See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333943272

Probiotic Supplementation in Rabbit: A Review

Article · November 2016

CITATIONS READS

2 141

1 author:

Hardik Sharma
Government of Gujarat
4 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Hardik Sharma on 22 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Agriculture Sciences
ISSN: 0975-3710&E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 8, Issue 53, 2016, pp.-2811-2815.
Available online at http://www.bioinfopublication.org/jouarchive.php?opt=&jouid=BPJ0000217

Review Article
PROBIOTIC SUPPLEMENTATION IN RABBIT: A REVIEW

KALMA R. P.1*, PATEL V. K.1, JOSHI A.1, UMATIYA R.V.1, PARMAR K. N.1, DAMOR S.V.1, CHAUHAN H.D.1, SRIVASTAVA A. K.1 AND
SHARMA H. A.2
1Collegeof Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University-385506, Gujarat, India
2Junagadh Agricultural University, Junagadh, 362001, Gujarat, India
*Corresponding Author: [email protected]

Received: September 09, 2016; Revised: October 07, 2016; Accepted: October 08, 2016; Published: November 01, 2016

Abstract- The rabbit farming is an important emerging enterprise in many countries of the world. Advantages such as small body size, short generation interval, rapid
growth, genetic diversity and high productive potential make rabbit convenient as meat producing small animal in developing countries of the world like India. Raising
rabbits in an intensive system can cause many physiological and environmental stress results in spreading of enteric diseases such as coccidiosis and epizootic rabbit
enteropathy. The lower level of antibiotics over the years has been used in rabbit production as growth promoters and prophylactic agent of diseases. The European
Union Commission banned the use of antibiotics as a growth promoter in animal diets, because of issues with antibiotic resistance and antibiotic chemical residue in
animal products, which may cause problems for human health. To replace the antibiotics, new ways are used for prevention and control of infections, which can
modulate the gut microflora. These non-antibiotic compounds with bacteriostatic or bactericidal activity are probiotics, prebiotics, bacteriocins and organic acids.
Definition of the probiotic is a live microbial feed additive, which has a beneficial effect on the host animal by means of i mproving its intestinal microbial balance. The
bacteria which are generally used as probiotics include the lactic acid bacteria–lactobacilli, enterococci, bifidobacteria and yeasts.
Keywords- Rabbit farming, Emerging enterprise, Coccidiosis, Antibiotics, Growth promoter, Probiotics, Prebiotics, Organic acids
Citation: Kalma R. P., et al., (2016) Probiotic Supplementation in Rabbit: A Review. International Journal of Agriculture Sciences, ISSN: 0975-3710 & E-ISSN: 0975-9107,
Volume 8, Issue 53, pp.-2811-2815.
Copyright: Copyright©2016 Kalma R. P., et al., This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Introduction compounds with bacteriostatic or bactericidal activity are probiotics, prebiotics,

The rabbit farming is an important emerging enterprise in many countries of the bacteriocins and organic acids [9].
world. Rabbit farming has great potential in the economy of high hilly areas [1].
Small body size, short generation interval, rapid growth rate, high productive Probiotics
capacity and genetic diversity are characteristics, which make rabbit suitable as Definition of the probiotic is live microbial feed additive which has a beneficial
meat producing small livestock in developing countries of the world [2]. Rabbits effect on the host animal by means of improving its intestinal microbial balance
can convert 20% of the protein they eat into edible meat, which is higher than beef [10]. The bacteria which are generally used as probiotics include the lactic acid
(8-12%) [3]. Raising rabbits in an intensive system can cause many environmental bacteria–lactobacilli, enterococci, bifidobacteria and yeasts [11]. Probiotics create
and physiological stresses, mainly during the weaning period. These stresses beneficial conditions for nutrient utilization. Effect of probiotics on better intestinal
result in spreading of enteric diseases such as coccidiosis and epizootic rabbit digestion and the higher efficient energy utilization in rabbits has been
enteropathy, which have a negative effect on growth performance, feed efficiency documented by researchers [12,13]. Enteric diseases of rabbits can be prevented
and animal health status. Weaning posed dietary, environmental, social and by probiotics that contain yeast, live bacteria or bacterial spores. Probiotics boost
psychological stresses, which interfere deeply with feed consumption, gut colonization and stabilize eubiosis. These functions strengthen the animal’s
gastrointestinal tract development and adaptation to the weaning diet [4]. non-specific immune system [14].
Incorporation of antibiotics in foodstuffs can reduce digestive disorders and Although the mechanism of action of probiotic has not been elucidated, it might
improve growth performance of farm animal [5]. The lower level of antibiotics over include reduction of toxin production, stimulation of enzyme production by the
the years has been used in rabbit production as growth promoters and host, production of some vitamins or antimicrobial substances, competition for
prophylactic agent of diseases [6]. Due to controversy with antibiotic resistance adhesion to epithelial cells, increase resistance to colonization, stimulation of the
and antibiotic chemical residue in animal products, which may create problems for immune system of the host and reduction of stress in rabbits [15]. The mode of
human wellbeing [7], the European Union Commission banned the use of action of probiotics may be by decreasing population of harmful bacteria by
antibiotics as a growth enhancer in animal diet [8]. This ban poses a serious decreasing intestinal pH [16]. Dietary administered probiotic bacteria reduced the
challenge for rabbit meat producers. Because of the very complex and unique frequency of E. coli translocation [17] and were effective in preventing the growth
digestion of rabbit, this species is susceptible to enteric diseases, particularly after of E. coli O157:H7 in the intestinal tract of neonatal rabbits [18]. There is a dose
weaning. To replace the antibiotics, new ways are used for prevention and control reliable good effect of a probiotic on E.coli occurrence in the caecum and small
of infections which can modulate the gut microflora. These non-antibiotic intestine in rabbit [19]. Beneficial effects of probiotics are such as change in

