Volume 8, Issue 3, March – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology

ISSN No:-2456-2165

Growth Performance of Broilers Fed Different

Levels of Prebiotics
Rochele N. Aragon
Assistant Professor I
College of Agriculture Sorsogon State University, Sorsogon City, Philippines

Abstract:- This study sought to: determine the effects of One of the feed additives that can be added to the
prebiotics on the daily gain, gain in weight and feed ration of broilers is prebiotics. Prebiotics are defined as a
efficiency of broilers; Evaluate the feed cost to produce a non-digestible food ingredient that beneficially affects the
kilogram broiler; Determine the morbidity and host by selectively stimulating the growth and/or a limited
mortality rates among treatment groups; Determine the number of bacteria in the colon (Gibson and Robertfroid,
digestibility of feeds; Evaluate the consistency of manure 1995). In other words, prebiotics are meant to provide a
and urine output; and to Assess the economics of adding substrate for beneficial gastrointestinal microbes. Large
prebiotics in broiler production. One hundred fifty amounts of bacteria are present in the small intestines of
broilers were randomly distributed in five treatments monogastrics and are potentially capable of utilizing these
and replicated three times with ten birds per replicate indigestible carbohydrates as source of energy.
given the following treatment diets: Treatment 1 no
prebiotics; 2% prebiotics; 3% prebiotics; 4% prebiotics; In poultry farming, enteric diseases are an important
and 5% prebiotics. The average initial, final, weekly concern because of lost productivity, increased mortality,
weights and gain in weight did not differ significantly and the associated contamination of poultry products for
(P> 0.05%). Feed consumption and feed efficiency did human consumption (human food safety). With increasing
not differ significantly (P >0.05), Feed cost to produce concerns about antibiotic resistance, there is increasing
kilogram broiler in Treatment 1 was lower than those interest in finding alternatives to antibiotics for poultry
given 2-5% prebiotics (P> 0.05%) (P >0.01). Mortality production. Prebiotics is one of those that have potential to
and morbidity rates did not differ significantly (P >0.05). reduce enteric disease in poultry and subsequent
Broilers fed 2% prebiotics obtained the highest mean of contamination of poultry products. Proposed mechanism by
27.48% for consistency of manure and highest protein which prebiotics act include competition for substrates,
digestibility of 50.49. Broilers given 2% prebiotics had production of toxic compounds that inhibit pathogens, and
the highest net return of Php. 1052. competition for attachment sites (Patterson and Burkholder,
2003).
Keywords: Broilers, Prebiotics, Feed Efficiency,
Digestibility, Growth. Antibiotics and chemotherapeutics in prophylactic
doses have been used in animal feed to improve animal
I. INTRODUCTION welfare and to obtain economic benefits in terms of
improved animal performance and reduced medication
Poultry farming has increased throughout the world, costs. However, there are increasing concerns about the risk
especially in developing countries. This increasing trend is of developing cross-resistance and multiple antibiotic
expected because of the increasing demand for poultry resistances in pathogenic bacteria in both humans and
products due to the increasing population. Poultry farming is livestock linked to the therapeutic and subtherapeutic use of
one of the sources of income of Filipino farmers as recorded antibiotics in livestock and pets. This research aimed to
by the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics where around 70% assess whether the supplementation of prebiotics will affect
of the total population of poultry is coming from the the performance of broilers.
backyard raisers.
II. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
Broiler raising is a segment of the poultry industry. It
is very popular because a broiler reaches marketable weight Generally, this study aime to evaluate the growth
in a relatively short period of time. Nowadays as early as 28 performance of broilers fed with different levels of
days, broilers can weigh from 1.5 to 2.0 kilograms. It is said prebiotics added in the diet.
to be the most developed among the animal industries.
Among the types of meat, chicken are most preferred by the  Specifically, it Aimed to:
consumers regardless of religion and beliefs. It is also an  Determine the effects of prebiotics on the average daily
efficient meat producer and grows faster than other farm gain and feed efficiency of broilers;
animals raised for food.  Evaluate the feed cost to produce a kilogram broiler;
(http://en.wikipedie.org/wiki/broiler).  Identify the level of prebiotics that gave the best
performance in broilers;

