Dietary supplementation of powdered and encapsulated probiotic: In vivo study on relative carcass, giblet weight and intestinal morphometry of local duck

ABSTRACT.

This research was aimed to evaluate the effect of dietary supplementation of either powdered or encapsulated probiotic on relative carcass, giblet weight and intestinal morphometry of local duck. One hundred twenty male day old duck (DOD) were distributed to 6 different dietary groups, included 2 probiotic forms of either powdered (T1) or encapsulated (T2) and 3 levels: 0% (L0), 0.2% (L1), 0.4% (L2). They were reared using pen cages for 42 days (6 weeks). Observed variables were relative carcass, giblet weight (gizzard, heart, liver) and intestinal morphometry (villus height, villus width, crypt depth). Data were analyzed by Nested of Completely Randomized Design ANOVA and if there was significant effect followed by Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT). The result showed that there was no significant effect (p > 0.05) of the form of either powdered or encapsulated probiotic on relative carcass, giblet weight, and intestinal morphometry. However, increasing level of probiotic have significant effect (p < 0.05) on relative carcass, villus height, and villus width, but did not significantly affect giblet weight and crypt depth. In conclusion, supplementation of either powdered or encapsulated probiotic has similar result, but it is suggested to use 0.4% of encapsulated probiotic (4 kg ton^-1 of feed) in local duck diet.

Keywords:
feed; poultry; nutrition; probiotic

Introduction

Local duck serves animal protein source of human. Nowadays, food safety and healthy from livestock products are the success key for sustainable livestock production system. Dietary synthetic feed additive has been used as an effective means to improve productivity, but it was banned by Indonesian government regulation through Permentan No. 14/2017. This ban due to pathogenic contamination, bacterial resistant in the end product and an effort to create sustainable poultry farming. Moreover, the use of antibiotics causes residual veterinary drugs in an animal product like meat, milk, and eggs (Jeong, Kang, Lim, Kang, & Sung, 2010).

Probiotics proposed as an alternative natural growth promoter due to probiotic is non-pathogenic live-microorganism which gives many health benefits to the host. Several studies have shown that the use of probiotics in the feed could improve the performances, population of micro flora, white blood cells, cholesterol content (Bansal & Bilaspuri, 2011; Natsir, Sjofjan, Widodo, Ardiansah, & Widyastuti, 2019). Using synthetic materials, such as butylated hydroxyanisole and butylated hydroxytoluene, which have been widely used in feed, was prohibited due to safety reason. Recent studies reported that using alter materials from bio-resources such as probiotic, prebiotic, phytobiotic were suggested. Antioxidant properties from Lactobacillus casei spp. (i.e. L. casei 114001) and Lactobacillus fermentum ME-3improved the ability to suppress oxidation of luminol, microsomal lipid peroxidation (consecutively was 43.0-65.8%, 57.9-89.5) and decreased of antioxidant capacity of blood plasma, liver and small intestines of animals elevated while malondialdehyde (MDA) content in blood plasma. The cultured-supernatant, intact cells, and intracellular cell-free extracts of Bifidobacterium animals were found to scavenge hydroxyl radicals and superoxide anion in vitro while enhancing the anti-oxidase activities of mice as in vivo treatment (Shen et al, 2011). Antioxidant which expressed by probiotics were reported can improve production performance of broiler. Dietary supplementation of Lactobacillus acidophilus D2/ CSL (CEST 4529) were reported increase body weight at 28 d, daily weight gain and decrease feed conversion ratio also daily feed intake of broiler (De Cesare et al., 2017).

Protecting probiotic from unsupported environmental condition in the inside of gastrointestinal tract of broiler was important to be observed. Because, not all of probiotic that given to broiler would be adsorbed by target organ (small intestines), this was caused the barrier from pH condition inside of GIT, acidic-bile, enzyme, and another environmental condition that reduced amount of probiotics before entering to the target organ. After that, it has reduced viability and quantity-loss of probiotics (Corona-Hernandez et al., 2013; Gbassi & Vandamme, 2012).

