You are here: Home > Research Papers > Livestock > Poultry > Effect of Feeding Diets Containing an Antibiotic, or a Probiotic on Grown and Pathogenic Intestinal Bacteria in Domestic Fowls

Effect of Feeding Diets Containing an Antibiotic, or a Probiotic on Grown and Pathogenic Intestinal Bacteria in Domestic Fowls

M. H. El-Deep, K. Amber* and M. A. M. Sayed
Animal Prod. Inst. Agric. Res..Center , Ministry of Agric, Egypt.. Poultry Production Dept, Faculty of Agric, Kafr El-Sheikh Univ, Egypt*.

A 4-wks study was conducted to determine the effect of feeding diets containing an antibiotic (Zinc bactracin) , or a probiotic (Effective Microorganisms ), on performance, and urease Pathogenic Intestinal Bacteria of Inshas chicks (a local Egyptian chicken strain) .The experimental design consisted of six experimental groups: control and 5 dietary treatments as follows; (T1) Basal diet ( control ), (T2) Basal diet + EM (2.5 ml/kg diet ), (T3) Basal diet + EM (5.0 ml/kg diet ), (T4) Basal diet + EM (7.5 ml/kg diet ), (T5) Basal diet + EM (10.0 ml/kg diet ) and (T6) Basal diet + Zinc bactracin (500 mg/kg). Feeding treatment was started at 4 wks of age and lasted at 41 wks of age. Characteristic investigations were including : Live body weight ; Body weight gain ; feed consumption ; efficiency of feed utilization and Bacteria Enumeration (Aerobic plate count (x106/g), E. coli, Salmonella, Staphylococci and Coccidia ovum). Feeding diets containing the probiotic were significantly (P < 0.01) increasing the average daily gain during the expermental period compared to the control . This increase was partially accounted with increased feed intake. During the expermental period, feeding the diet containing probiotic significantly reduce the counts of total viable bacteria (P < 0.01),, E. coli, salmonella, staphylococci and Coccidia ovum in caecum compared with untreated control diets.. Our study indicating that, dietary probiotic decreases pathogenic intestinal bacteria of chicks and this may be beneficial for improving animal health and growth performance.

One way is to use specific feed additives or dietary raw materials to favorably affect animal performance and welfare, particularly through the modulation of the gut microbiota which plays a critical role in maintaining host health [1]. A balanced gut microbiota constitutes an efficient barrier against pathogen colonization, produces metabolic substrates (e.g. vitamins and short-chain fatty acids) and stimulates the immune system in a non- inflammatory manner.

In this context probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics could be possible solutions. The main effects of these feed additives are the improved resistance to pathogenic bacteria colonization and enhanced host mucosa immunity; thus resulting in a reduced pathogen load, an improved health status of the animals [2] and a reduced risk of food-borne pathogens in foods.

The impact of biotechnology in poultry nutrition is of significant importance. Biotechnology plays a vital role in the poultry feed industry. Nutritionists are continually putting their efforts into producing better and more economical feed. Good feed alone will not serve the purpose but its better utilization is also essential. Dietary changes as well as lack of a healthy diet can influence the balance of the microflora in the gut thus predisposing to digestion upsets. A well-balanced ration sufficient in energy and nutrients is also of great importance in maintaining a healthy gut. A great deal of attention has recently been received from nutritionists and veterinary experts for proper utilization of nutrients and the use of probiotics for growth promotion of poultry.

Effective Micro-organisms (EM) is a microbial preparation developed by Professor T. Higa of University Of The Ryukyus in Japan. The EM is composed of different microbes that include bacteria, yeasts and/or fungi. Some of the benefits claimed to accrue from the use of EM include improved meat and manure quality, improved animal health, reduction of foul smells and absence of toxic effects on bird growth [3]. Use of EM in Africa is a new innovation and novel idea. There is no available literature regarding use of microbial preparations in broiler production. Therefore, this experiments was designed to investigate the possibility of using probiotic namely, (EM) effective microorganism ( instead of using antibiotics) to Inshas chickens (Egyptian local strain ) , and to evaluate its effects on growth and pathogenic intestinal bacteria .

A total number of 540 unsexed vaccinated Inshas (local Egyptian chicken strain) one day-old-chicks were weighed , wing banded and randomly divided into six experimental groups ( three replicates each group ) . The birds were placed in a room (floor pens) maintained at a constant temperature of 28+/-3 oC and a relative humidity of 70+/-3% .Food and water were always available ad libtum . The basal diet was formulated to meet the nutrient
needs suggested by the NRC, 1994 [13]. Body weight was determined individually to the nearest gram at four weeks intervals up to the 40 week of age. Feed intake was recorded every week by supplying a weighed amount of feed and subtracting the unconsumed portion from the total amount offered. The average feed intake of each bird was calculated by dividing the monthly consumed feed by the

number of individuals in each group during this month , considering the death if any. At the time of slaughter test, 6 samples of ileum and caecum contents were collected and examined to define and count the pathogenic bacteria for each treatment. Fecal matter samples were collected in sterile polyethylene bags. All samples were delivered directly to the laboratory for bacterial count and definition using the procedure of [4]. The experimental design consisted of six dietary treatments as follows; (T1) Basal diet ( control ), (T2) Basal diet + EM (2.5 ml/kg diet ), (T3) Basal diet + EM (5.0 ml/kg diet ), (T4) Basal diet + EM (7.5 ml/kg diet ), (T5) Basal diet + EM (10.0 ml/kg diet ) and (T6) Basal diet + Zinc bactracin (500 mg/kg).. The results obtained were statistically analyzed using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test {17}. Statements of statistical significance are based on P<0.05.

