Animal Bioscience

Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies (아세아태평양축산학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of dietary inclusion of Bacillus-based probiotics on performance, egg quality, and the faecal microbiota of laying hen

  • Habeeb Tajudeen (Department of Animal Industry Convergence, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Sang Hun Ha (Department of Animal Industry Convergence, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Abdolreza Hosseindoust (Department of Animal Industry Convergence, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Jun Young Mun (Department of Animal Industry Convergence, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Serin Park (Department of Animal Industry Convergence, Kangwon National University) ;
  • SangIn Park (Department of Animal Industry Convergence, Kangwon National University) ;
  • PokSu Choi (Department of Animal Industry Convergence, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Rafael Gustavo Hermes (Kemin Industries Inc Headquarters) ;
  • Apichaya Taechavasonyoo (Kemin Industries Inc Headquarters) ;
  • Raquel Rodriguez (Kemin Industries Inc Headquarters) ;
  • JinSoo Kim (Department of Animal Industry Convergence, Kangwon National University)
  • Received : 2023.08.11
  • Accepted : 2023.11.11
  • Published : 2024.04.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: Our study examined the impact of propriety blends of Bacillus strain probiotics on the performance, egg quality, and faecal microflora of laying hens. Methods: A total of 183 Institut de selection Animale (ISA) brown laying hens aged 23 weeks with an average body weight of 1,894±72 g were randomly allocated into 3 groups as control (corn-soybean meal based diet, CON), 0.5 g/kg Enterosure probiotics (ET1, 3×108 colony-forming unit [CFU]/kg feed), and 5 g/kg Enterosure probiotics (ET2, 3×109 CFU/kg feed) administered in mashed form. At the completion of each phase hen day egg production (HDEP), average egg weight (AEW), feed intake, and faecal microbiota were evaluated. Results: HDEP and AEW were higher (p<0.05) in the ET2-supplemented diet in phase 3 (week 9 to 12) compared with CON. Egg mass (EM) was higher (p<0.05) in phase 2 at ET2, and also higher (p<0.05) in phase 3 at the ET1 and ET2-supplemented diets compared with CON. Feed conversion ratio was lower (p<0.05) in phase 3 at the ET1 and ET2-supplemented diets, with ET2 being the lowest compared with ET1 and CON. Yolk colour was higher (p<0.05) in the ET-supplemented diets at phase 3 compared with CON. Bifidobacterium spp. was higher (p<0.05) in the ET2- supplemented diet compared with CON in phase 2, while in In phase 3, Lactobacillus spp. and Bifidobacterium spp. were higher (p<0.05) in the ET-supplemented diets compared with CON. Coliforms were lower (p<0.05) in the ET-supplemented diets compared with CON in phase 3. Conclusion: The propriety blends of Bacillus strain probiotics supplements at 0.5 g/kg and 5 g/kg could improve the production and quality of eggs with more significance at 5 g/kg for HDEP, AEW and EM, which was achieved via the increase of beneficial microbiomes such as Lactobacillus spp., Bifidobacterium spp., and the decrease of pathogenic microbiomes like Escherichia coli and Coliforms which was speculated to improve gut barrier function and the reproductive hormone.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

We appreciate the support provided by Kemin industries, and our laboratory members during the course of this experiment.