Encapsulation method is potentially method that can improve the viability and survivability of broiler. This method coated the probiotic to promote immune function and improve growth performances of the broiler. In this research, we use either without encapsulation or encapsulation technology to protect probiotics. Because encapsulation technology has been observed to be a protector for core-material (either pro or prebiotic), this is an effective way to maintain viability, survivability and protect from environmental barriers inside, against pathogenic bacteria, enhance immune function and growth performances (Natsir et al., 2019; Ritzi, Abdelrahman, Mohnl, & Dalloul, 2014; Yazhini, Visha, Selvaraj, Vasanthakumar, & Chandran, 2018; Zhang et al., 2015). Supplementation of either powdered or encapsulated probiotic is expected to improve production performances. In this research, we would like to observe it then performed by relative carcass, giblet weight measurements and morphometric assay on the small intestine of local duck.

Material and methods

Local and time

This research was conducted within 2 months, during March-April 2017. Preparation for probiotic, either powder or encapsulated were conducted in Laboratory of Animal Feed and Nutrition, Faculty of Animal Science, University of Brawijaya. Testing TPC (Total Plate Count) was conducted in Laboratory of Microbiology, Faculty of Animal Science, University of Brawijaya. The in vivo test was conducted in Sumbersekar’s Field Laboratory, Faculty of Animal Science, University of Brawijaya which located in Sumbersekar Village, Dau Sub-district, Malang Regency. The temperature ranged for 20-26^oC and its humidity ranged for 60-80%.

Birds

Birds used in this research were a hundred twenty local male day old duck (DOD). The average weight of DOD was 37,81 ± 7,03%. The DOD was obtained from Karangploso, Batu City.

Feed

The basal diet used consisted of corn, rice bran, meat bone meal, soybean meal, salt, grit, DL-methionine, lysine, salt, palm oil, and premix. The result of proximate analysis of feed content is shown in Table 1.

Probiotic

In this research, we used multistrain of powdered-probiotic, consist of Lactobacillus fermentum, Lacobacillus acidophilus, Bacilus spp) that was obtained from commercial probiotics from Animal Nutrition and Feed Laboratory, Faculty of Animal Science, University of Brawijaya. TPC (Total Plate Count) testing was performed, and the viability obtained from this probiotic powder was >10⁶ cfu g^-1. The process of making probiotic powder using Sjofjan (2014). The encapsulated probiotic procedure is using the method (Natsir, Osfar, Ilham, & Siti, 2018). Materials which used were probiotics, gum arabic, whey protein, and BHT (Butylated Hydroxy Toluene). The process of preparing the probiotic encapsulation, including mixing of 75% gum arabic and 25% whey and 0.06% BHT. After that, liquid probiotics prepared through the fermenter tube and carried out optimization for 1 hour at 40^oC. Then mixing with encapsulant and mix for 3 hours at 37-40°C.

Table 1
Composition of the basal feed.

Feedstuff	(%)
	(0-2 weeks)	(3-6 weeks)
Corn	56.2	61.5
Rice bran	12.3	12.5
Soybean meal	16.83	12.8
Corn Gluten Meal	8.14	6.4
Grit	1.2	1.4
Salt	0.1	0.2
DL-methionine	0.54	0.3
Lysine	0.36	0.4
Dicalcium phosphate	0.2	0.2
Premix	0.43	0.5
Palm Oil	3.7	3.8
Total	100	100
Nutrient Content*
Metabolizable Energy (kcal kg-1)	3,100	3,100
Crude Protein (%)	20.60	18.60
Crude Fat (%)	4.95	4.95
Ca (%)	2.01	2.01
P Available (%)	0.40	0.40
Lysine (%)	0.88	0.88
Methionine (%)	0.43	0.43