International Journal of Agriculture Sciences

ISSN: 0975-3710&E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 8, Issue 53, 2016
|| Bioinfo Publications || 2811
 Probiotic Supplementation in Rabbit: A Review

enteric flora and reduction of Escherichia coli, a decrease in intestinal pH, a El-Sagheer and Hassanein (2014) [30] reported that rabbits diet when
production of antimicrobial substances, and reduction of toxic amines and supplemented with enzymes and probiotic mixture supplementation Veta-zyme/kg
ammonia levels in the GIT and blood [20]. @ 1 gVeta-zyme/kg commercial diet had Increase in body weight and Veta-zyme
The objective of the present paper is to review the effect of supplementation of significantly (P≤0.05) improved body weight than those of un-supplemented diet.
probiotic on growth performance, mortality and morbidity, carcass characteristics Seyidoglu and Galip (2014) [31] noted that final body weight and total weight gain
and haemato- biochemical parameters. did not differ significantly (P>0.05) when male New Zealand White rabbits (aged 5-
In this paper, efforts have been made to review information on 6 weeks) were reared on basal diet (control) or supplemented with live yeast
 Growth performance culture, i.e. Saccharomyces cerevisiae (3.0 g/kg diet), Spirulina plantesis (3.0g/kg
 Feed intake and feed conversion ratio diet) or combination (3.0 g/kg diet Saccharomyces cerevisiae; at 5% diet Spirulina
 Mortality and morbidity plantesis) for a period of 90 days.
 Haemato-Biochemical parameters (Cholesterol, glucose and Oso et al. (2013) [32] concluded that growing rabbits when fed with diet containing
triglycerides) Prebiotic (MOS at 1.0 g/kg feed) showed highest (P<0.05) final live weight and
 Carcass characteristics weight gain as compared to either those rabbits fed on arabinoxylans
oligosaccharides (Axe 1.0 g/kg feed) or Probiotic (Prediococcus acidilactis as
Growth performance 1×1010CFU/g; 0.5g/kg feed or Bacillus Cereus as 1×109CFU/g @ 0.5 g/kg feed) or
Shanmuganathan et al. (2003) [21] reported that 24 New Zealand White rabbits even other dietary combinations.
when supplemented diet with a yeast culture (at 200 ppm) and effective micro- El deek et al. (2013) [33] noted that dietary supplementation of 0.2 % super action
organisms (1 %) had a significant difference (P<0.05) on body weight among probiotic showed significantly (P<0.01) highest final body weight and daily weight
treatment groups. gain in 14 weeks New Zealand White rabbit as compared to those groups fed on a
Amber et al. (2004) [22] revealed that final body weight was significantly (p<0.05) diet supplemented with either zero or 0.1 % super action probiotic.
increased in the rabbits received a pelleted diet with probiotics (Lact-A-Bac) than Brzozowski and Strzemecki (2013) [34] observed that there was a positive impact
without probiotic. of probiotic (Bacillus cereus var toyoi) at 400 mg/kg of a probiotic preparation on
Matusevicius et al. (2006) [23] reported that New Zealand White rabbits, fed with body weight and weight gain in young rabbits than the control group without
composed feed containing BioPlus 2B® probiotic, were by 310 g or 18 %, probiotic.
significantly (p<0.05) heavier than rabbits in the tested group fed with composed Shehata et al. (2012) [35] noted that addition of amino-yeast at 0.25, 0.50 and
feed without a probiotic. 0.75%, significantly (P<0.05) increased the daily body weight gain of the male
Simonova et al. (2009) [13] reported that application of probiotic strain E. faecium New Zealand White rabbits as compared to control.
CCM7420 strain (1.0 × 109 CFU/ml, 500 μl/animal/day)had significantly (P< 0.01) Lam Phuoc Thanh and Jamikom (2012) [36] postulated that average daily gain
increase body weight compared to other treatment group. was increased significantly (P<0.05) in New Zealand White rabbits from 24.0
Chrastinova et al. (2010) [24] observed that application of probiotic strain E. g/day in the control group to 28.1 and 27.9 g/day in 1×10 7CFU/g Lactobacillus
Faecium AL41 strain (109cfu /ml/animal/day) had highest body weight gains than acidophilus group and 0.5×107CFU/G L. acidophilus plus 0.5×106 cfu/g Bacillus
that of either sage (Salvia officinalisat 10 ml/animal/day) or Eleutherococcus subtilis group.
