4.4 Article

Performance of broiler chicken on dietary supplementation of protected organic acids blend

期刊

BRITISH POULTRY SCIENCE
卷 63, 期 5, 页码 633-640

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00071668.2022.2076211

关键词

Coated organic acids; performance; broiler; carcass; gut health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study suggests that feeding broiler chickens with coated organic acids blend improves growth performance, carcass traits, immunity, and gut health while reducing total viable count and abdominal fat.
1. The fatty acid coated organic acids blend was evaluated for its potential as a growth promoter. 2. A six-week experiment was conducted following a completely randomised design. One-day old broiler chicks (n = 384) were randomly divided into four dietary groups (eight replicates per group). Diet treatments were an unsupplemented basal diet or containing 0.3, 0.6 and 1 g/kg of a coated organic acid blend. Birds were evaluated for growth performance, carcass traits, immune-competence, total viable count and gut villus height. 3. The broiler chickens fed with 1 g/kg organic acids blend showed significantly higher body weight gain with improved feed conversion ratio and lower mortality than those fed the basal diet. 4. The carcass traits vis. eviscerated yield, dressing percentage, breast yield and relative weight of giblets, were significantly better in the group fed with 1 g/kg coated organic acids blend with reduction in abdominal fat. 5. Significantly higher cell-mediated, humoral immune responses and villi height with higher lymphoid organ weight (bursa and thymus) and a significant decrease in the total viable count were recorded in birds fed 1 g/kg organic acids blend. 6. The results indicated that dietary inclusion of coated organic acids blend (1 g/kg) improved growth performance, carcass traits, immunity, and gut health in broiler chicken and reduced total viable count and abdominal fat, indicating its potential role as a promising growth promoter in poultry.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据