• *Proximate analysis was assayed by Laboratory of Animal Feed and Nutrition, Faculty of Animal Science, Universitas Brawijaya. Premix used was Topmix ^TM (containing (per 10 kg): Vitamin A 12,000,000 IU; Vitamin D3 2,000,000IU; Vitamin E 8,000IU; Vitamin K 2,000 mg; Vitamin B1 2,000 mg; Vitamin B2 5,000 mg; Vitamin B6 500 mg; Vitamin B12 12,000 g; Vitamin C 25,000 mg; Calcium-D-panthothenate 6,000 mg; Niacin 40,000 mg; Choline chloride 10,000 mg; Methionine 30,000 mg; Lysine 30,000 mg; Manganese 120,000 mg; Iron 20,000 mg; Iodine 200 mg; Zinc 100,000 mg; Cobalt 200 mg; Copper 4,000; mg Zinc Bacitracin 21,000 mg); Palm Oil used was Sania ^TM (containing: Total energy 70 kkal; Vitamin A 118RE; Vitamin E 8 mg).

Housing

The cage used in this research is a cage of opened house; the research cages were 70 cm x 70 cm x 70 cm by 30 units each and separated. Then, the brooding cage used 2.5 m x 2.5 m to 3.5 m - 3.5 m. Each unit is equipped with a 20 watts incandescent lamp which is used as a heater and lighting at the grower phase

Experimental Design

Method which used in this research was Nested of Completely Randomized Design (CRD) with two main factors, either form or level concentration of probiotic. Forms which used were powder (T1) and encapsulated (T2). Meanwhile, level concentration (L) which used were 0%, 0.2% and 0.4%. Each treatment consist of 5 replications, each replication consist of 4 birds. Treatment is given while the ages of duck were 2 weeks-6 weeks. Feed and drink were given ad libitum. The experimental method showed below:

T1L0: basal feed + 0% powder probiotic T1L1: basal feed + 0.2% powder probiotic T1L2: basal feed + 0.4% powder probiotic T2L0: basal feed + 0% encapsulated probiotic T2L1: basal feed + 0.2% encapsulated probiotic T2L2: basal feed + 0.4% encapsulated probiotic

Variables

The variables observed in this research were relative carcass, giblet weight (gizzard, heart, and liver), intestinal morphometry (length villi, width villi, and depth crypth) in small part of ileum. The relative carcass (%) was determined by carcass as a percentage of live body weight (Falaki, Shams, Dastar, & Zrehdaran, 2010). The giblet weight was measured according to Yadav, Meenu, Maousami, and Karnam (2018). The morphometric measurements were performed using a microscope (Olympus) at an objective magnification of 4 times with the help of a video microscope (Video measuring gauge IV-560, for Company Limited) at 5 fields for each preparation.

Data analysis

Data were analyzed by Analysis of Variance (Anova) Nested of Completely Randomized Design (CRD). When significant effect appeared followed by Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT).

Results and discussion

In this experiment, using form and level model (powdered and encapsulated) of probiotic and its response to relative carcass, giblet weight and intestinal morphometry showed on Table 2. and Table 3.

Table 2
Effect of supplementation either powdered or encapsulated probiotic on relative carcass, giblet weight, and intestinal morphometry (form comparison).

Variables	Treatments		SEM	p-value
	Powdered	Encapsulated
Relative carcass (%)	60.21±1.7	61.19±1.4	1.49	0.21
Gizzard weight (g 100 g-1)	3.97±0.29	3.57±0.21	0.24	0.15
Heart weight (g 100 g-1)	0.59±0.10	0.58±0.07	0.08	0.08
Liver weight (g 100 g-1)	3.59±0.22	3.57±0.34	0.31	0.17
Villus height (µm)	497.33±31.7	514.52±19.2	24.22	0.13
Villus width (µm)	119.41±4.1	122.11±5.8	4.54	0.27
Crypt depth (µm)	74.72±5.4	76.30±3.2	3.39	0.28

Table 3
Effect of supplementation either powdered or encapsulated probiotic on relative carcass, giblet weight, and intestinal morphometry (level comparison).