senticosus (Ginseng dry extract at 30g/100 kg feed) or a control diet without any Khalil (2012) [37] noted that rabbit fed with a low protein diet and supplemented
supplements in drinking water. with 0.10 or 0.15 g multi-strain probiotics (protexien) /kg diet recorded 7.02 and
Omer et al. (2010) [25] noted that body weight was significantly (p<0.05) 7.86 percent growth rate, respectively than a group without protexin
increased in yeast (0.50%) supplemented group compared to control group. supplementation.
Ewuola et al. (2011) [26] observed that the final body weight of growing New Eczema and Eze (2012) [38] opined that inclusion of Bio-active yeast (probiotic
Zealand White rabbits were significantly (P<0.05) higher due to treatment Saccharomyces cerevisiae) at a level of 0.12 g yeast/kg of diet had a significantly
with(probiotics: Biovet®-YC at 500 g/ton in compared with control ones. (P<0.05) higher weight gain than that of those rabbits supplemented with either
Shrivastava et al. (2012) [27] reported that the effect of probiotic on body weight in 0.08 or 0.16 or Zero g yeast/kg diet.
the rabbit was found to be non-significant however the rabbits of probiotic
supplemented (60g) group had higher body weight than the rabbits of the control Feed intake
group. Eiben et al. (2008) [39] evaluated the effect of feed additives on fattening
Abd-El-Hady (2013) [28] reported that rabbits when fed with 300 g and 400 g performance of 150 New Zealand White rabbits. The control group (T 1) was fed a
probiotic digestarom/ ton feed showed significant (P<0.05) increased in average diet without additives. The basal diet was supplemented with 1000 mg/kg of
body weight during the last experimental week (9 weeks) compared with the probiotic bacteria of Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus licheniformis (T2 group); 0.3%
control and averages of weekly body gain of Alexandria rabbit increased by prebiotic inulin (T3 group); 0.3% organic acids (T4 group) and 0.3% tannin (T5
enhancing the dietary digestarom® level. group). They observed that feed intake was not affected by the feed additives.
Amber et al. (2014) [12] observed that the rabbits (at the age of 3 weeks) when Chrastinova et al. (2010) [24] observed no differences among the experimental
fed basal ration supplemented with MIX1 (mixture of prebiotic i.e. Bio-MOS Reg; groups on feed intake in rabbits when fed with sage (Salvia officinalis) plant
mannan oligosaccharide at 1g/kg diet and a probiotic i.e. Bio-Plus Reg.2B, extract (10 μl/animal/day) in drinking water, Eleutherococcus senticosus (Ginseng
Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus licheniformis at 0.4 g/kg diet) attained significantly dry extract 30g /100 kg feed) culture of Enterococcus faecium AL 41 strain 109
(P<0.05) higher body weight than those rabbits supplemented with either prebiotic CFU / ml; 500 μl /animal/day).
(Bio-MOS,MOS1), probiotic (Bio-Plus, PLUS1) or control group. They further Ewuola et al. (2011) [26] investigated the effect of prebiotics, probiotics and
noted that body weight of rabbits was significantly (P<0.05) higher for MIX1 than symbiotics on the performance of 32 weaned rabbits for the period of 12 weeks.
MIX2 (mixture of MOS and PLUS and supplemented to rabbits at 5 weeks of age); They found that the daily feed consumption was not significantly different among
however, there was a non-significant difference between the body weight values the dietary treatments when fed with prebiotics: Biotronic® at 4 kg/ton, probiotics:
of MIX1 and MOS1. Biovet®-YC at 500g/ton and symbiotics: the combination of both Biotronic® and
Shehu et al. (2014) [29] observed that rabbits fed diet supplemented with baker’s Biovet®-YC.
yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) @ 20, 40, 60 and 80 g per kg of basal diet, Amber et al. (2014) [12] postulated that the rabbits (at the age of 3 weeks) when
corresponding to 2 x 109, 4 x 109, 6 x 109 and 8 x 109 CFU/kg of basal diet, fed basal diet supplemented with a mixture of prebiotic i.e. Bio-MOS; mannan
respectively in five treatment groups had highest body weight and supplement had oligosaccharide at 1 g/kg diet and a probiotic i.e. Bio-Plus 2B, Bacillus subtilis and
significant (P < 0.05) effect on body weight among groups. Bacillus licheniformis at 0.4 g/kg diet, significantly (P<0.05) increased feed intake.