IJISRT23MAR086 www.ijisrt.com 31
Volume 8, Issue 3, March – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
 Determine the morbidity rates among treatment groups; There were five types of ration that were used in this
 Determine the mortality rates among treatment groups; study namely: Treatment 1 was the control (0%
 Determine the digestibility of feeds; Prebiotics), Treatment - 2 with 2% Prebiotics,
 Evaluate the consistency of manure and urine output of Treatment - 3 with 3% Prebiotics, Treatment - 4 with
all treatment groups. 4% Prebiotics and Treatment - 5 with 5% Prebiotics. The
ingredients that were used: corn, Rice Bran D1, soybean oil
III. METHODOLOGY meal, coco oil, biophos, limestone coarse, nutrimass
basemix.
A total of 150 broilers were used in the study to
evaluate the performance of broilers fed with different levels Data gathered were subjected to Analysis of Variance
of prebiotics in the diet. The chicks were purchased from a (ANOVA). Means with significant differences were further
reliable source in Naga City. subjected to Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT).

The broilers were randomly distributed in a IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Completely Randomized Design (CRD). There were five
treatments which were replicated three times with a total of  Average Weight Gain:
15 experimental units as shown in Figure 1. Each replicate Broilers given Treatment 2 with 2% prebiotics
were contained 10 broiler chicks. The treatments of the obtained the highest weight gain of 1649.67 g followed by
study were the following: Treatment 1- control 0% those given Treatment 3, with 3% prebiotics with 1642.21 g.
Prebiotics; Treatment 2 - 2% Prebiotics; Treatment 3- 3% This was followed by those broilers given Treatment 5 with
Prebiotics; Treatment 4 - 4% Prebiotics; and Treatment 5 – 5% prebiotics with 1640.29 g, Treatment 4 with 4%
5% Prebiotics prebiotics with 1574.09 g and lowest in broilers given feed
without prebiotics.
The treatment diets were given to the birds at the start
of the experiment. Feeds and water were made available at However, the observed numerical differences in the
all times. The prebiotics that were used in the study is a gain in weight showed no significant differences among the
natural prebiotic polysaccharide derived from marine treatments as revealed in the Analysis of Variance
sourced macro algae for use in the feed industry. It helps (ANOVA).
modulate the various vital functions & processes of the
animal’s body. It is essentially a nutrient that enhances the This can be due to the almost similar weights of the
animal’s overall performance as to: growth, fertility, broiler chicks at the start of the experiment and the
reproduction, hatchability to layers, immunity, and uniformity of the management practices employed in each of
resistance against diseases. the replicates. There is an indication that broilers given 2%
prebiotics had slightly higher weight at 35 days and weight
The prebiotic contains many potential bioactive gain than the control.
components; the constituent that is unique is the
polysaccharide fraction that makes up about 52 percent of It is also evident, although not significant that at 3%,
the dry weight. Within this fraction are important sources 4% and 5% inclusion rate of prebiotics, There is a
of complex, sulfated- polysaccharides that endow this corresponding decrease in final weight and gain in weight of
prebiotic with unique characteristics not found in terrestrial the broilers. This could be an indication that at 2% inclusion
plant sources or other common marine plants. rate, this could already produce the desired performance of
the broilers and at higher inclusion rates; the performance
would be less and would be more costly in terms of feed
expenses.

Table 1 Initial, final and weight gain of experimental birds, g

PARAMETERS TREATMENT
Control 2%Preb 3%Preb 4%Preb 5%Preb
Weight at Day Old ns 49.30 48.53 48.90 48.87 48.87
Weight at 35 Day ns 1586.05 1698.20 1673.11 1622.96 1640.29
Gain Weight ns 1536.75 1649.67 1642.21 1574.09 1591.42
ns – Treatment means are not significantly different from each other

 Average Weekly Weights:  Weight of Broilers at First Week Feeding Period:

Average weekly weights was taken by weighing all the It can be noted that during the first week of feeding
birds per replicate divided by the number of birds at first, period as shown in Table 3, broilers fed Treatment 3 with
second, third, fourth and fifth week of the experiment. Table 3% prebiotics were heavier with 143.62 g followed by
3 summarizes the weights of the broilers taken at these Treatment 2 with 2% prebiotics, 134.96 g; Treatment 5 with
periods. 5% prebiotics, 134.01 g and those with no prebiotics,
131.68g and lowest in Treatment 4 with 4% prebiotics,

