Evaluation of effectiveness of probiotic feed additive in experiment on laying hens
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31073/onehealthjournal2025-III-04Keywords:
probiotics, microflora, resistance, antioxidant system, productivityAbstract
The paper represents the impact of a probiotic feed supplement on the clinical and biochemical parameters of laying hens in an amateur private farm setting for organic product production. The experiment was conducted on laying hens aged 160 days (n=200) of the Leghorn breed of egg production, floor-housed on deep litter, weighing 1500-1600 g. Before the experiment, the birds were categorised into groups of 100 based on the principle of analogues. Following a 14-day acclimatisation period, a probiotic feed additive (L. casei, L. delbrueckii, B. licheniformis, B. subtilis at a concentration of 10^6 CFU/mL each) was incorporated into the diet of the experimental group in addition to the complete diet at a dosage of 1.0 cm³ per kg of feed for 30 days. The control group of poultry got a full meal according to the standards for laying hens. Before administering the medications, and on 15th and 30th days post-initiation of probiotic feeding, the birds were slaughted under preparatory inhalation chloroform anaesthesia (n=10). Blood samples, together with tissue and organ specimens, were collected for microbiological and biochemical analyses. The results suggest that the use of probiotic feed additives did not significantly alter the quantitative composition of indicator microflora. However, there was a tendency (on the 30th day of the experiment) to increase the content of Lactobacillus spp. and Bacillus spp. by 14.6% and 8.7%, respectively; a tendency to decrease the content of potential pathogenic microorganisms was also detected - Staphylococcus spp. 19.5%, Candida spp. 15.2%, Enterococcus spp. 1.47%, E. coli 13.0%. Administration of probiotics to laying hens resulted in a significant increase in serum immunoglobulin G levels throughout the experiment, with the peak IgG concentration in the experimental group observed on the 30th day, demonstrating an increase of 11.3% (p˂0.05). On the 30th day of the trial, immunoglobulin M and A levels rose by 14.6% and 10.2% (p˂0.05), respectively, while circulating immune complexes increased by 26.3%. The nonspecific resistance indicators in the experimental group of hens exhibited an upward trend: the phagocytic index, bactericidal activity, and lysozyme activity rose by 11.5%, 12.0%, and 13.9%, respectively. The clinical and biochemical findings of the trial indicate that the suggested composition of probiotic bacteria is non-harmful to laying hens. The observational data demonstrate no adverse effect on egg production.
References
van der Klein S. A. S., Bernardeau M., Gibbs K., Pál L. (2024). Research Note: Water applied direct-fed microbial reduced mortality in heat stressed broilers. Poultry science, 103(7), 103857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.103857
Rehman A., Arif M., Sajjad N., Al-Ghadi M. Q., Alagawany M., Abd El-Hack M. E., Alhimaidi A. R., Elnesr S. S., Almutairi B. O., Amran R. A., Hussein E. O. S., Swelum A. A. (2020). Dietary effect of probiotics and prebiotics on broiler performance, carcass, and immunity. Poultry science, 99(12), 6946–6953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2020.09.043
Ramlucken U., Ramchuran S. O., Moonsamy G., Lalloo R., Thantsha M. S., Jansen van Rensburg C. (2020). A novel Bacillus based multi-strain probiotic improves growth performance and intestinal properties of Clostridium perfringens challenged broilers. Poultry science, 99(1), 331–341. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pez496
Shehat A. A., Yalçn S., Latorre J. D., Basiouni S., Attia Y. A., Abd El-Wahab A., Visscher C., El-Seedi H. R., Huber C., Hafez H. M., Eisenreich W., Tellez-Isaias G. (2022). Probiotics, Prebiotics, and Phytogenic Substances for Optimizing Gut Health in Poultry. Microorganisms, 10(2), 395. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10020395