International Journal of Agriculture Sciences

ISSN: 0975-3710&E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 8, Issue 53, 2016
|| Bioinfo Publications || 2812
 Kalma R. P., Patel V. K., Joshi A., Umatiya R.V., Parmar K. N., Damor S.V., Chauhan H.D., Srivastava A. K. and Sharma H. A.

Shehu et al. (2014) [29] demonstrated an experiment to evaluate the effect of El-Sagheer and Hassanein (2014) [30] demonstrated an experiment to evaluate
baker’s yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) supplementation on nutrient the effect of enzymes and probiotic mixture supplementation Veta-zyme on growth
digestibility and growth performance of 60 weaned rabbits for the experimental performance of 81 growing rabbits which fed on 1 g Veta-zyme/kg commercial diet
period of 12 weeks. They observed that diets supplemented with Saccharomyces and 2 g Veta-zyme/kg commercial diet. They noted that using 1 or 2 g Veta-
cerevisiae at 60 g per kg significantly (P< 0.05) consumed more feed as compare zyme/kg diet improved FCR significantly (P<0.05) than those of un-supplemented
to groups, which were supplemented @ 20, 40, 60 and 80 g per kg of basal diet, diet.
respectively. Abd-El-hady and El-Abasy (2015) [47] studied the effect of supplementation of
Iwu et al. (2015) [40] observed that the inclusion of probiotics-phytase mixture @ prebiotic (Bio-Mos®), probiotic (Bio-Plus® 2B) and their combination on growth
1000 g/ton of feed significantly (P<0.05) increased daily feed intake of 72 performance. The content of Bio-Mos® is mann oligosaccharide and of prebiotic is
Californian rabbits. Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus licheniformis. Experiment contains 64 New Zealand
White rabbits. The experimental period lasted for 8 weeks. Experimental rabbits
Feed conversion ratio were divided into 2 equal groups. The 1 st group was uninfected and subdivided
Chrastinova et al. (2010) [24] conducted an experiment to study the effect of into 4 subgroups. The 1st subgroup fed a basal diet (Control), the 2 nd, 3rd and 4th
Phyto-additives and probiotics on the performance of 96 New Zealand white sub groups fed on a basal diet supplemented with 1 g Bio-MOS, 0.4 g Bio-Plus
rabbits for the period of 6 weeks and observed better FCR in Enterococcus and 1g Bio-MOS + 0.4 g Bio-Plus / kg, respectively. The 2nd group was similar to
faecium (AL 41 strain 109 CFU / ml; 500 μl /animal/day) supplemented group and the 1st group but experimentally infected with Pasteurella multocida. They noted
there was a significant difference (P<0.01) compared to control group. that 1st group showed lower feed conversion ratio when compared with control
Onu and Oboke (2010) [41] showed that rabbits fed 50 % maize processing waste group.
based diet (MPW) supplemented with 200 mg of enzyme (grindazym) or 200 mg Adeniji and Adewole (2015) [48] evaluated the effects of replacing brewers dried
probiotic (yeast) per kg feed had significantly (P<0.05) superior feed conversion grains for groundnut cake with or without probiotics supplementation. The
ratio as compared to MPW or non-MPW diet without supplementation. experiment was performed on 54 rabbits. The experimental period lasted for 8
Karima et al. (2011) [42] evaluated the effect of the dietary supplementation of weeks. The rabbits were allocated to nine dietary treatments. The nine
different probiotic on growth performance, immune response, some blood experimental diets had brewers dried grains replacing groundnut cake at 0, 30,
parameters and carcass traits of 60 NZW rabbits. The experimental period lasted 60% dietary levels, with groundnut cake in the control diet being at 18.7%. There
for 10 weeks. Rabbits were fed on a basal diet supplemented by 0.1 g/kg and were 3 replacement levels (0, 30 and 60%) of brewers dried grains for groundnut
0.15g/kg of Entrococcus faecum, 3 g/kg, 0.35 g/kg of Lactobacillus acidophilus cake by three supplement levels (no supplement, probiotic A and probiotic B).
and other Lactobacillus strain with enzymes (AM Phi-Bact). They reported that They reported that there was a significant effect (P<0.05) of the supplementation
dietary supplementation of E. faecum significantly improved (P<0.05) FCR by on a diet with 60 % brewers dried grains and probiotic B on FCR.
about 13.0% and 13.1% and Lactobacillus strains containing probiotic (AM Phi- Ezema and Eze (2015) [49] studied the effect of probiotic on growth and economic
Bact) dietary supplementation had no significant effect on FCR. benefit in 20 cross-bred rabbits for the period of 13 weeks. Rabbits were randomly
El-Kholy et al. (2012) [43] studied the effect of Enterococcus faecalis isolated from divided into 4 groups of 5 rabbits each. Rabbits were fed on pelleted grower mash