IJISRT23MAR086 www.ijisrt.com 32
Volume 8, Issue 3, March – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
125.87 g. It is interesting to note at this stage that the inclusion of
prebiotics did not exert significant difference on the weight
However, these slight differences failed to show any at first week of the experimental period. This may also mean
significant differences as revealed in the Analysis of that the broiler chicks did not experience significant amount
Variance (ANOVA). This means that the responses of the of stress in the addition of different levels of prebiotics.
animals to the treatment diets were comparable in all Hence, there is no significant difference in the weight of the
treatment diets and were not enough to show significant broilers at this stage.
results.

Table 2 Average Weekly Weight (g) of Broilers Fed with different levels of Prebiotics.
WEEK ns
TREATMENT 1 2 3 4 5
T1 – 0% Preb 131.68 309.30 1056.91 1133.88 1586.05
T2 – 2% Preb 134.96 323.51 1089.17 1218.21 1698.20
T3 – 3% Preb 143.62 341.99 1102.66 1197.00 1673.11
T4 – 4% Preb 125.87 307.19 974.70 1182.22 1622.96
T5 – 5% Preb 134.01 337.38 1058.85 1161.33 1640.29
Total 670.14 1619.37 5282.29 5829.64 8220.61
Mean 134.03 323.87 1056.46 1178.53 1644.12
ns – Treatment means are not significantly different from each other

 Weight of Broilers at Second Week Feeding Period: These differences were not shown to be significant as
During the second week of feeding period, broilers revealed in the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). This means
given 3% prebiotics had an average weight of 341.99 g that the treatments given with prebiotics had a comparable
while those given 5% prebiotics had 337.38 g followed or similar performance with the animals without prebiotics.
those given 2% prebiotics with 323.51 g, the control with
309.30g and lowest with 4% prebiotics with 307.19 g. On the fifth week of feeding, broilers fed with 2%
prebiotics obtained the highest weight of 1698.20 g followed
These numerical differences were not did not show by 3% prebiotics with 1673.11 g; 5% prebiotics had an
significant differences as revealed in the Analysis of average weight of 1640.29 g; 4% prebiotics had 1622.96 g
Variance (ANOVA). This means that the weight of broilers and the lowest was noted in the control group with 1586.05
at two weeks feeding period was similar and that the levels g.
of prebiotics did not exert significant influence on this
parameter. These differences were not shown to be significant as
revealed in the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). This means
 Weight of Broilers at Third Week Feeding Period: that the treatments given with prebiotics had a comparable
After three weeks of feeding period, it can be noted that or similar performance with the animals without prebiotics.
once again that broilers given 3% prebiotics had the highest
average weight of 1102.66 g, followed by those given 2% However, looking the difference from the first week
prebiotics with 1089.17 g; 5% prebiotics with 1058.85 g of feeding up to the fifth week, broilers given 2%
and lowest in broilers given 4% prebiotics with 974.70% g. prebiotics gave a 1563.24 g gain in weight followed by 3%
Broilers fed ration without prebiotics weighed 1056.91g. prebiotics with 1529.49 g; 5%
prebiotics with 1506.28 g; 4% prebiotics gave with
These results as revealed in the Analysis of Variance 1497.09 g. The broilers without prebiotics added a
(ANOVA) failed to show significant differences among meagre 1454.37 g gain in weight. This clearly
treatment means. This means that the treatments given indicates that the apparent effect of prebiotics can be
prebiotics have the same performance with those animals obtained by giving 2% of prebiotics to broilers.
that were not given prebiotics. Hatemink (1995) stated that prebiotics can be used as
potential alternatives to growth promoting antibiotics. This
 Weight of Broilers at Fourth and Fifth Week Feeding effect also corroborate the research of Hooge (2004) that
Period: the commercially available prebiotics MOS (Bio-MOS)
There is a similar trend on the weight gain of the improved the growth performance of broilers compared to
broilers during the fourth and fifth week of feeding period. the negative control. Li et al (2008) also stated that FOS
During the fourth week, broilers given 2% prebiotics improved broilers gain in weight for about 5-8%.
obtained the highest weight of 1218.21 g followed by 3%
prebiotics with 1197.00 g; 5% prebiotics had 1161.33 g ;  Feed consumption, Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR), Feed
4% prebiotics had 1182.22 g and lowest in the control with Cost per Kilogram of Broiler:
1133.8g. Table 3 shows the feed consumption, feed conversion
ratio and feed cost per kilogram of the experimental birds
after 35-day feeding period.