Variables	Level of powdered probiotic in the diet (%)			>SEM	>P-value
	0	0.2	0.4
Relative carcass (%)	59.08±1.9a	60.16±2.3a	61.40±0.8b	1.87	<0.05
Gizzard weight (g 100 g-1)	3.976±0.21	3.944±0.43	3.990±0.23	0.33	0.16
Heart weight (g 100 g-1)	0.572±0.04	0.660±0.11	0.550±0.14	0.08	0.07
Liver weight (g 100 g-1)	3.420±0.19	3.788±0.16	3.570±0.30	0.29	0.08
Villus Height (µm)	489.7±41.35a	490.52±26.83a	511.78±26.25b	31.42	<0.05
Villus Width (µm)	118.71±4.99a	119.1±5.31a	120.428±1.68a	3.22	<0.05
Crypt Depth (µm)	74.01±5.88	74.65±3.93	75.52±7.24	4.90	0.12
	Level of encapsulated probiotic in the diet (%)
Relative carcass (%)	59.08±1.9a	61.86±1.0b	62.64±1.3b	1.39	<0.05
Gizzard weight (g 100 g-1)	3.976±0.21	3.942±0.25	4.012±0.18	0.18	0.08
Heart weight (g 100 g-1)	0.572±0.04	0.606±0.70	0.588±0.10	0.07	0.09
Liver weight (g 100 g-1)	3.420±0.19	3.602±0.51	3.704±0.30	0.41	0.07
Villus Height (µm)	498.10±32.30a	522.21±12.88b	523.26±9.27b	23.67	<0.05
Villus Width (µm)	116.56±4.44a	123.07±4.63b	126.7±3.51c	4.49	<0.05
Crypt Depth (µm)	75.27±3.09	76.67±4.30	76.96±2.41	2.04	0.11

The effect of probiotic supplementation either powdered or encapsulated (form) on relative carcass

The effect of either powdered or encapsulated probiotic on relative carcass of local ducks were summarized in Table 2 and Table 3. The result of relative carcass showed that there was no significant effect (p > 0.05). While, level of either powder or encapsulated (Table 3) probiotics on relative carcass revealed that the treatments had significant (p < 0.05). Several studies explained that the relative carcass increased by increasing the protein content of basal feed. Supplementation probiotic bacteria could be enhanced the availability of protein. Similarly nutrient content such as metabolic energy, crude fiber and crude protein in the basal diet of the treatment seemed to be responsible for the divergent results. The feed containing higher crude fiber decreased carcass weight than feed with a lower crude fiber. The differences in quality of feed and growth rate seemed to contribute to the growth performance. In the previous study (Sarangi et al., 2016) reported that supplementation pre-probiotic had no significant effect on carcass of broilers. Furthermore, a non significant effect was found during supplementation Bacillus subtilis on carcass traits (Yadav et al., 2018). In collaborated with prebiotic on laying hen, Natsir et al. (2018) also reported that no effect on laying hen performances. Alkhalf, Alhaj, and Al-Homidan (2010) reported that higher level of the supplementation probiotic to broilers in the levels of 0.8 - 1 g kg^-1 was found to be better than control. Increasing levels of encapsulated probiotic could improve viability and stability, increase protection against pathogenic resulting in improving in nutrient utilization, gut environment, and growth performance (Natsir et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2015).

The effect of probiotic supplementation either powdered or encapsulated (form) on giblet weight

The effects of either powder or encapsulated probiotic on gizzard weight of local ducks were summarized in Table 2. Statistical analysis of gizzard and heart weight showed there was no significant (p > 0.05) difference between experimental groups. This indicated that inclusion of probiotic and their combination did not stimulate the internal organ weight (Parsa et al., 2018). This finding was in line with (Shabani, Nosrati, Javandel, & Kioumarsi, 2012) that different level of probiotics had no statistically effect on gizzard weight. Similarly, Midilli et al. (2008) reported was no significant impact on gizzard relative weight during of probiotics and mannan-oligosaccharides in broiler chicks. A non-significant impact was observed by (Karaoglu & Durdag, 2005) that dietary probiotic Saccharomyces cerevisiae had no significant effect on gizzard weight, while the age of slaughter affected to the gizzard relative weight compared to control group. The factors affect gizzard weight are breed, genetics, age, sex, individual status and feed intake. Moreover, feeding poultry more than the requirement cause extra-digestion and it would affect the size of gizzard due to the thickening of the muscle, type of feed particle size (mash, crumble or pellet) affected giblet weights, smaller particle size decrease gizzard activity (Tuli, Sandhu, Kashyap, & Sharma, 2014). There was no significant difference observed by Sarangi et al. (2016) that dietary supplementation prebiotic, probiotic and symbiotic had no significant effect on liver weight of Cobb broilers. In contrast, Seifi et al. (2017) reported that addition pre-probiotics in diets comprising rice brand was increase the relative heart weight compared to the control (with no pre-probiotic). Increasing heart weight also found during supplemented Bacillus subtilis and Enterococcus faecium to broilers compared to the control group. Meanwhile, heart enlargement in broiler was affected by heat stress (Hatab, Elsayed, & Ibrahim, 2016; Khan et al., 2016). The divergent result might be influenced by strain, method of probiotic preparation, level of treatment, and basal composition (Zhang, Zhou, Ao, & Kim, 2012).