mother’s soft faeces as probiotic dietary supplementation on productive, with probiotic supplementation at levels of 0.08, 0.12, and 0.16 g/kg of diet,
physiological and immunological capabilities of 320 NZW rabbits for the period of respectively. They observed that there was no significant difference in FCR among
40 days. They observed significantly (P<0.05) higher FCR in E. Faecalis (150 ml the groups.
of culture per 1000 g of diet) group as compared to control group.
Ezema and Eze (2012)[38] conducted an experiment to study the effect of Mortality
probiotic (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) on growth performance and some El-Dimerdash et al. (2011) [50] demonstrated an experiment to evaluate the effect
haematological parameters of 40 rabbit.They observed that there was no of the probiotic supplementation in drinking water on the performance of 65 NZW
significant difference (P>0.05) in FCR among the treatment groups when fed with rabbits for the experimental period of 3 weeks. 60 rabbits were divided into 4
bioactive yeast (probiotic) at supplementation levels of 0.08, 0.12, and 0.16 g equal groups, control G0, infected G1, probiotic G2, and probiotic infected G3. In
yeast/kg diet. Probiotic groups (G2, G3) rabbits were supplied with probiotic powder contain E.
Thanh and Jamikorn (2012) [44] evaluated the effects of probiotic Faecium in Drinking water (1g/ lit water). They noted a non-significant difference in
supplementation on feed efficiency of 64 weaning New Zealand White rabbits for mortalities between both infected groups (G1) and probiotic infected group (G3).
the period of 6 weeks. They noted that the feed conversion rate was reduced Morbidity in Infected group (G1) was about 17% during 1stweek, 49% in a 2nd week
significantly (P<0.05) to 2.55 and 2.56 in the L. acidophilus (1x107 CFU/g) and and 32% at 3rd week. While the probiotic infected group (G 3) was milder, reached
B.subtilis (0.5x107 CFU/g)diets as compared to 2.89 in the control diet. 17% during the 1st week, 14% in 2nd week.
Adeniji and Zubairu (2013) [45] reported better FCR in a diet supplemented with Thanh and Jamikorn (2012) [44] investigated the effects of probiotics
Probiotic [email protected] kg/100 kg palm kernel cake and there was a significant effect supplementation on feed efficiency, growth performance of 64 weaning New
(P<0.05) of supplementation on feed to gain ratio. Zealand White rabbits. The experimental period lasted for 6 weeks. At 28-days,
Adeniji et al. (2014) [46] studied the effect of replacing rice husk for groundnut the rabbits were randomly distributed into 4 groups. Rabbits were fed four diets.
cake with or without probiotics and enzyme supplementation in the diets of 72 The treatments composed of basal diets with no probiotic supplement (control),
grower rabbits. The experimental period lasted for 8 weeks. The 12 experimental 1x106 CFU/g B. subtilis (BS), 1x107 CFU/g L. acidophilus (LA), and 0.5x106 CFU/g
diets fed with or without supplementation were such that, rice husk was fed to B. subtilis plus 0.5x107 CFU/g L. acidophilus (BL). They noted that morbidity rate
replace 0, 30 and 60% of dietary groundnut cake while there are 4 supplements was significantly reduced to 0 % in the LA group, while this value was 31.3 % in
(no supplements, probiotics A, Probiotics B and Enzyme). Each treatment had 3 the control group. None of the animal in any groups died during the study.
replicate containing 2 rabbits each. They observed that the dietary Wallace et al. (2012) [51] evaluated the effect of probiotic on 36 California White,
supplementation with probiotic A had significant influence (P<0.05) on the feed to New Zealand White and Chinchilla rabbit for 4 months. The study was contained
gain ratio of the rabbits. two controls i.e. To- (treatment group without any additive in the basal diet) and
Amber et al. (2014) [12] observed that the rabbits (at the age of 3 weeks) when To+ (treatment group treated with a coccidiostat prior to starting of feeding trial and
fed basal diet supplemented with MIX1 (mixture of probiotics i. e. Bio-MOS Reg; fed the basal diet). The test treatment groups consisted of T 1 (supplemented with
mannan oligosaccharide at 1 g/kg diet and a probiotic i.e. Bio-Plus Reg.2B, 1.0 ml probiotic /kg feed) and T2 (supplemented with 1.5 ml probiotic /kg feed).
Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus licheniformis at 0.4 g/kg diet) had significant effects They reported that there was a non-significant difference in the rate of mortality
(P<0.001) among the group among the rabbits among the treatment groups.