IJISRT23MAR086 www.ijisrt.com 33
Volume 8, Issue 3, March – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
 Feed Consumption: broilers fed without prebiotics.
Broilers given 2% prebiotics obtained the lowest feed
consumption of 26, 716.67 g with a feed conversion ratio of These differences were not shown to be significant as
1.58 kg followed by those given with 3% Prebiotics with revealed in the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). This means
27,683.33 g with an FCR of 1.66 kg. This was followed by that broilers given with 2-5% prebiotics have comparable
those given with 5% prebiotics had an average feed feed conversion ratio with those birds without prebiotics
consumption of 27,850.00 g and had an FCR of 1.70 kg added in the diet.
while those given with 4% prebiotics had an average feed
consumption of 27,766.67 g and with 1.70 kg of FCR and However, looking the difference of the Feed
those without prebiotics had the highest feed consumption Conversion Ratio, broilers given with 2% prebiotics had a
of 27,393.33 g and had an FCR of 1.73 kg. These feed conversion ratio of 1.58 kg while those birds without
differences were not shown to be significant as revealed in prebiotics added in the diet had the better Feed Conversion
the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). This means that Ratio of 1.73 kg.
broilers given with 2-5% prebiotics have comparable feed
consumption and feed conversion ratio with those birds This is the same in the research of Yang et al. (2009)
without prebiotics added in the diet. that incorporated different levels of prebiotics improved
feed conversion ratio by 2-6%. It also corroborates with the
However, looking the difference of the feed result of Nagrampa (2012) that layers given prebiotics and
consumption, broilers given with 2% prebiotics had an probiotics had better efficiency of 1.82.
average feed consumption of 26,716.67 g while those birds
without prebiotics added in the diet had the highest feed  Feed Cost per Kilogram of Broiler:
consumption of 27,393.33 g. Table 3 shows the feed cost per kilogram of broilers
fed with different levels of prebiotics. The cost was taken
 Feed Conversion Ratio: by multiplying the price of feeds per kilogram with the feed
Broilers given with 2% prebiotics obtained the better conversion ratio. Broilers without prebiotics in the diet
feed conversion ratio of 1.58 kg followed by those given posed the least amount of Php42.70 per kilogram. This was
with 3% Prebiotics with 1.66 kg. This was followed by those followed by those given with 2%, 3%, 4% and 5% prebiotics
given with 5% prebiotics had a Feed Conversion Ratio of with Php54.72. Php65.55, Php75.95, and Php83.99 per
1.70 kg while those given with 4% prebiotics had 1.70 kg kilogram of broilers respectively.
and the highest feed conversion ratio of 1.73 kg was note in

Table 3 Feed Consumption (g), Feed Conversion Ratio (kg) and Feed cost per kilogram of Broilers (P) Fed with different
Levels of Prebiotics
TREATMENT Feed Consumption ns FCR ns Feed Cost/Kg of Broilers
T1 – 0% Preb 27,393.33 1.73 42.70a
T2 – 2% Preb 26,716.67 1.58 54.72b
T3 – 3% Preb 27,683.33 1.66 65.55c
T4 – 4% Preb 27,766.67 1.71 75.95d
T5 – 5% Preb 27,850.00 1.70 83.99e
Total 137,410.00 8.40 322.90
Mean 27,482.00 1.68 64.58
ns – Treatment means are not significantly different from each other s - Treatment means are significantly different from each
other