Growth Performance
Data presented in Fig ( 1 ) show the effect of the different dietary treatments on live body weight (LBW) at various ages.

Generally , it could be seen that the feed additives were significantly ( P ≤0.001) increased LBW in all treatments. The results indicated that body weight in all supplemented groups was increased ( P ≤0.001) by 14.4, 15, 16.9, 17.9 and 9.4% for T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6 diets, respectively, as compared with control group. Also, feed intake and feed conversion were improved by feed additives .These results may be explained the review that probiotics are natural control method that based on ensuring the bird has an adequate gut microflora counter pathogenic bacteria colonization in its digestive tract and consequently has healthy gut that results in good digestion and nutrient absorption [5].

Bacteria Enumeration
Results presented in Fig ( 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 ) indicated that experimental diets caused severe suppression pathogenic intestinal bacteria counts. Where, there were significantly (P<0.01) reduction in counts of total viable bacteria, E. coli, salmonella, staphylococci and Coccidia ovum in caecum comparing with untreated control diet.The present results of EM dietary treatments agrees with that found by [6] who observed that frequency of Salmonella colonization was significantly reduced due to probiotic bacteria treatment. Also, [7] reported that lactobacillus was able to inhibit the growth of some pathogenic bacteria such as E. coli and salmonella. The antagonistic activity of lactic acid bacteria towards pathogens can be attributed to the production of bactericidal substances like bacteriocins, organic acids and hydrogen peroxide as reported by many workers for example [8]. The addition of probiotics product decreased the E. coli count as found by [9]. This type of bacteria produces lactic acid which alters the pH of chicken gut making it improper media for harmful bacteria such as salmonella and pathogenic species of E. coli. [10]. Probiotics decreased proliferation of pathogenic bacteria [11] concluded that probiotics enable the host animal to return to normal through increasing normal gut flora on the expense of pathogenic organisms. Furthermore, [12]reported that the beneficial effect of probiotics since their microbial constituents produce natural lactic acid that helps in maintaining an optimum low pH which inhibits growth of undesirable bacteria leading to optimum enzyme activity. Authors concluded that the antibacterial action produced by probiotics was probably due to a combination of factors which include organic acids (acetic and lactic acids), hydrogen peroxide and bacitracin.

1. TUOHY, K.M.; ROUZAUD,G.C.M.; BRUCK,W.M.; GIBSON, G.R. (2005): Modulation of the human gut microflora towards improved health using prebiotics-assessment of efficacy. Current Pharmaceutical Design 11: 75–90.

2. CHOCT, M. (2009): Managing gut health through nutrition. British Poultry Science. 50 :9–15.

3. ZHANG, X.; LOU-HUA, LI-JIANLIANG.; XIE-DONGXIA, XU-JIN.; HUO-CUIMEI, CUI-YANSHUN. (2007): A study on the benefit of feeding Hy-line white egg with fermented feed. Southwest-China-Journal-of-Agricultural-Sciences. 20(3): 529-533.

4. A.O.A.C. (1995): Association of official analysis chemists. Official Method Analysis. 16th Ed. Published by A.O.A.C. Benjamin Franklin Station, Washington, D.C.

5. AWAD, W. A.; BOHM, J.; RAZZAZI-FAZELI, E.; FAUKAL, K.; ZENTEK, J.(2003): Effects of feeding deoxynivalenol contaminated wheat on the performance of broiler chickens. Pages 149–153 in Proc. 8. Symp. Eur. Soc.Vet. Comparat. Nutr., Budapest, Hungary.

6. LINE, E.J.; BAILEY, S.J.; COX,N.A.; STERN,N.J.; TOMPKINS, T. (1998): Effect of yeast-supplemented feed on Salmonella and Campylobacter populations in broilers. Poult. Sci. 77: 405-410.

7. OYARZABAL, O.A.; CONNER, D. E. (1995): In vitro fructooligosaccharide untilization and inhibition of salmonella Spp by selected bacteria.. Poult. Sci. 74 : 1418 – 1425.

8. JOERGER M. C.; KLAENHAMMER, T. R. (1986): Characterization and purification of helvetin J and evidence for a chromosomally determined bacteriocin produced by Lactobacillus helveticus 481. J. Bacteriology. 167: 439–446.

9. CHATEAU, N.; CASTELLANOS, I.; DESCHAMPS, A.M. (1993): Distribution of pathogen inhibition in the Lactobacillus isolates of commercial probiotic consortium. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 74: 36-40.

10. LEESSON, S.; MAJOR, D. (1990). As biotechnology grains momentum Canadian researchers study need for feed criteria. Feed stuffs. 62: 23–30.

11. JIN, L. Z.; HO, Y. W.; ABDULLAH, N.; JALALUDIN, S. (1998): Growth performance, intestinal microbial populations and serum cholesterol of broilers diets containing Lactobacillus cultures. Poult. Sci. 77:1259–1265.

12. HUANG, M. K.; CHOI, Y. J.; HOUDE, R.; LEE, J. W.; LEE, B.; ZHAO, X. (2004): Effects of Lactobacilli and an Acidophilic Fungus on the Production Performance and Immune Responses in Broiler Chickens. Poultry Science. 83:788–795.

13. NRC. (1994): Nutrient requirements of poultry. 9th ed. Natinal Acadeny press, Washigton, D.C., U. S. A.