Effects of Lactobacillus probiotics supplemented with concentrate feed on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and caecal microflora of RIR chickens

Figures & data

Table 1. Composition of the basal starter and grower chicken feed.

Feed ingredients (g/kg)	Age of chicken
	Starter	Grower
Maize	47	55
Nug cake	20	15
Wheat middling	19	13.6
Soya meal cake	7.5	12
Premix	0.5	0.5
Lysine	0.7	0.3
Methionine	0.3	0.1
Limestone	0.4	1
Bone meal	4.3	2
Salt	0.3	0.5
Total	100	100

Table 2. Results of body weight, feed intake, body weight gain (BWG), feed conversion ratio (FCR), and mortality rate of the control, Lactobacillus salivarius CEL1, and Lactobacillus reuteri CEC3 dietary treatments of RIR male chickens.

Parameters	Dietary treatment*
	Control	L. salivarius CEL1	L. reuteri CEC3	p-Value
Body weight (g)
Day 1	37.14 ± 2.61	35.79 ± .88	36.72 ± 1.51	p > 0.05
Day 21	547.06 ± 8.46^b	562.63 ± 5.33^a	588.45 ± 52.98^a	p < 0.01
Day 42	904.56 ± 24.1b^b	964.90 ± 2.13^a	997.36 ± 75.68^a	p < 0.01
Feed intake (g)
1–21 day	726.16 ± 15.86^b	830.58 ± 22.25^a	856.92 ± 29.46^a	p < 0.05
22–42 day	1220.72 ± 67.75	1535.54 ± 25.02	1499.18 ± 12.43	p > 0.05
1–42 day	1946.89 ± 58.52^b	2366.12 ± 39.78^a	2356.10 ± 30.31^a	p < 0.01
BWG (g)
1–21 day	509.91 ± 9.81^b	526.84 ± 5.81^ab	518.40 ± 8.07^a	p < 0.05
22–42 day	447.06 ± 8.46	462.63 ± 5.33	488.45 ± 52.98	p > 0.05
1–42 day	867.41 ± 22.03^b	929.11 ± 1.55^ab	960.64 ± 77.18^a	p < 0.05
FCR
1–21 day	2.04 ± .18	2.07 ± .07	2.10 ± .14	p > 0.05
22–42 day	2.41 ± .17^b	2.91 ± .02^a	2.90 ± .06^a	p < 0.05
1–42 day	2.25 ± .08	2.55 ± .04	2.55 ± .17	p > 0.05
Mortality rate (%)
1–42 day	4.1	nd	nd

nd: not detected.

The results are presented as mean and SD. Means with different superscripts in the same row are significantly different (p < 0.05).

Figure 1. Effects of Lactobacillus salivarius CEL1 and Lactobacillus reuteri CEC3 dietary supplementation on populations of cecal Lactobacilli, total aerobes, and Escherichia coli of RIR male chickens at 42 days of age enumerated on spread plate agar medium and expressed as log10CFUg⁻¹. Columns represent the means of 15 birds in each treatment group ± standard deviation. The error bars indicate significant differences between treatments (p < 0.05).

Table 3. Effect of Lactobacillus salivarius CEL1 and Lactobacillus reuteri CEC3 treatments on live, dressing, and organ weights of Rhode Island Red Male chickens at day 42.

Parameters (weight in g)	Dietary treatments*
	Control	L. salivarius CEL1	L. reuteri CEC3	p-Value
Live weight	890.11 ± 26.65^b	963.76 ± 15.05^a	1003.74 ± 49.81^a	p < 0.05
Dressing weight	637.98 ± 22.79^b	706.61 ± 11.46^a	736.30 ± 44.37^a	p < 0.05
Breast	175.29 ± 6.43^b	192.19 ± 3.11^a	200.27 ± 12.06^a	p < 0.05
Back	119.41 ± 4.38^b	130.93 ± 2.12^a	136.43 ± 8.22^a	p < 0.05
Thigh	90.22 ± 3.31^b	98.92 ± 1.6^a	103.08 ± 6.211^a	p < 0.05
Drumstick	83.77 ± 3.07^b	91.8 ± 1.49^a	95.71 ± 5.76^a	p < 0.05
Abdominal fat	4.51 ± 0.16^c	6.0 ± 0.09^b	6.62 ± 0.39^a	p < 0.01
Heart	2.77 ± 0.10^b	3.03 ± 0.04^ab	3.16 ± 0.19^a	p < 0.05
Gizzard	9.66 ± 0.35^b	10.59 ± 0.17^a	11.04 ± 0.66^a	p < 0.05
Liver	12.24 ± 0.44^b	13.42 ± 0.21^a	13.98 ± 0.84^a	p < 0.05

The results are presented as mean and SD. Means with different superscripts in the same row are significantly different (p < 0.05).

Data availability statement

Data included in article/supplementary material/referenced in the article.