International Journal of Agriculture Sciences

ISSN: 0975-3710&E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 8, Issue 53, 2016
|| Bioinfo Publications || 2813
 Probiotic Supplementation in Rabbit: A Review

Amber et al. (2014) [12] observed that the rabbits (at the age of 3 weeks) when @1 g /kg commercial diet and 2 g /kg commercial diet. They observed no
fed basal diet supplemented with MIX1 (mixture of probiotic i.e. Bio-MOS Reg; significant differences in carcass criteria such as carcass weight and dressing,
mannan oligosaccharide at 1 g/kg diet and a probiotic i.e. Bio-Plus Reg. 2B, pancreas, heart, liver, spleen and head weight percentages among all treatment
Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus licheniformis at 0.4 g/kg diet) reduced mortality. groups.
El-Sagheer and Hassanein (2014) [30] investigated the effect of enzymes and Ewuola et al. (2011) [26] studied the effect of prebiotics (Biotronic® at 4 kg/ton),
probiotic mixture supplementation on growth performance of 81 growing rabbits. probiotics (Biovet®-YC at 500 g/ton) and symbiotics on the performance of 32
The experimental period lasted for 6 weeks. Rabbits were distributed into 9 weaned rabbits for 12 weeks. They noted that Carcass characteristics is not
groups, each of three equal replicates. Group 1 to Group 3 were served as significantly different (p>0.05) except right arm for different treatment groups.
controls. Group 4 to Group 6 were supplemented with 1 g Veta-zyme/kg
commercial diet, while the group 7 to group 9 was supplemented with 2 g Veta- Conclusions
zyme/kg commercial diet. They noted a non-significant difference in mortality More recently, a great deal of interest has developed concerning the many
among groups. beneficial effects of probiotic. Different study reveals that the use of probiotic could
Shehu et al. (2014) [29] evaluated the effect of baker’s yeast (Saccharomyces enhance body weight, weight gain, feed intake and may have positive effect on
cerevisiae) supplementation on nutrient digestibility and growth performance of 60 haemato-biochemical parameter and carcass characteristics of rabbit.
weaned rabbits. The experimental period lasted for 12 weeks. The animals were
randomly divided into 5 treatment groups. T 1 was controlled without Acknowledgements
supplementation of Saccharomyces, T2, T3, T4 and T5 supplemented at the rate of The authors wish to thank teaching staff for technical assistance and checking the
20, 40, 60 and 80 g per kg of basal diet, corresponding to 2 x 10 9, 4 x 109, 6 x 109 manuscript.
and 8 x 109 CFU/kg of basal diet, respectively. They observed a non-significant
difference in mortality of all groups. Conflict of Interest: None declared