Supplementation of either powder or encapsulated probiotic on liver weight summarized in Table 2. The result demonstrated no significant (p>0.05) difference among the different experimental groups. Increasing level of probiotic did not significantly affect to liver weight due to the probiotic non-toxic or antinutrition-free. A presence of toxic in the basal feed increase in metabolic rate and causes abnormalities of organ weight as a result of reduce toxic effect. Feeding 0.5 and 0.8 ppm aflatoxin (AFB1) in broiler chicken was significant increase the relative weight of heart during period of 42 days (Lakkawar, Narayanaswamy, & Satyanarayana, 2017). Accumulation of lipids in the hepatocytes would change the heart size due to the severe fatty change, lipidosis, and inflammatory reaction (Lakkawar et al., 2015). This result in agreement with Awad, Ghareeb, Abdel-Raheem, and Böhm (2009) explained that supplementation probiotic had no significant difference in the weight of liver as compared to the control group. Increasing beneficial bacteria such as Lactic acid probiotic that decrease the activity of acetyl-CoA could reduce the lipid synthesis (Zhou et al., 2009).

The effect of probiotic supplementation either powdered or encapsulated (form) on intestinal morphometry

The effect of either powder or encapsulated probiotic forms on villus height (μm), villus width (μm) and crypt depth (μm) showed in Table 2. The effect of the use of either powdered or encapsulated probiotic showed that either powdered or encapsulated probiotic has no significant effect (p > 0.05) on the morphometry of the small intestine (villus height, villus width, and the crypt depth). There was appropriate because either powdered or encapsulated probiotic has the same ability to repair the local duck's gut microvilli. This research was supported by (Matur & Eraslan, 2012) which reported that growth of microvilli affected by several factors such as age, sex, and type of animal. Moreover, feed nutrients, environmental conditions of the cage, humidity, temperature and natural factors such as weather and seasons. A study reported by Maiorka et al. (2016) said that difference villus height due to age phase, it also was reported that the height age villi 60 wks longer than the age of 30 wks.

The effect of either powdered or encapsulated probiotic (level) on relative carcass

The effect of level of either powder or encapsulated (Table 3) probiotics on relative carcass showed there was significant effect (p < 0.05). This may due to the level of addition improve body weight and greater carcass weight obtained. As increasing the levels of probiotic used increased the relative carcass due to the presence of probiotics in the feed could improve the digestibility of nutrients by producing bacteriocin as an antibacterial that altering the growth of pathogenic bacteria. In the gastrointestinal tract, probiotic would break down proteins and carbohydrates into amino acids, N, and the soluble carbon that require synthesizing of proteins. Increased protein digestibility affects the improvement of protein metabolism, thus directly increasing the protein synthesis of meat.

