier supplementation should be tested after 25 days of broiler’s life of broilers.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The study was supported by Shamim Feed Mills, Bahawalpur, Pakistan in terms of all financial support. The authors thank Dr. Waqar Khan (CEO of Kemin Company Pakistan) for giving Lysoforte Extend Emulsifier.

REFERENCES

• Abbas A, Abbas RZ, Khan MK, Raza MA, Mahmood MS, Saleemi MK,D et al. Anticoccidial effects of Trachyspermum ammi (Ajwain) in broiler chickens. Pakistan Veterinary Journal 2019;39(2):301-304.
• AOAC - Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. 17th edition. Gaithersburg; 2000.
• Asad T, Mehmood S, Mahmud A, Basheer A, Saleem G, Jatoi AS, et al. Ameliorating effect of different anti-stressors on growth performance, and immunophysiological responses in heat stressed broilers chickens. Pakistan Veterinary Journal 2019;39(2):285-288.
• Ashraf S, Bhatti SA, Kamran Z, Ahmed F, Rahman SU. Assessment of refined functional carbohydrates as substitution of antibiotic growth promoters in broilers:effects on growth performance, immune responses, intestinal micro-flora and carcass characteristics. Pakistan Veterinary Journal 2019;39(2):157-162.
• Azman MA, Ciftci M. Effects of replacing dietary fat with lecithin on broiler chicken zootechnical performance. Revue de Médecine Vétérinaire 2004;155:445-448.
• Boontiam W, Jung B, Kim YY. Effects of Lysophospholipid supplementation to lower nutrient diets on growth performance, intestinal morphology, and blood metabolites in broiler chickens. Poultry Science 2017;96:593-601.
• Drazbo A, Kozlowski K, Croes E. The effect of emulsifier on growth performance and fat digestibility in turkeys. Annals of Animal Science 2019;19:421-431.
• Febel H, Mezes M, Palfy T, Herman A, Gundel J, Lugasi A, et al. Effect of dietary fatty acid pattern on growth, body fat composition and antioxidant parameters in broilers. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 2008;92:369-376.
• Freeman CP. The digestion, absorption and transport of fats-Non ruminants. In: Wiseman J, editor. Fats in animal nutrition. London: Butterworths;1982. p.105-122.
• Ho Cho J, Zhao P, Kim IH. Effects of emulsifier and multi enzyme in different energy density diet on growth performance, blood profiles, and relative organ weight in broiler chickens. Journal of Agriculture Science 20124(10):161-168.
• Hussain M, Mahmud A, Hussain J, Qaisrani S, Mehmood S, Rehman A. Subsequent effect of dietary lysine regimens fed in the starter phase on the growth performance, carcass traits and meat chemical composition of aseel chicken in the grower phase. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 2018;20:455-462.
• Hussain M, Mahmud A, Hussain J, Qaisrani SN, Mehmood S, Ahmad S, et al. Effect of dietary amino acid regimens on growth performance and bodyconformation and immune responses in Aseel chicken. Indian Journal of Animal Research 2020;54:53-58.
• Khater HF, Ziam H, Abbas A, Abbas RZ, Raza MA, Hussain K, et al. Avian coccidiosis: recent advances in alternative control strategies and vaccine development. Agrobiological Records 2020;1:11-25.
• Khonyoung D, Yamauchi K, Suzuki K. Influence of dietary fat sources and lysolecithin on growth performance, visceral organ size, and histological intestinal alteration in broiler chickens. Journal of Livestock Science 2015;176:111-120.
• Krogdahl A. Digestion and absorption of lipids in poultry. Journal of Nutrition 1985115:675-685.
• Leeson S, Atteh JO. Utilization of fats and fatty acids by turkey poults. Poultry Science 1995;74:2003-2010.
• Li Q, Wu P, Wu X, Zou Z, Li G, Latigo V, et al. Exploring the potential STAT3 gene in broiler with ascites syndrome by bioinformatics analysis. Agrobiological Records 2020;2:24-30.
• Mehmood A, Rasool MH, Anjum AA, Zahoor MA, Shafique M. Pathotyping and genetic characterization of a highly virulent Newcastle disease virus strain isolated from recent outbreak in District Okara, Pakistan. Pakistan Veterinary Journal 2019;39(3):353-358.
• Mehmood K, Bilal RM, Zhang H. Study on the genotypic and phenotypic resistance of tetracycline antibiotic in Escherichia coli strains isolated from free ranging chickens of Anhui Province, China. Agrobiological Records 2020;2:63-68.
• Minitab I. Minitab statistical software. Release 17. State College; 2010.
• Mohammadigheisar M, Kim HS, Kim IH. Effect of inclusion of lysolecithin or multi-enzyme in low energy diet of broiler chickens. Journal of Applied Animal Research 2018;46(1):1198-1201.
• Muhammad AU, Xia CQ, Cao BH. Dietary forage concentration and particle size affect sorting, feeding behaviour, intake and growth of Chinese holstein male calves. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 2016;100(2):217-223.
• Mujahid H, Hashmi AS, Khan MZ, Tayyab M, Shezad W. Protective effect of yeast sludge and whey powder against ochratoxicosis in broiler chicks. Pakistan Veterinary Journal 2019;39(4):588-592.
• Nayebpor M, Hashemi A, Farhomand P. Influence of soybean oil on growth performance, carcass properties, abdominal fat deposition and human immune response in male broiler chickens. Journal of Animal Veterinary Advances 2007;6:1317-1322.