Blood parameter References

Simonova et al. (2013) [52] noted that dietary supplementation with Enterococcus [1] Tripathi R.S. and Kumar J. (1992) Apple production and marketing in U.P.
faecium CCM7420 (EF) and E. senticosus extract (ES) or their combination Hills. Research report, Department of Agriculture economics, G.B. Pant
(EF+ES) had a significant difference (P<0.05) for glucose among groups. University of Agriculture and Technology, Ranichauri, Tehrigarhwal, 32-42.
Galip and Seyidoolu (2012) [53] observed that serum cholesterol value tended to [2] Anjeniwa M. (2000) The rabbit husbandry, health and production, FAO.
be lower (p<0.05) in rabbit fed 2 g yeast, while the serum glucose level was Italy, 88.
slightly higher but statistically non significant in rabbits fed 4 g yeast. [3] Basavaraj M., Nagabhushana V., Prakash N., Appannavar M. M., Wagmare
Seyidoglu and galip (2014) [31] reported that there were non-significant effects on P. and Mallikarjunappa S. (2011) Veterinary world, 4(1), 15-18.
blood glucose, triglyceride and cholesterol values of rabbits when fed with the S. [4] Pluske J. R., Hampson D.J. and Williams I.H. (1997) Livestock Production
cerevisiae supplement (3 g/kg diet). Science, 51, 215-236.
Abd-El-hady and El-Abasy (2015) [47] observed that rabbits when fed with [5] Barton M.D. (2000) Nutritional Research Review, 13, 279-99.
prebiotic (Bio-Mos®,mann oligosaccharide), probiotic (Bio-Plus® 2B, Bacillus [6] Falcao-E-Cunha L., Castro-Solla L., Maertens L., Marounek M.,Pinheiro V.,
subtilis and Bacillus licheniformis) and their mixture reduced glucose (P<0.05), Freire J. and Mourao J.L. (2007) World rabbit science, 15, 127-140.
cholesterol & triglycerides (P<0.001) significantly compared with control group. [7] Smith D. L., Harris A. D., Johnson J. A., Silbergeld E.K. and Morris J.G.
Sarat Chandra et al. (2015) [54] observed that there were non-significant (2002) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 99,6434-
differences in the blood glucose and slight but no significant differences were 6439.
observed between the cholesterol content of rabbits when fed with probiotics [8] European Union Commission, (2005)) Ban on antibiotics as growth
(Saccharomyces boulardi 50% and Pediococcus acidilacticii 50%, 109 CFU/g of promoters in animal feed enters into effect. Regulation 1831/2003/ec on
feed) and enzymes (Kemzyme HF at 500 g/Ton of feed) additives for use in animal nutrition, replacing directive 700/524//333c on
additives in feedstuffs, Brussels, 22 December.
Carcass characteristics [9] Marounek M., Skrivanova E. and Rada V. (2003) Folia Microbiologica, 48,
Shanmuganathan et al. (2003) [21] investigated the effect of supplemental 731-735.
enzymes, yeast culture and effective micro-organisms on performance of 24 New [10] Fuller R.(1989) Journal of Applied Bacteriology, 66, 365-378.
Zealand White rabbits for 10 weeks. The rabbits were supplemented either with [11] Linaje R., Coloma M. D., Perez-Martinez G. and Zuniga M. (2004) Journal
enzymes (a mixture of cellulases and proteases at 400 ppm), yeast culture (at 200 of Applied Microbiology, 96, 761-771.
ppm) and effective micro-organisms (1 %) in three groups. They noted that yeast [12] Amber K. H.,Abd El-Nabi F. M.,Morsy W.A. and Sharma H.A. (2014)
increased carcass recovery by 24.7% while effective microorganisms increased it Egyptian Poultry Science Journal, 34(I), 19-38.
by 16.7%. [13] Simonova M. P., Laukova A., Chrastinova L., Strompfova V., Faix S.,
Onbasilar and Yalcin (2008) [55] studied the effects of dietary supplementation of Vasilkova Z., Ondruska L., Jurcik R. And Rafay J. (2009) Czech Journal of
probiotic and anticoccidial on performance of 48 NZW rabbits for 6 weeks. They Animal science, 54, 376-386.
noted that carcass yield and weight percentage of lung, heart, kidney and small [14] Fortun-Lamothe L. and Drouet V.F. (2002) World rabbit Science, 10(1), 25-
intestine are not different among groups. 39.
Matusevicius and Jeroch (2009) [56] studied the effect of Probiotic Toyocerin® @ [15] Shehata A.S. and Tawfeek M. I. (2010) The 6th international conference on
1 x 1010CFU/g in 60 New Zealand white rabbits for 56 days. They noted that rabbit production in hot climate, Assuit, Egypt, 455-471.
carcass weight as well as weight of valuable carcass parts increased. [16] Makled M.N. (1991) 3rd scientific symposium for animal, poultry and fish
Brzozowski and Strezemacki (2013) [34] opined that the addition of Bacillus nutrition. Sakha (Egypt), 54-68.
Cereus Var. Toyoi, as a probiotic factor in the young rabbit’s diet at a level of 400 [17] Lee D.J., Drongowski R. A., Coran A.G. and Harmon C.M. (2000) Pediatric
mg/kg of a probiotic preparation showed positive results during fattening and Surgery International, 16(4), 237-242.
dressing percentage. [18] Tachikawa Y., Seo G., Nakazawa M., sueyoshi M., Ohishi T. and Joh K.
El-Sagheer and Hassanein (2014) [30] conducted an experiment to study the (1998) Journal of Japanese Association Infectious Diseases, 72(12), 1300-
effect of supplementation of enzymes and probiotic mixture (Veta-zyme) on 81 1305.
growing New Zealand white rabbits for 6 weeks. The probiotic was supplemented

International Journal of Agriculture Sciences

ISSN: 0975-3710&E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 8, Issue 53, 2016
|| Bioinfo Publications || 2814
 Kalma R. P., Patel V. K., Joshi A., Umatiya R.V., Parmar K. N., Damor S.V., Chauhan H.D., Srivastava A. K. and Sharma H. A.