 Values within the same column with different superscript prebiotics were higher.
differ significantly (P> 0.01):
Table 3 shows that feed cost per kilogram broiler  Morbidity and Mortality Rate:
significantly differed among treatments (P> 0.01). Table 4 shows the morbidity and mortality rate of the
Treatment 1 showed the lowest cost which is significantly experimental birds after a 35day feeding period.
lower than those given prebiotics even though 2% prebiotics
had the better feed efficiency than control. This is due to the  Morbidity:
fact that the feed cost per kilogram of treatments with Morbidity rate was computed by dividing the number
prebiotics is most costly compared to control. Similarly, of broilers with slow growth and incidence of those with
feed cost per kilogram of 2% prebiotics at P34.65 is colds. Broilers in control group had the highest morbidity
obviously the reason as it is more expensive than control rate of 6.67% followed by those broilers given with 4 and
feed cost per kg at P 24.91. 5% prebiotics with 3.33% while those broilers in treatments
2 and 3 did not experienced any occurrence of disease.
The differences in the costs of the five treatments
depended on the additional cost of prebiotics which is 500 Broilers in control group had the highest morbidity rate
per kilogram. The costs of the treatments given with because they suffered colds caused by the sudden changed

IJISRT23MAR086 www.ijisrt.com 34
Volume 8, Issue 3, March – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
of weather during the first and second weeks of the study stated that the supplementation of 0.4% FOS improved the
and even broilers given with 4 and 5% prebiotics health of the animals; therefore the lesser amount of
experienced the same phenomenon. prebiotics was the most effective level given to the animals.
Subject to the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), these
Broilers given with 2 and 3% prebiotics did not differences were not shown to be significant.
experience any occurrence of disease. Bailey et al. 1991

Table 4 Morbidity and Mortality Rate of Broilers Fed with Different Levels of Prebiotics
PARAMETERS TREATMENT
Control 2%Preb 3%Preb 4%Preb 5%Preb Mean
Morbidity ns 6.67 0 0 3.33 3.33 2.67
Mortality ns 6.67 3.33 3.33 0 3.33 3.33
ns – Treatment Means are Not Significantly Different from Each Other

 Mortality:  Consistency of Manure and Urine Output:

Mortality rate of birds was computed by dividing the Consistency of manure and urine output was
number of dead birds per treatment group by number of determined by getting manure samples from the broilers,
birds in the treatment group. Broilers without prebiotics weighed them and subjected for dry matter determination in
supplementation had the highest mortality rate of 6.67% an oven at 70 degrees Centigrade for 24 hours until constant
followed by those broilers given with 2, 3 and 5% prebiotics weight was obtained.
had 3.33% while those broilers given with 4% prebiotics do
not have mortality. Table 5 shows that broilers fed with 2% prebiotics
obtained the highest mean of 27.48% in terms of
Colds were the cause of death by those broilers in consistency of manure and urine output followed by those
control group while those given with 2, 3 and 4% prebiotics fed with 3% prebiotics with a mean of 24.06%. This was
were a victim of predators. These differences were not followed by birds given with 4% prebiotics with 23.70%
shown to be significant as revealed I the Analysis of and followed by those given with 5% prebiotics with
Variance (ANOVA). This means that all treatments given 23.54% while the lowest was obtained by those birds
with prebiotics had similar results with the control group. without prebiotics added in their diet with a mean of
23.95%.
This result was in line with findings of Fadil et al.,
(2013) who reported that dietary Gum Arabic as natural The observed numerical differences were not shown to
perbiotic supplementation for broilers had no significant be significant as revealed in the Analysis of Variance
effect on the mortality rate. (ANOVA). This means that all treatments given with
prebiotics had similar results with the control group.
However, there is an indication of the trend that there is a
higher dry matter content of the manure and urine.

Table 5 Consistency of Manure and Urine Output of Broilers Fed with different levels of Prebiotics, %
REPLICATE ns
TREATMENT 1 2 3 Total Mean
T1 – 0% Preb 21.68 26.40 20.78 68.86 22.95
T2 – 2% Preb 31.24 27.19 24.02 82.45 27.48
T3 – 3% Preb 23.78 24.44 23.97 72.19 24.06
T4 – 4% Preb 22.43 25.55 23.12 71.1 23.70
T5 – 5% Preb 26.00 22.16 22.41 70.62 23.54
Grand Mean 24.35
Ns – Treatment Means are Not Significantly Different from Each Other

