EFFECTIVENESS OF PROBIOTICS USE IN POULTRY FARMING

EFFECTIVENESS OF PROBIOTICS USE IN POULTRY FARMING

Sergey Yu. Smolentsev ^{* 1}, Lilia E. Matrosova ², Fedor N. Chekhodaridi ³, Radion Kh. Gadzaonov ³,  Soslan G. Kozyrev ³, Marina S. Gugkaeva ³ and Albina K. Kornaeva ³

Аgrarian Institute of Technology ¹, Mari State University, Lenin Square 1, Yoshkar-Ola City - 424000, Russia.

Laboratory of Bacterial Infections ², Federal Center for Toxicological, Radiation and Biological Safety, Scientific Town-2, Kazan City - 420075, Russia.

Faculty of Veterinary Medicine ³, Gorsky State Agrarian University, Kirova Street 37, Vladikavkaz City - 362040, Russia.

ABSTRACT: A bird is often subjected to dysbacteriosis with a low quality of feed. As a result, live weight gain and livability are reduced in broilers. This problem has become particularly acute now when most countries have abandoned the use of feed antibiotics. Significant assistance in this situation is provided by new regulators of intestinal biosynthesis - probiotics. In our research, we used biosporin produced by the Military and Technical Problems Centre of the Research Institute of Microbiology of the Russian Ministry of Defense. Scientific and household experience was conducted on the basis of ZAO “Ural broiler”. Three groups were formed: one control group and two experimental ones. There were 100 units in each group.  The results of scientific and household experience lead to the conclusion that biostim is more preferable with the comparative use of two liquid probiotic products from the point of view of production figures. Feeding it to a bird in accordance with the instruction allows increasing the live weight of broiler chickens by 11.5%, reducing the cost of feed per unit of production by 8.7% and increasing the payment of feed by 9.1-10.1%.

Poultry farming. Dysbacteriosis, Probiotics

INTRODUCTION: Poultry farming is one of the promising areas in the agricultural sector. According to experts, competitiveness and profitability of the industry under market conditions can be enhanced by using natural growth stimulants to produce products that are environmentally safe for humans ^{1, 2}. It is known that most of the microorganisms that inhabit the intestine are safe and do not cause diseases, but there is a constant competition between bacteria of different species for space and nutrients ^{3, 4}.

Harmless and conditionally pathogenic bacteria inhibit the growth and reproduction of each other ^{5, 6}. However, temperature stress, changing diet, regrouping and vaccination inevitably affect the microbiological balance in the gastrointestinal tract and shift it towards pathogenic or conditionally pathogenic microflora ⁷. With such disorders, intestinal balance can be restored with the help of favorable bacteria, additionally injected with food. The principle of replacing unfavourable bacteria by competing with them useful ones is known as the principle of probiotics ^{8, 9}. The purpose of the work is a comparative assessment of the use of the center of probiotic Biosparin and probiotic biostim in the diets of broiler chickens.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: In our research, we used biosporin produced by the Military and Technical Problems Centre of the Research Institute of Microbiology of the Russian Ministry of Defense. It is a liquid microbial mass of live strains - B. subtilis and biostim, which contains the microbial mass of alive cultures of lactic acid bacteria and natural microorganisms of the genus Bacillus, which are included in the national register of the Russian Federation.

Scientific and the household experience was conducted on the basis of ZAO “Ural broiler”. Three groups were formed: one control group and two experimental ones. There were 100 units in each group.  The same housing conditions were created in accordance with zoo hygienic requirements for the chickens of the control and experimental groups. There was complete feed, the average daily consumption of which is given in Table 1 (averagely per head per day).

Chickens of the first control group received the basic ration, broilers of the second experimental group received in the first 28 days - 2.5 ml of biosparin center; at the age of 29 - 42 days. Respectively, 5 ml in addition to the basic ration. Chickens of the third group up to 10 days of age received 0.005 ml of biostim; at the age of 11 - 20 days - 0.01 ml; chickens older than 20 days of age received biostim in the amount of 0.015 ml per head.

During the experiment, the following indicators were taken into account: the live weight of chickens (weekly weighing), livability and causes of death, feed consumption.

TABLE 1: CONSUMPTION OF FEED AND NUTRIENTS BY BROILER CHICKENS FOR THE PERIOD OF THE EXPERIMENT (ON AVERAGE PER HEAD PER DAY)

Results of Researches: The results of the experiment are presented in Table 2. From the table above, it is clear that with the inclusion of probiotics, the livability of the chickens was higher in the experimental groups by 2 points compared with the control one over the period of the experiment. Growing broilers only on complete feed (1^st experimental group) allowed us to obtain an average daily gain in live weight of 46.06 g, with the addition of probiotic biosparin (2^nd experimental group) by 7.0%, and with the addition of biostim (3D experimental group) – by 11.5% more in comparison with the first group.

TABLE 2: GROWTH INTENSITY AND LIVABILITY OF BROILER CHICKENS

Hence forward *Р<0, 05; ** Р<0, 01;*** Р<0,001

We conducted a physiological experiment, aim of which was determination of the actual digestibility of protein from the feed mixture by broiler chickens, who received probiotics as feed additives. During the period of the physiological experiment, the chickens perceived 146.1 g of feed mixture, with its full eat ability. The actual feed intake and excretion of nutrients with feces made it possible to calculate the protein digestibility coefficients shown in Table 3.