[19] Hamrany M., Balherby M. and Bepro H. (2000) World Rabbit Science, 8(1), Canal Veterinary Medicine Journal, 16(2), 151-152.
48. [51] Wallace P. A., Osei D.Y., Aseidu P., Amoah K. O. and Asafu-adjaye A.
[20] Pollman D.S. (1986) Recent advances in animal nutrition. Butter worths (2012) Journal of Animal and Feed Research, 2(5), 450-456.
(London), 193-205. [52] Simonova M., Marcinakova M., Strompfova V., Cobanova K., Gancarcikova
[21] Shanmuganathan T. Samarasinghe K. and Wenk C. (2003) Asian- S., Vasilkova Z. and Laukova, A. (2013) International Journal of Probiotics
Australasian Journal of Animal Science, 17(5), 678-683. and Prebiotics, 3, 7-14.
[22] Amber K. H., Yakout H.M. and Hamed R.S. (2004) Proceedings-8th world [53] Galip N. and Seyidoolu N. (2012) Journal of Animal and Veterinary
rabbit congress, Puebla, Mexico, 737-745. Advances, 11(22), 4115-4120.
[23] Matusevicius P., Asmenskaite L., Zilinskiene A., Gugolek A., Lorek M.O. [54] Sarat Chandra A., Mahender M. and Harikrishna C. (2015) Livestock
and Hartman A. (2006) Veterinary Medicine Zootechnicha, 36(58), 54-59. Research International, 3(1), 20-24.
[24] Chrastinova L., Chrenkova M., Laukova A., Polacikova M., Simonova M., [55] Onbasilar I. and Yalcin S. (2008) Revue de medicine Veterinaire, 159(11),
Szaboova R., Strompfova V., Ondruska L., Chlebec I., Parkanyi V., Rafay 570-574.
J. and Vasilkova Z. (2010) Archiva Zootechnica, 13(2), 30-35. [56] Matusevicius P. and Jeroch H. (2009) Lohmann information, 44(2), 38.
[25] Omer H. A. Hewida M. H. Laila D. Abd El S. and Maghraby N. (2010)
American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Science, 7(2),
179-187.
[26] Ewuola E. O., Amadi C.U. and Imam T.K. (2011) International Journal of
Applied Agricultural and Apicultural Research, 7(1),107-117.
[27] Shrivastava A. K., Tiwari K. K., Kumar R. and Jha R.R. (2012) Scholarly
Journal of Agricultural Science, 2(11), 277-282.
[28] Abd-El-Hady A.M. (2013) Journal of International Scientific Publications:
Agriculture and Food, 2, 353-365.
[29] Shehu B. M., Ayo J. O., Ayanwale B. A., Jiya E. Z. and Tsado D. N. (2014)
Journal of Agricultural and Rural Development, 17(1), 1619-1627.
[30] El-Sagheer M. and Hassanein H. H. M. (2014) Egyptian Poultry Science
Journal, 34(I), 259-272.
[31] Seyidoglu N. and Galip N. (2014) Kafkas Universitesi Veteriner Fakultesi
Dergisi, 20, 331-336.
[32] Oso A. O., Idowu O. M. O., Haastrup A. S., Ajibade A. J., Olowonefa K. O.,
Aluko A. O., Ogunade I. M.,Osho S.O. and Bamgbose A. M. (2013)
Livestock Science, 157, 184-190.
[33] El-deek A. A., Albanoby M. A. and El-Naga M.K.A.(2013) Egyptian Poultry
Science Journal, 33, 407-419.
[34] Brzozowski M. and Strzemecki P. (2013) Annals of Warsaw University of
Life Sciences, 52, 7-11.
[35] Shehata S. A., Mahrose K. M. and Ismail E.I. (2012) Egyptian Journal of
Nutrition and Feeds, 15, 75-80.
[36] Lam P. T. and Jamikorn U. (2012) Proceedings of the 50 th Kasetsart
University Annual Conference, Kasetsart University, Thailand, 136-143.
[37] Khalil B. A. (2012) Egyptian Journal of Nutrition and Feeds, 15, 425-434.
[38] Ezema C. and Eze D.C. (2012) Comparative Clinical Pathology, 21, 73-76.
[39] Eiben C. S., Gippert T., Godor-Surmann K. and Kustos K. (2008) 9th world
rabbit congress, Verona, Italy, 10-13.
[40] Iwu C. J., Iwu I. M. and Aguihe P. C. (2015) International Journal of Applied
Research and Technology, 4(9), 116 -120.
[41] Onu P. N. and Oboke S. A. (2010) Indian Journal of Animal Research,
44(2), 87–93.
[42] Karima M., El- Katcha M. I. Y., Ismail E. Y. and Soltan M. A. (2011)
Alexandria Journal of Veterinary Science, 34(1), 153-169.
[43] El-Kholy K. H. El-Damrawy S. Z. and Seleem T.S.T. (2012) 5 th Science
Congress of Egypt. Society for Animal Management, 142-157.
[44] Thanh L. P. and Jamikorn U. (2012) Proceedings of the 50 th kasetsart
University annual conference, Kasetsart University, Thailand.
[45] Adeniji A. A. and Zubairu N.(2013) Journal of Animal Science Advances,
3(10), 517-523.
[46] Adeniji A. A., Duwa H. and Umar M. (2014) Global Journal of Biology,
Agriculture & Health Sciences, 3(4),48-54.
[47] Abd-El-Hady D. H. and El-Abasy M. A. (2015) Benha Veterinary Medical
Journal, 28(2), 40‐51.
[48] Adeniji A.A. and Adewole O.A. (2015) Journal of Natural Sciences
Research, 5(7), 155-164.
[49] Ezema, C. and Eze, D. C. (2015) Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 14(1),47-49.
[50] El- Dimerdash M. Z., Dalia M. H., Hanan F. A. and Doaa S. A. (2011) Suez

International Journal of Agriculture Sciences

ISSN: 0975-3710&E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 8, Issue 53, 2016
|| Bioinfo Publications || 2815
View publication stats