 Coefficient Crude Protein Digestibility: As can be seen in table 6, it was clearly indicated that
Digestibility of crude protein was determined by the highest crude protein digestibility was found to be
recording the feed consumption and fresh fecal excretion of exhibited in treatment 2 (2% prebiotics) with 77.49
broilers for 24 hours. The samples were dried in an oven followed by treatment 5 (5% prebiotics) with 75.14.
with 60 degrees Centigrade for 24 hours. Dried weights of Treatment 3 (3% prebiotics) had a crude protein digestibility
fecal sample were also noted. Amount of nutrients in feed of 62.98 followed by treatment 4 (4% prebiotics) with 50.77
consumption and feces were calculated by multiplying the while the lowest was noted in treatment 1 (control) with
results of the proximate analysis to the feed consumption 50.61. The result of the present study is in contradict with
and dried fecal excretion respectively. the research of Nagrampa (2012) who reported that the
coefficient of digestibility for crude protein is highest in
treatment with 0.05% probiotics with 76.23% while the

IJISRT23MAR086 www.ijisrt.com 35
Volume 8, Issue 3, March – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
lowest digestibility coefficient was found in treatment with According to those who have studied use of MOS
prebiotics with 60.27%. Sinovec and Markovic, (2005) extensively, MOS may not work well with the first flock it
explained that oligosaccharides like MOS, are able to was used with but cumulative effects over several flocks
produce volatile fatty acids which stimulate peristalsis and should be expected because it alters the microflora in the
decrease the time to pass through the intestines resulting to house as well as in birds (O’Keefe, 2005).
negative effects on digestibility. However, treatment with
prebiotics had the highest crude fat digestibility(Nagrampa,
2012).

Table 6 Coefficient Protein Digestibility of the Experimental Ration

REPLICATE
TREATMENT 1 2 3 Total Mean
T1 – 0% Preb 52.18 50.81 48.83 151.82 50.61
T2 – 2% Preb 75.50 78.29 78.68 232.47 77.49
T3 – 3% Preb 62.44 62.91 63.60 188.95 62.98
T4 – 4% Preb 49.45 54.13 48.73 152.31 50.77
T5 – 5% Preb 75.11 76.38 73.94 225.43 75.14
Grand Mean 63.40

V. CONCLUSIONS [8]. Cummings, J.H. and G.T. Macfarlane, 2002.

Gastrointestinal effects of prebiotics. Br. J. Nutr.,
Based on the results of the study, the following 87(suppl.2): S145-151.
conclusions are made; Prebiotics did not exert a significant [9]. Curbelo, Y,G., et al., 2012. Prebiotics in the Feeding
effect on the growth performance of broilers at 35-day old; of Monogastric Animals. Cuban J. of Agri. Sci, Vol.
The level of prebiotics that gave the best performance in 46, No. 3.
broilers was 2% inclusion rate; An inclusion of 2% [10]. Estrada, A., et al., 2001. Administration of
prebiotics had the highest coefficient protein digestibility of Bifidobacterium bifidum to chicken broilers reduces
77.49; and the feed cost to produce a kilogram live weight the number of carcass condemnation for cellulites at
of broiler was lowest in diet without prebiotics as compared the abattoir. Journal of Applied Poultry
to those added with prebiotics. Research 10, 329-334.
[11]. Fadil, S.A., et al., 2013. Response of broiler
REFERENCES chicks to diets containing Gum Arabic as a natural
prebiotic. Journ. of current research in science
[1]. Anderson, D.B., et al., 2000. Gut microbiology and (ISSN) 2322-5009). VOL. 1, NO. 4, PP:247-253.
growth-promoting antibiotics in swine.Pig News Inf. [12]. Gibson, G.R. and M.B. Robertfroid, 1995. Dietary
20:1115N-1122N. modulation of the human colonic microbiota:
[2]. Bailey, J.S., et al., 1991. Effect of Introducing the concept of prebiotics., Nutr., 125:
fructodigosaccharide on Salmonella colonization of 1401-1412.
the chicken intestine. Poult. Sci., 70: 2433-2438. [13]. Ghiyasi, M., et al., 2007. Effect of prebiotic
[3]. Bezkorovainy, A., 2001. Probiotics: Determinants of (Fermacto) in low protein diet on performance and
survival and growth in the gut. Am. J. Clin. Nutr., carcass characteristics of broiler chicks. Int. J. Poult.
73(suppl.): 399S-405S. Sci., 6: 661-665.
[4]. Biavati, B., et al., 2010. Probiotics and Prebiotics in [14]. Hajati, H. and M. Rezaei, 2010. The Application of
Animal Feeding for safe Food Production. Int.J. of Prebiotics in Poultry Production. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 9
Food Microbiology 141 (2010) S15-S28. (3): 298-304, 2010.
[5]. Biggs, P., et al., 2007. Effects of several [15]. Hatemink, R.H., 1995. Non digestible
Oligosaccharides on growth performance, nutrient oligosaccharides: healthy food for the colon.
digestibilities and caecal microbial populations in Proceedings Symposium Wageningen, 4-5
young chicks. Poult. Sci., 86:2327-2336. December, pp: 1-77.
[6]. Bozkurt, M., et al. 2008. Growth Performance and [16]. He, G.S., et al., 2002. Evaluation of chicory
Salughter characteristics of Broiler Chickens Fed inulin extracts as feed additives for early
with Antibiotic, Manna Oligosaccharides and weaned pigs. J. Anim. Sci. (2002) 80: (Suppl): 393.
Dextran Oligosaccharides Supplemented diets. [17]. Hillman, K., 2001. Bacteriological Aspects of the
International Journal of Poultry Science 7 (10): Use of Antibiotics and Their Alternatives in the
969-977. Feed of Non-ruminant Animals. In: Recent Advances
[7]. Casadevall, A., and L. Pirofski., 1999. Host pathogen in Animal Nutrition, Gamsworthy, P.C. and J.
interactions: redefining the basic concepts of Wiseman (Eds.). Nottingham University Press,
virulence and pathogenecity. Infect. Immun. (1999) Nottingham, pp: 107-134.
67: 37013-3713.