The effect of either powder or encapsulated probiotic (level) on giblet weight

The effect of levels of either powder or encapsulated (Table 3) probiotics on giblet weight showed there was no significant difference (p > 0.05). Although increasing levels used tended to increase gizzard, heart, and weight liver relatively. This may due to the addition of different levels amount of different probiotic forms ranged between 0-0.4% did not significantly affect the weight of giblet. Moreover, indicated that the same nutrient content in the feed of dietary such as protein and fat content, age of slaughter, and anti-nutrition. Mc-lelland (1990) said that factors affected were size, color, and consistency of liver such as breed, genetics, age, sex, individual status and feed intake. Sarangi et al. (2016) reported that liver weight and gizzard weight in Cobb broilers under their study had no significantly different, then were agreed with Sahin, Kaya, Unal, and Elmali (2008) and Saiyed et al. (2015) that there was no effect using mixed probiotic and prebiotic in carcass quality of quail and broiler.

The effect of either powder encapsulated probiotic (level) on intestinal morphometry:

The effect of level of either powder or encapsulated (Table 3) probiotics on the villus height and villus width showed were significant effect (p < 0.05), but did not significantly affect (p > 0.05) to the crypt depth. There was assumed that the level of feed supplemented contains more probiotics, thus optimizing the growth of the villi due to probiotics are more susceptible to deterioration of viabilities before entry into intestinal microvilli. In addition, the villus width is also determined by the basal feed content consumed. This is in contrast to research conducted Harimurti of probiotic supplementation could increase villi width. Dong et al. (2016) reported that disruption of GIT epithelial cells causes micro- encapsulation of Enterococcus faecium does not work on the crypt. Another reason have reported that several aspects such as increased mRNA expression regulation of MUC2, then induced mucus protein secretion.

Conclusion

Supplementation of either powdered or encapsulated probiotic resulted similar result on relative carcass, giblet weight and intestinal morphometry. Using 0.2% and 0.4% level of encapsulated probiotic on relative carcass, villus height and villus weight better than powdered probiotic

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by Ministry of Research Technology and Higher Education of Republic Indonesia through Research-Student Creativity Program