TABLE 3: RAW PROTEIN DIGESTIBILITY COEFFICIENT

With the same protein intake with feed, its losses with undigested fecal masses decreased by 1.39 g in the control group, by 1.23 g  in the 2D group and by 1.15 g in the 3d experimental group. The coefficient of digestibility of raw protein in feed in the experimental groups tended to increase by 0.5 points in the 2 experimental groups and by 0.8 points in the 3 experimental groups. Control killing of chickens at the age of 42 days was carried out to determine the meat qualities. Slaughter yield and morphological composition of the carcasses are presented in Table 4.

TABLE 4: RESULTS OF CONTROL SLAUGHTER OF BIRDS

Hence forward *Р<0, 05; ** Р<0, 01;*** Р<0,001

Pre slaughter lives weight of the birds in groups corresponded to the results of the experiment on the study of growth. The weight of the semi eviscerated carcass of chickens from the experimental groups exceeded the latter by 139.2 g in the second group, by 244.4 g in the 3 experimental group (P<0.01; P<0.001), and the weight of the eviscerated carcass exceeded  by 132 and 226.7 g respectively (P<0.001). Slaughter yield of the eviscerated carcass in the 2 experimental groups was higher by 2.6 points, in the 3 experimental groups it was higher by 2.7 points compared with indicator 1 of the control group.

The feed supplement of the probiotic biosporin centrate to the diet of broiler chickens increased the amount of muscle tissue in eviscerated carcass by 15.7%, internal fat by 3.3%, skin with subcutaneous fat by 5.3% and led to a decrease in bones by 1.4%. The use of biostim led to an increase in absolute terms of these figures by 22.5%, 68.4 and 13.6% respectively with the same amount of bone tissue in the carcass.

CONCLUSION: Thus, the obtained results allow us to conclude that biostim is more preferable with the comparative use of two liquid probiotic products from the point of view of production figures.

Feeding it to a bird in accordance with the instruction allows increasing the live weight of broiler chickens by 11.5%, reducing feed costs per production unit by 8.7% and increase the payment of feed by 9.1-10.1%.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: This research was funded by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Research Grant, 2017.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest regarding this study.

REFERENCES:

1. Kanarskii AV, Kanarskaya ZA, Ivleva AR, Karmanov AP, Kocheva LS, Semenov EI, Bogdanovich NI and Romanenko KA: Chemical structure characteristics of lignins and their sorption capacity towards 4,15-diacetoxy-8-(3-methylbutyryloxy)-12,13-epoxytrichothecen-3-ol. Russian Chemical Bulletin 2017; 66(11): 2165-72.
2. Papunidi KKh, Kadikov IR, Saitov VR, Semenov EI, Gataullin DKh, Korchemkin AA and Tremasova AM: Homeostatic system of sheep against the background of combined effects of pollutants and the use of therapeutic and preventive agents. Bali Med Journal 2017; 6(2): 83-88.
3. Kanarskaya ZA, Kanarskii AV, Semenov EI, Karmanov AP, Kocheva LS, Bogdanovich NI and Romanenko KA: Structure and properties of lignin as an adsorbent for mycotoxin T-2. Chem of Nat Comp 2016; 52(6): 1073-77.
4. Minzanova ST, Milyukov VA, Krayushkina AV, Arkhipova DM, Vyshtakalyuk AВ, Mironova LG, Mironov VF, Papunidi KKH, Semenov EI, Kadikov IR and Sinyashin OG: The study of acute and chronic toxicity of the sodium-, calcium-, iron-polygalacturonate pharmacological substance in rabbits. Toxicology Reports 2018; 5: 457-67.
5. Konyukhov GV, Tarasova NB, Nizamov RN, Vasilevsky NM, Aslanov RM, Papunidi KKH and Semenov EI: Ionizing radiation, carbophos, and T-2 toxin combined effect on animals. J Pharm Sci & Res 2019; 11(2): 568-70.
6. Semenov EI, Tremasov MY, Matrosova LE, Tarasova EY, Kryuchkova MA, Smolentsev SY and Korosteleva VP: Joint effect of the mycotoxins t-2 toxin, deoxynivalenol and zearalenone on the weaner pigs against a background of the infection load. Research Journal of Pharmaceutical, Biological and Chemical Sciences 2016; 7(1): 1860-68.
7. Smolentsev SY, Poltaev EN, Matrosova LE, Matveeva EL, Ivanova AE, Tremasova AM and Erochondina MA: Stimulation of rumen micro flora in cattle by using probiotic concentrate. Research Journal of Pharmaceutical Biological and Chemical Sciences 2018; 9(2): 948-50.
8. Smolentsev SY, Holodova LV, Polikarpov IN, Matrosova LE, Matveeva EL, Ivanova AE and Korosteleva VP: The influence of probiotic on the biochemical status of young pigs. Bali Medical Journal 2017; 6(2): 92-5.
9. Matrosova LE, Matveeva EL, Smolentsev SY, Rozhentsov AL, Mikhalev EV, Onegov AV and Holodova LV: Influence of feed quality on the properties of milk. Research Journal of Pharmaceutical Biological and Chemical Sciences 2018; 9(4): 1258-69.
   

   ---

   How to cite this article:

   Smolentsev SY, Matrosova LE, Chekhodaridi FN, Gadzaonov RK, Kozyrev SG, Gugkaeva MS and Kornaeva AK: Effectiveness of probiotics use in poultry farming. Int J Pharm Sci & Res 2020; 11(1): 179-82. doi: 10.13040/IJPSR.0975-8232.11(1).179-82.

   ---

   All © 2013 are reserved by International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research. This Journal licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 3.0 Un ported License.

   ---