IJISRT23MAR086 www.ijisrt.com 36
Volume 8, Issue 3, March – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
[18]. Hooge, D.M., 2004. Meta-analysis of broiler [32]. Pelicia, K.A. et al., 2004. Use of prebiotics of
chicken pen trials evaluating dietary manna bacterial and yeast origin for free range broiler
oligosachharide, 1992-2003. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 3:163- chickens. Brazilian J. Poult. Sci. 6:163-169.
174. [33]. Peric, L.D. and M. Lukic., 2009. Application of
[19]. Houdijk, J.G., et al., 1997. Relation between in vivo alternative growth promoters in broiler production.
and in vitro fermentation of oligosaccharides in Biotech. Anim. Husb., 25:387-397.
weaner pigs. Proceeding of Br. Soci. Anim. Sci. Br. [34]. Petrovsky, N., 2001. Towards a unified model of
Soci. Anim. Sci., pp: 59.75: 170-175. neuroendocrine-immune interaction. Immunol. Cell
[20]. Kannan, M.R., et al., 2005. Influence of prebiotics Biol. 79:350-357.
supplementation on lipid profile of broilers. Int. J. [35]. Pelícia, K., et al., 2004. Use of prebiotics and
Poult. Sci., 4: 994-997. probiotics of bacterial and yeast origin for free- range
[21]. Khksar, V., et al., 2008. Effect of prebiotic fermacto broiler chickens. Master’s thesis. Animal
on gut development and performance of broiler Science, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinaria e
chickens fed diet low in digestible amino acids. J. Zootecnia, UNESP, Campus de Botucatu.
Anim. Vet. Adv., 7:251-257. [36]. Piray, A.H., et al., 2007. Effects of cecal cultures
[22]. Konka, Y., et al., 2009. Effects of Mannan- and Aspergillus meal prebiotic (Fermacto) on growth
Oligosaccharides and Live Yeast in diets on the performance and organ weights of broiler chickens.
Carcass, Cut Yields, Meat Composition and Colur of Int. J. Poult. Sci., Vol. 6.
finishing Turkeys. Asian-Aust. J. Anim.Sci. [37]. Rebole, A.O., et al., 2010. Effects of inulin and
Vol.22, No.4: 550-556. enzyme complex individually or in comination o
[23]. Li, X., et al., 2008. Effects of supplementation of growth performance intestinal microflora, cecal
fructooligosaccharide and/or Bacillus subtilis to diets fermentation characteristics and jejuna histo
on performance and on intestinal microflora in morphology in broiler chickens fed wheat and barlet
broilers. Archive. Fur Tierzucht, 51:64-70. based diet. Poultry SciencE. 89:276-86.
[24]. Loddi, M.M, et al., 2001. Use of prebiotics as [38]. Roch, C., 1998. Effect of Bio-mos and Flavomycin
supplement for performance and carcass on Commercial Broiler Performance. In:
characteristics of broilers. Brazilian J. Poult. Sci. Biotechnology in the feed Industry. Proc. Alltech’s
7:169-175. 29(4):1124 -31. 14th Annual Symposium. Lyons, T.P. (Ed.).
[25]. McCracken, V. J., and R.G. Lorenz, 2001. The Nicholsville Kentucky, Enclosure code,