References

• Alkhalf, A., Alhaj, M., & Al-Homidan, I. (2010). Influence of probiotic supplementation on blood parameters and growth performance in broiler chickens. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, 17(3), 219-225. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2010.04.005
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2010.04.005
• Awad, W. A., Ghareeb, K., Abdel-Raheem, S., & Böhm, J. (2009). Effects of dietary inclusion of probiotic and synbiotic on growth performance, organ weights, and intestinal histomorphology of broiler chickens. Poultry Science, 88(1), 49-56. doi: 10.3382/ps.2008-00244
• Bansal, A. K., & Bilaspuri, G. S. (2011). Impacts of oxidative stress and antioxidants on semen functions. Veterinary Medicine International, 2011, 1-7. doi: 10.4061/2011/686137
  » https://doi.org/10.4061/2011/686137
• Corona-Hernandez, R. I., Álvarez-Parrilla, E., Lizardi-Mendoza, J., Islas-Rubio, A. R., de la Rosa, L. A., & Wall-Medrano, A. (2013). Structural stability and viability of microencapsulated probiotic bacteria: a review. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 12(6), 614-628. doi: 10.1111/1541-4337.12030
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12030
• De Cesare, A., Sirri, F., Manfreda, G., Moniaci, P., Giardini, A., Zampiga, M., & Meluzzi, A. (2017). Effect of dietary supplementation with Lactobacillus acidophilus D2/CSL (CECT 4529) on caecum microbioma and productive performance in broiler chickens. PloS one, 12(5), 1-21. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176309
  » https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176309
• Dong, Z. L., Wang, Y. W., Song, D., Hou, Y. J., Wang, W. W., Qi, W. T., ... Li, A. K. (2016). The effects of dietary supplementation of pre-microencapsulated Enterococcus fecalis and the extract of Camellia oleifera seed on growth performance, intestinal morphology, and intestinal mucosal immune functions in broiler chickens. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 212, 42-51. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.11.014
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.11.014
• Falaki, M., Shams, S. M., Dastar, B., & Zrehdaran, S. (2010). Effects of different levels of probiotic and prebiotic on performance and carcass characteristics of broiler chickens. Journal of Animal Veterinary Advances, 9(18), 2390-2395.
• Gbassi, G. K., & Vandamme, T. (2012). Probiotic encapsulation technology: from microencapsulation to release into the gut. Pharmaceutics, 4(1), 149-163. doi: 10.3390%2Fpharmaceutics4010149
  » https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fpharmaceutics4010149
• Hatab, M. H., Elsayed, M. A., & Ibrahim, N. S. (2016). Effect of some biological supplementation on productive performance, physiological and immunological response of layer chicks. Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences, 9(2), 185-192. doi: 10.1016/j.jrras.2015.12.008
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrras.2015.12.008
• Jeong, S.-H., Kang, D., Lim, M.-W., Kang, C. S., & Sung, H. J. (2010). Risk assessment of growth hormones and antimicrobial residues in meat. Toxicological Research, 26(4), 301-313.
• Karaoglu, M., & Durdag, H. (2005). The influence of dietary probiotic (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) supplementation and different slaughter age on the performance, slaughter and carcass properties of broilers. International Journal of Poultry Science, 4(5), 309-316.
• Khan, S., Khan, R. U., Sultan, A., Khan, M., Hayat, S. U., & Shahid, M. S. (2016). Evaluating the suitability of maggot meal as a partial substitute of soya bean on the productive traits, digestibility indices and organoleptic properties of broiler meat. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 100(4), 649-656. doi: 10.1111/jpn.12419
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.12419
• Lakkawar, A. W., Narayanaswamy, H. D., & Satyanarayana, M. L. (2017). Study on efficacy of diatomaceous earth to ameliorate toxic effects of aflatoxin on internal organ weights in broiler chicken. Journal of Animal Health and Production, 5(3), 120-126. doi: 10.17582/journal.jahp/2017/5.3.120.126
  » https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.jahp/2017/5.3.120.126
• Lakkawar, A. W., Sathyanarayana, M. L., Narayanaswamy, H. D., Yathiraj, S., Shridhar, N. B., & Krishnaveni, N. (2015). Effects of Diatomaceous earth in amelioration of aflatoxin induced patho-morphological changes in broilers. Indian Journal of Veterinary Pathology, 39(2), 154-163. doi: 10.5958/0973-970X.2015.00035.8
  » https://doi.org/10.5958/0973-970X.2015.00035.8
• Maiorka, A., Silva, A. V. F., Santin, E., Bruno, L. D. G., Boleli, I. C., & Macari, M. (2016). Effect of broiler breeder age on the intestinal mucosa development of the embryos at 20 days of incubation. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science, 18(2), 79-82. doi: 10.1590/1806-9061-2015-0130
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9061-2015-0130
• Matur, E., & Eraslan, E. (2012). The impact of probiotics on the gastrointestinal physiology. New Advances in the Basic and Clinical Gastroenterology, 1, 51-74.
• Mc-lelland, J. (1990). A Colour Atlas of Avian Anatomy London, UK: Wolfe Publishing Ltd.