• Neto ACG, Pezzato AC, Sartori JR, Mori C, Cruz VC, Fascina VB, et ak. Emulsifier in broiler diets containing different fat sources. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 2011;13:119-125.
• Niu W, He Y, Xia C, Rahman MAU, Qiu Q, Shao T, et ak. Effects of replacing Leymus chinensis with whole-crop wheat hay on Holstein bull apparent digestibility, plasma parameters, rumen fermentation, and microbiota. Scientific Reports 2017;7(1):1-12.
• Noy Y, Sklan D. Digestion and absorption in the young chick. Poultry Science 1995;74:366-373.
• Noy Y, Sklan D. Metabolic responses to early nutrition. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 1998;7:437-451.
• Park JH, Nguyen DH, Kim IH. Effects of exogenous lysolecithin emulsifier supplementation on the growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and blood lipid profiles of broiler chickens. Journal of Poultry Science 2018;55:190-194.
• Papadopoulos GA, Poutahidis T, Chalvatzi S, Benedetto MD, Hardas A, Tsiouris V, et al. Effects of lysolecithin supplementation in low-energy diets on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, viscosity and intestinal morphology of broilers. British Poultry Science 2018;59(2):232-239.
• Raheel IAR, Orabi A, Masry AE. Natural herbs CLEANACTIV(r);immune-modulator, health activator and growth promoter in broiler chickens. International Journal of Veterinary Science 2019;8:267-270.
• Rahman MAU, Rehman A, Chuanqi X, Long ZX, Binghai C, Linbao J, et al. Extrusion of feed/feed ingredients and its effect on digestibility and performance of poultry: a review. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 2015;4:48-61.
• Rahman MAU, Xia C, Ji L, Cao B, Su H. Nutrient intake, feeding patterns, and abnormal behavior of growing bulls fed different concentrate levels and a single fiber source (corn stover silage). Journal of Veterinary Behavior 2019;33:46-53.
• Rahman SU, Ahmad S, Khan I. Incidence of ESBL-producing-Escherichia coli in poultry farm environment and retail poultry meat. Pakistan Veterinary Journal 2019;39(1):116-120.
• Sarwar N, Mehmood A, Sheraz A, Noman M. Protective effect of probiotics in combination with vaccination on antibody response, biochemical and hematological indices in broilers. Pakistan Veterinary Journal 2019;39(3):451-454.
• Shehata AA, Basiouni S, Elrazek AA, Sultan H, Tarabees R, Elsayed MSAE, et al. Characterization of Salmonella Enterica isolated from poultry hatcheries and commercial broiler chickens. Pakistan Veterinary Journal 2019, 39(4):515-520.
• Siyal FA, Wang T, Ezzat ASM, Alagawany M, Wang C, Wan X, He J, et al. Effect of soy lecithin on growth performance, nutrient digestibility and hepatic antioxidant parameters of broiler chickens. International Journal of Pharmacology 2017;13:396-402.
• Upadhaya SD, Park JW, Park JH, Kim IH. Efficacy of 1,3-diacylglycerol as a fat emulsifier in low-density diet for broilers. Poultry Science 2017;96:1672-1678.
• Wang JP, Zhang ZF, Yan L, Kim IH. Effects of dietary supplementation of emulsifier and carbohydrase on the growth performance, serum cholesterol and breast meat fatty acids profile of broiler chickens. Journal of Animal Science 2016;87(2):250-256.
• Ward MAS, Sadek KM, Elbestawy ARDM, El-Samahy HS. Immunological, histopathological and biochemical protective effect of date pits (Phoenix dacrylifera seeds) feed additive against aflatoxicated broiler chickens. International Journal of Veterinary Science 2019;8:198-205.
• Xia C, Liang Y, Bai S, He Y, Muhammad AUR, Su H, Cao B. Effects of harvest time and added molasses on nutritional content, ensiling characteristics and in vitro degradation of whole crop wheat. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 2018;31:354-362.
• Zaefarian F, Romero LF, Ravindran V. Influence of high dose of phytase and an emulsifier on performance, apparent metabolisable energy and nitrogen retention in broilers fed on diets containing soy oil or tallow. British Poultry Science 2015;56(5):590-597.
• Zainb MN, Ahmed SA, El Iraqi, Kassem G, Ismail EM, Khalefa HS et al. impacts of corncobs as an alternative litter material on broiler welfare reared in deep litter system. International Journal of Veterinary Science 2019;8:289-293.
• Zampiga M, Meluzzi A, Sirri F. Effect of dietary supplementation of lysophospholipids on productive performance, nutrient digestibility and carcass quality traits of broiler chickens. Italian Journal of Animal Science 2016;15(3):521-528.
• Zhao PY, Kim IH. Effect of diets with different energy and lysophospholipids levels on performance, nutrient metabolism, and body composition in broilers. Poultry Science 2017;96(5):1341-1347.
• Zhang B, Haitao L, Zhao D, Guo Y, Barri A. Effect of fat type and lysophosphatidylcholine addition to broiler diets on performance, apparent digestibility of fatty acids, and apparent metabolizable energy content. Animal Feed Science and Technology 2011;163:177-184

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  22 Feb 2021
• Date of issue
  2021

History

• Received
  14 July 2020
• Accepted
  15 Oct 2020