gastrointestinal ecosystem: A precarious 52:163.Newman, 1999).
alliance among epithelium, immunity and [39]. Russell, T.J., et al., 1998. Effect of
microbiota. Cell. Microbiol. 3:1-11. fructooligosaccharide on growth performance of
[26]. Midilli, M., et al., 2008. Effects of dietary weaned pig. J. Anim.Sci (1998) 74: (Suppl): 61.
probiotic and prebiotic supplementation on growth [40]. Simmering, R., and M. Blaut., 2001. Pro- and
performance and serum IgG concentration of prebiotics-the tasty guardians angels? Appl.Microbial.
broilers. South Afr. J.Anim. Sci., Vol. 38. Biotechnol. 55:19-28.
[27]. Nagrampa, M.M., 2012. The Effect of Probiotics and [41]. Sinovec, Z., et al., 2005. Influence of Bio-Mos on
Prebiotics on Egg Production and Egg Quality of Broiler performances and gut morphology. In:
Layers Last Peak Production. Master’s Thesis. Proceedings of 15th European Syposium on Poult.
Graduate school, Central Bicol State University of Nutr.,pp: 339-341.
Agriculture. [42]. Soderholm, J.D., and M.H. Perdue, 2001. Stress and
[28]. O’Keefe, T. 2005. Digestive aids: A brave new world the gastrointestinal tract II. Stress and intestinal
of nutrition. Poultry International. June 2005. [29]. barrier function. Am. J. Physiol. 280:G7- G13.
Orban J.I., et al., 1997a. Growth performance and [43]. Waldroup, P.W., et al. 2003. Utilization of biomos
intestinal microbial populations of growing pigs fed mannan oligosaccharide and Biolplex1 cooper in
diets containing sucrose thermal oligosaccharide broiler diets. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2:44-52.
caramel. J. Anim. Sci. (1997a) 75: 170-175. [44]. Yang, Y., et al., 2009. Dietary modulation of gut
[29]. Orban J.I., et al., 1997b. Effect of sucrose thermal microflora in broiler chickens: a review in the role
oligosaccharide caramel and dietary vitamin – of si kinds of alternatives to in-feed antibiotics.
mineral level on growth and intestinal microflora in World’s poult. Sci. J., 65:97-114.
broiler chickens. Poultry Science (1997b) 76: 482- [45]. Zikic, D.L., et al., 2008. Effect of prebiotics in
490. broiler breeder and broiler diets of performance and
[30]. Patterson, J.A. and K.M. Burkholder, 2003. jejunum morphology of broiler chickens. 1st
Application of Prebiotics and Probiotics in Poultry Mediterranean Summit of WPSA, Book of
Production. Poultry Science 82:627-631. Proceedings, Porto Carras, Greece, pp: 879-882.
[31]. Pelicano, E.R. et al., 2005. Carcass and cut yields [46]. http://www.thepoultryfederation.com/public/use
and meat qualitative traits of broilers fed diets rfiles/files/1-4%20Tue%20%20Frank%20Edens%20-
containing probiotics and prebiotics. Brazilian J. [47]. %20Nutrigenomics%20%20&%20Prebiotics.pdf
Poult. Sci. 7:169-175.

IJISRT23MAR086 www.ijisrt.com 37