| Literature DB >> 35698502 |
Ayrat Khabirov1, Ruzil Avzalov1, Gulnara Tsapalova1, Alexandra Andreeva1, Almaz Basharov1.
Abstract
Background and Aim: The use of antibiotics is prohibited in poultry feeding in many countries worldwide, which has resulted in the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Therefore, probiotic supplements are a good alternative in these circumstances. Probiotics, including Bifidobacterium adolescentis and Lactobacillus acidophilus, can reduce the development of resistance and stimulate the growth of broiler ducklings. This study aimed to evaluate properties of the probiotic supplement containing these bacteria. Materials andEntities:
Keywords: Pekin ducks; metabolism; microbiocenosis; probiotic supplementation; production
Year: 2022 PMID: 35698502 PMCID: PMC9178582 DOI: 10.14202/vetworld.2022.998-1005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vet World ISSN: 0972-8988
Dynamics of live weight of ducklings when using the probiotic “Lactobifadol” (X ± Sx, n=40).
| Age (weeks) | Group | Live weight, g | Average daily weight gain, g |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Control | 57.3±1.23 | |
| Experimental | 57.2±1.77 | ||
| 1 | Control | 173.4±14.8 | 16.7±1.84 |
| Experimental | 173.7±14.4 | 16.7±2.18 | |
| 2 | Control | 531.5±34.6 | 51.1±3.45 |
| Experimental | 480.2±52.3 | 43.9±3.49 | |
| 3 | Control | 1077.4±89.6 | 78.0±6.74 |
| Experimental | 1051.3±84.3 | 81.6±8.57 | |
| 4 | Control | 1709.2±105.3 | 90.3±9.87 |
| Experimental | 1802.6±101.8 | 107.3±11.65 | |
| 5 | Control | 2202.3±108.6 | 70.4±6.84 |
| Experimental | 2291.7±121.7 | 69.9±5.69 | |
| 6 | Control | 2681.6±114.3 | 68.4±5.42 |
| Experimental | 2814.8±127.5 | 74.6±5.84 |
Figure 1Feed consumption per 1 kg of live weight gain. The differences between the control and experimental groups are significant at p < 0.05; p<0.01, n = 40.
Figure 2Dynamics of feed consumption per 1 head per day.
Dynamics of the blood morphological parameters of ducklings (X ± Sx, n=5).
| Indicator | Group | |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Control group | Experimental group | |
| Age: 21 days | ||
| Red blood cells, 1012/L | 2.43±0.49 | 2.69±0.28 |
| Hemoglobin, g/L | 138.4±4.72 | 143.0±4.53 |
| White blood cells, 109/L | 21.09±1.44 | 22.63±1.12 |
| Age: 42 days | ||
| Red blood cells, 1012/L | 2.96±0.39 | 3.24±0.27 |
| Hemoglobin, g/L | 155.7±3.59 | 165.1±4.73 |
| White blood cells, 109/L | 22.4±1.97 | 23.5±2.04 |
Biochemical parameters of the blood serum of broiler ducklings (X ± Sx, n=5).
| Indicator | Group | |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Control | Experimental | |
| Age: 21 days | ||
| Total protein, g/L | 40.6±2.66 | 39.2±3.77 |
| Albumin, g/L | 22.7±2.44 | 23.1±2.69 |
| Calcium, mmol/L | 2.6±0.09 | 2.1±0.08 |
| Phosphorus, mmol/L | 1.67±0.03 | 1.75±0.03 |
| Age: 42 days | ||
| Total protein, g/L | 55.4±4.42 | 56.6±4.28 |
| Albumin, g/L | 25.0±1.92 | 27.2±1.17 |
| Calcium, mmol/L | 2.2±0.11 | 2.3±0.09 |
| Phosphorus, mmol/L | 1.89±0.03 | 1.92±0.04 |
The differences between the control and experimental groups are significant at
p<0.05;
p<0.01
Microbiocenosis of ducklings’ litter at 21 days of age when using the probiotic supplement “Lactobifadol” l g, CFU/g (X ± Sx, n=3).
| Group | Lactobacilli | Bifidobacteria |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 3.6±0.85 | 3.7±0.62 | 2.8±0.34 |
| Experimental | 6.9±0.96 | 5.8±0.68 | 1.3±0.28 |
The difference is valid at
p<0.1;
p≤0.05
Coefficients of digestibility of nutrients when using the probiotic supplement “Lactobifadol” for raising ducklings at 21 days of age, % (X ± Sx, n=3).
| Group | Indicator | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Protein | Fat | Fiber | Nitrogen-free extractive substances | |
| Control | 66.6±2.04 | 73.6±2.86 | 20.3±1.39 | 80.6±3.14 |
| Experimental | 68.2±2.14 | 75.2±3.32 | 23.7±1.12 | 85.3±2.26 |
Meat productivity of broiler ducklings (n=3).
| Indicator | Group | |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Control | Experimental | |
| Pre-slaughter live weight, g | 2374±45.6 | 2514±61.3 |
| Weight of a semi-cut bird, g | 1880±34.3 | 2084±64.3 |
| Semi-cut bird yield, % | 79.2±0.60 | 82.9±1.18 |
| Weight of a cut bird, g | 1351±24.6 | 1568±31.8 |
| Cut bird yield, % | 56.9±1.25 | 62.3±2.34 |
| Carcass fatness, % | 38.7±0.94 | 37.4±0.86 |
| Total muscle yield, g | 535±12.4 | 676±14.1 |
| % | 39.6±0.68 | 43.1±0.83 |
The differences between the control and experimental groups are significant at
p<0.001, n=3
Economic efficiency of the use of the probiotic “Lactobifadol” for raising ducklings.
| Indicator | Group | |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Control group | Experimental group | |
| The number of ducklings at the end of raising | 40 | 40 |
| Average slaughter weight of one duckling, g | 2,681.6 | 2,814.8 |
| ± to the control group, g | - | +133.0 |
| Total slaughter weight of ducklings, kg | 107.264 | 112.592 |
| ± to the control, kg | - | +5.328 |
| Feed consumption, g | 264.6 | 266.3 |
| Feed price (per 1 kg), RUB/(USD) | 35.2/(0.470) | 35.5 |
| Total feed costs, RUB/(USD) | 9313.92/(124.2) | 9453.65/(126.0) |
| Feed cost per one bird live weight gain, RUB/(USD) | 86.83/(1.16) | 83.96/(1.12) |
| Total cost of raising broiler ducklings, RUB | 13,304.3/(177.4) | 13,781.3/(183.7) |
| Cost of 1 kg of weight gain, RUB/(USD) | 124.0/(1.65) | 122.4/(1.63) |
| Cost of selling of 1 kg of weight gain of broiler ducklings, RUB/(USD) | 0.135/(1.8) | 0.135/(1.8) |
| Sales revenues, RUB/(USD) | 14,480.6/(193.07) | 15,199.9/(202.67) |
| ± to the control group, RUB/(USD) | - | +719.3/(9.59) |
| Profit, RUB/(USD) | 1176.3/(15.68) | 1418.6/(18.91) |
| ± to the control group, % | - | 20.6 |
The cost of the feed includes the cost of the probiotic Lactobifadol