Zhang T., Zhang C., Zhang J., Sun F., Duan L. (2022). Efficacy of Probiotics for Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 12, 859967. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2022.859967
Lytvynenko V., Ushkalov V., Romanko M., Melnyk V., Orobchenko O. (2024). Clinical and biochemical assessment of a probiotic feed supplement application on calves; Bulgar J Vet Med; 27(2):176189. doi.:10.15547/bjvm.2444
Abd El-Ghany W. A., Abdel-Latif M. A., Hosny F., Alatfeehy N. M., Noreldin A. E., Quesnell R. R., Chapman R., Sakai L., Elbestawy A. R. (2022). Comparative efficacy of postbiotic, probiotic, and antibiotic against necrotic enteritis in broiler chickens. Poultry science, 101(8), 101988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2022.101988
Romanovych M.M., Vishchur O.I., Kurtyak B.M., Matiukha I.O., Mudrak D.I., Romanovych M.S. (2019). Histostructure of broiler chickens fabricius bursa for the action of probiotics; J Vet Med Biotechnol Biosaf; 1(5):5–9. doi.:10.36016/JVMBBS-2019-5-1-1
Ermakova L., G. Nozdrin S., Tishkov Y., Novik N., Gotovchikov I., Mensh D. (2021). Effects of a probiotic containing Bacillus subtilis on the gut microflora. yolk quality and blood lipid concentrations of laying Pharaon quails; Vet Stanica; 52:297-306. doi.:10.46419/vs.52.3.1
Bouchicha A.E.B., Mimoune N., Djouadi S., Kalem A., Kaidi R. and Khelef D. (2022). Probiotic effect on reserve mobilization in late stage pregnancy in goats; Vet stanica; 53 (1):105-109. doi.:10.46419/vs.53.1.2
Lamari I., Mimoune N., Khelef D. (2021). Effect of feed additive supplementation on bovine subclinical mastitis; Vet stanica; 52 (4):445-460. doi.:10.46419/vs.52.4.12
Ban Y., Guan L.L. (2021). Implication and challenges of direct-fed microbial supplementation to improve ruminant production and health; J Animal Sci Biotechnol; 12(109). doi.:10.1186/s40104-021-00630-x
Hudec E., Mudroňová D., Marcinčák S., Bartkovský M., Makiš A., Faldyna M., Ratvaj M., Karaffová V.. (2024). The effect of Limosilactobacillus fermentum 2i3 and 0.6% addition of humic substances on production parameters and the immune system of broilers; Poult Sci; 103(8):103884. doi.:10.1016/j.psj.2024.103884
Bernard N.J. (2023). Probiotics boost immunotherapy; Nat Immunol; 24(732). doi.:10.1038/s41590-023-01512-2
Cao F., Jin L., Gao Y., Ding Y., Wen H., Qian Z., Zhang C., Hong L., Yang H., Zhang J., Tong Z., Wang W., Chen X., Mao Z. (2023). Artificial-enzymes-armed Bifidobacterium longum probiotics for alleviating intestinal inflammation and microbiota dysbiosis. Nature nanotechnology, 18(6), 617–627. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-023-01346-x
Goodoory V.C., Ford A.C. (2023). Antibiotics and Probiotics for Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Drugs; 83:687–699. doi.:10.1007/s40265-023-01871-y
Li G., Wang H., Yang J., Qiu Z., Liu Y., Wang X., Yan H., He D. (2024). The protective effects of Lactobacillus SNK-6 on growth, organ health, and intestinal function in geese exposed to low concentration Aflatoxin B1. Poultry science, 103(8), 103904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.103904
Cui Y., Zhu J., Li P., Guo F., Yang B., Su X., Zhou H., Zhu K., Xu F. (2024). Assessment of probiotic Bacillus velezensis supplementation to reduce Campylobacter jejuni colonization in chickens. Poultry science, 103(8), 103897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.103897
Zakon Ukrainy «Pro zakhyst tvaryn vid zhorstokoho povodzhennia», https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/3447-15#Text
Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes Text with EEA relevance. Current consolidated version:26/06/2019, https://eurlex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2010/63/oj/eng
Vlizlo V.V. (2012). Laboratorni metody doslidzhennia u biolohii, tvarynnytstvi ta veterynarnii medytsyni: dovidnyk [Laboratory research methods in biology, livestock and veterinary medicine: reference book]. Lviv: Spolom (in Ukrainian)
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 One Health Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
