Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Probiotic supplementation as an alternative to antibiotics in broiler chickens Cover

Probiotic supplementation as an alternative to antibiotics in broiler chickens

Journal of Veterinary Research
Volume 68 (2024): Issue 1 (March 2024)
By:
Open Access
|Mar 2024

Figures & Tables

Fig. 1

A-G. Statistical analysis of body weight in chickens from control and experimental groups. Group P – supplemented with the probiotics Enterococcus faecium, Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus plantarum and Pediococcus acidilactici; prebiotic fructooligosaccharides and the prebiotics inulin, maltodextrin and oligofructose; vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B12, C, K3 and folic acid, and glucose and silica; Group AO – treated with the antibiotics enrofloxacin, fortamox and trimsulfasol; Group P&AO – supplemented with probiotics, prebiotics and vitamins and treated with antibiotics; Group C – not supplemented nor treated with antibiotics. Statistical analysis was carried out using the Mann–Whitney U test and where possible, Student’s t-test. The normality of distributions was tested with the Shapiro-Wilk test, and the homogeneity of variance with Levene’s and the Brown-Forsythe tests. The relationships described a level of α = 0.05
A-G. Statistical analysis of body weight in chickens from control and experimental groups. Group P – supplemented with the probiotics Enterococcus faecium, Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus plantarum and Pediococcus acidilactici; prebiotic fructooligosaccharides and the prebiotics inulin, maltodextrin and oligofructose; vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B12, C, K3 and folic acid, and glucose and silica; Group AO – treated with the antibiotics enrofloxacin, fortamox and trimsulfasol; Group P&AO – supplemented with probiotics, prebiotics and vitamins and treated with antibiotics; Group C – not supplemented nor treated with antibiotics. Statistical analysis was carried out using the Mann–Whitney U test and where possible, Student’s t-test. The normality of distributions was tested with the Shapiro-Wilk test, and the homogeneity of variance with Levene’s and the Brown-Forsythe tests. The relationships described a level of α = 0.05

Clinical changes and mortality rates in broiler chicken groups challenged with infectious bronchitis

Day/s post challengePrevalence of clinical manifestations/deaths
Group P (n = 20)Group AO (n = 20)Group P&AO (n = 20)Group C (n = 20)
10/00/00/00/0
20/02/01/00/0
311/010/012/014/0
410/09/012/014/0
57/05/07/08/0
61/00/00/02/0
70/00/00/00/1
80/00/00/00/0
90/00/00/00/0
100/00/00/00/0
110/00/00/00/0
120/00/00/00/1
130/00/00/00/0
140/00/00/00/0
210/00/00/00/0
Mortality %00010

Results of necropsy of four broiler chicken groups challenged with infectious bronchitis

GroupngizzardintestinesliverspleenBFkidneyslungs
P100**2/100000**1
AO106/10***3/10****8/1000****5/10**2
****5/10
P&AO100***2/10****6/000****6/10**2
****4/10
C100**2/100000**2
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jvetres-2024-0009 | Journal eISSN: 2450-8608
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 147 - 154
Submitted on: Aug 31, 2023
Accepted on: Feb 15, 2024
Published on: Mar 23, 2024
Published by: National Veterinary Research Institute in Pulawy
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 times per year
Keywords:
antibiotic,
chicken immunity,
IB challenge,
probiotics
Related subjects:
Life sciences,
Molecular biology,
Microbiology and virology,
Life sciences, other,
Medicine,
Veterinary medicine

© 2024 Grzegorz Tomczyk, Jowita Samanta Niczyporuk, Wojciech Kozdruń, Anna Sawicka-Durkalec, Łukasz Bocian, Marcin Barabasz, Marcin Michalski, published by National Veterinary Research Institute in Pulawy
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 68 (2024): Issue 1 (March 2024)Next article