• Midilli, M., Alp, M., Kocabach, N., Muglah, O. H., Turan, N., Yilmaz, H., & Cakir, S. (2008). Effects of dietary probiotic and prebiotic supplementation on growth performance and serum IgG concentration of broilers. South African Journal of Animal Science, 38(1), 21-27.
• Natsir, M. H., Osfar, S., Ilham, A., & Siti, K. E. (2018). Effect of combination of encapsulated black cincau leaves (Mesona palustris BL) and probiotics on production performances, yolk cholesterol content and ammonia level of laying hen. Journal of World’s Poultry Research, 84(6), 105-110.
• Natsir, M. H., Sjofjan, O., Widodo, E., Ardiansah, I., & Widyastuti, E. S. (2019). Effect of either non-encapsulated or encapsulated acidifier-phytobiotic-probiotic on performance, intestinal characteristics and intestinal microflora of local hybrid ducks. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 31(1), 1-5.
• Parsa, M., Nosrati, M., Javandel, F., Seidavi, A., Khusro, A., & Salem, A. Z. M. (2018). The effects of dietary supplementation with different levels of Microzist as newly developed probiotics on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and immunological organs of broiler chicks. Journal of Applied Animal Research, 46(1), 1097-1102. doi: 10.1080/09712119.2018.1467835
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2018.1467835
• Ritzi, M. M., Abdelrahman, W., Mohnl, M., & Dalloul, R. A. (2014). Effects of probiotics and application methods on performance and response of broiler chickens to an Eimeria challenge. Poultry Science, 93(11), 2772-2778. doi: 10.3382/ps.2014-04207
  » https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2014-04207
• Sahin, T., Kaya, I., Unal, Y., & Elmali, D. A. (2008). Dietary supplementation of probiotic and prebiotic combination (Combiotics) on performance, carcass quality and blood parameters in growing quails. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 7(11), 1370-1373.
• Saiyed, M. A., Joshi, R. S., Savaliya, F. P., Patel, A. B., Mishra, R. K., & Bhagora, N. J. (2015). Study on inclusion of probiotic, prebiotic and its combination in broiler diet and their effect on carcass characteristics and economics of commercial broilers. Veterinary World, 8(2), 225. doi: 10.14202/vetworld.2015.225-231
  » https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2015.225-231
• Sarangi, N. R., Babu, L. K., Kumar, A., Pradhan, C. R., Pati, P. K., & Mishra, J. P. (2016). Effect of dietary supplementation of prebiotic, probiotic, and synbiotic on growth performance and carcass characteristics of broiler chickens. Veterinary World, 9(3), 313-319. doi: 10.14202/vetworld.2016.313-319
  » https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2016.313-319
• Seifi, S., Khoshbakht, R., Sayrafi, R., Hashemi, A., Gilani, A., Goudarzi, B., & Mehdinezhad, H. (2017). Evaluation of prebiotic and probiotic in diets comprising rice bran on heat stressed broilers. Revue de Medicine et Veterinaria, 168(1-3), 30-37.
• Shabani, R., Nosrati, M., Javandel, F., & Kioumarsi, H. (2012). The effect of probiotics on carcass and internal organs of broilers. Annals of Biological Research, 3, 5475-5477.
• Tuli, H. S., Sandhu, S. S., Kashyap, D., & Sharma, A. K. (2014). Optimization of extraction conditions and antimicrobial potential of a bioactive metabolite, cordycepin from Cordyceps militaris 3936. World Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 3(4), 1525-1535.
• Yadav, M., Meenu, D., Maousami, Y., & Karnam, S. S. (2018). Effect of supplementation of probiotic (Bacillus subtilis) on growth performance and carcass traits of broiler chickens. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Science, 7(8), 3440-4849.
• Yazhini, P., Visha, P., Selvaraj, P., Vasanthakumar, P., & Chandran, V. (2018). Dietary encapsulated probiotic effect on broiler serum biochemical parameters. Veterinary World, 11(9), 1344. doi: 10.14202/vetworld.2018.1344-1348
  » https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2018.1344-1348
• Zhang, L., Li, J., Yun, T. T., Qi, W. T., Liang, X. X., Wang, Y. W., & Li, A. (2015). Effects of pre-encapsulated and pro-encapsulated Enterococcus faecalis on growth performance, blood characteristics, and cecal microflora in broiler chickens. Poultry Science, 94(11), 2821-2830. doi: 10.3382/ps/pev262
  » https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pev262
• Zhang, Z. F., Zhou, T. X., Ao, X., & Kim, I. H. (2012). Effects of β-glucan and Bacillus subtilis on growth performance, blood profiles, relative organ weight and meat quality in broilers fed maize-soybean meal based diets. Livestock Science, 150(1-3), 419-424. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2012.10.003
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2012.10.003
• Zhou, T. X., Chen, Y. J., Yoo, J. S., Huang, Y., Lee, J. H., Jang, H. D., ... Kim, I. H. (2009). Effects of chitooligosaccharide supplementation on performance, blood characteristics, relative organ weight, and meat quality in broiler chickens. Poultry Science, 88(3), 593-600. doi: 10.3382/ps.2008-00285
  » https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2008-00285

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  03 Feb 2020
• Date of issue
  2020

History

• Received
  24 Mar 2019
• Accepted
  31 July 2019