References

  1. Diarra MS, Francois M. Antibiotics in Canadian poultry productions and anticipated alternatives. Front Microbiol 2014;5:282. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2014.00282 
  2. Stanton TB. A call for antibiotic alternatives research. Trends Microbiol 2013;21:111-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2012.11.002 
  3. WHO. Antimicrobial resistance. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2018.
  4. Khan S, Moore RJ, Stanley D, Chousalkar KK. The gut microbiota of laying hens and its manipulation with prebiotics and probiotics to enhance gut health and food safety. J Appl Environ Microbiol 2020;86:e00600-20. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00600-20 
  5. Tsai MY, Shih BL, Liaw RB, et al. Effect of dietary supplementation of Bacillus subtilis TLRI 211-1 on laying performance, egg quality and blood characteristics of Leghorn layers. Anim Biosci 2023;36:609-18. https://doi.org/10.5713/ab.22.0274
  6. Aalaei M, Khatibjoo A, Zaghari M, Taherpour K, Gharaei M, Soltani M. Comparison of single- and multi-strain probiotics effects on broiler breeder performance, egg production, egg quality and hatchability. Br Poult Sci 2018;59:531-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2018.1496400 
  7. Lokapirnasari WP, Pribadi TB, Al Arif A, et al. Potency of probiotics Bifidobacterium spp. and Lactobacillus casei to improve growth performance and business analysis in organic laying hens. Vet World 2019;12:860-7. https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2019.860-867
  8. Koenen ME, Kramer J, Van Der Hulst R, Heres L, Jeurissen SHM, Boersma WJA. Immunomodulation by probiotic lactobacilli in layer- and meat-type chickens. Br Poult Sci 2004;45:355-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660410001730851 
  9. Yu B, Liu JR, Hsiao FS, Chiou PWS. Evaluation of Lactobacillus reuteri Pg4 strain expressing heterologous β-glucanase as a probiotic in poultry diets based on barley. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2008;141:82-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2007.04.010 
  10. Jha R, Das R, Oak S, Mishra P. Probiotics (direct-fed microbials) in poultry nutrition and their effects on nutrient utilization, growth and laying performance, and gut health: a systematic review. Animals 2020;10:1863. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10101863 
  11. Hosseindoust A, Mohammadi M, Yao ZP, Jung M, Kim IH. Dietary Bacillus subtilis B2A strain in laying hens challenged with Salmonella gallinarum: effects on egg production, egg quality, blood haptoglobin and targeted intestinal Salmonella shedding. J Appl Anim Res 2018;46:512-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2017.1351369 
  12. AOAC International. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. 18th ed. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: AOAC International; 2007. 
  13. Tajudeen H, Mun JY, Ha SH, Hosseindoust A, Lee S, Kim JS. Effect of wild ginseng on the laying performance, egg quality, cytokine expression, ginsenoside concentration, and microflora quantity of laying hens. J Anim Sci Technol 2023;65:351-64. https://doi.org/10.5187/jast.2022.e108 
  14. Stringer AM, Gibson RJ, Logan RM, Bowen JM, Yeoh AS, Keefe DM. Faecal microflora and β-glucuronidase expression are altered in an irinotecan-induced diarrhea model in rats. Cancer Biol Ther 2008;7:1919-25. https://doi.org/10.4161/cbt.7.12.6940 
  15. Muhammad A, Mohamed DA, Chwen LT, Akit H, Samsudin AA. Effect of selenium sources on laying performance, egg quality characteristics, intestinal morphology, microbial population and digesta volatile fatty acids in laying hens. Animals 2021;11:1681. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11061681 
  16. SAS. Statistical Analysis Software for PC. Release 9. 3. Cary NC, USA: SAS Institute; 2012. 
  17. Mazanko MS, Gorlov IF, Prazdnova EV, et al. Bacillus probiotic supplementations improve laying performance, egg quality, hatching of laying hens, and sperm quality of roosters. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 2018;10:367-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-017-9369-4 
  18. Guo JR, Dong XF, Liu S, Tong JM. Effects of long-term Bacillus subtilis CGMCC 1.921 supplementation on performance, egg quality, and fecal and cecal microbiota of laying hens. Poult Sci 2017;96:1280-9. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pew389 
  19. Molnar AK, Podmaniczky B, Kurti P, et al. Effect of different concentrations of Bacillus subtilis on growth performance, carcase quality, gut microflora and immune response of broiler chickens. Br Poult Sci 2011;52:658-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2011.636029 
  20. Abdelqader A, Al-Fataftah AR, Das G. Effects of dietary Bacillus subtilis and inulin supplementation on performance, eggshell quality, intestinal morphology and microflora composition of laying hens in the late phase of production. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2013;179:103-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.11.003 
  21. Chichlowski M, Croom J, McBride BW, Havenstein GB, Koci MD. Metabolic and physiological impact of probiotics or direct-fed-microbials on poultry: a brief review of current knowledge. Int J Poult Sci 2007;6:694-704. https://doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2007.694.704 
  22. Abd El-Hack ME, Mahgoub SA, Alagawany M, Ashour EA. Improving productive performance and mitigating harmful emissions from laying hen excreta via feeding on graded levels of corn DDGS with or without Bacillus subtilis probiotic. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 2017;101:904-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.12522 
  23. Wealleans AL, Sirukhi M, Egorov IA. Performance, gut morphology and microbiology effects of a Bacillus probiotic, avilamycin and their combination in mixed grain broiler diets. Br Poult Sci 2017;58:523-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2017.1349298 
  24. Qi X, Yun C, Pang Y, Qiao J. The impact of the gut microbiota on the reproductive and metabolic endocrine system. Gut Microbes 2021;13:1894070. https://doi.org/10.1080/19490976.2021.1894070 
  25. Wang Y, Du W, Lei K, et al. Effects of dietary Bacillus licheniformis on gut physical barrier, immunity, and reproductive hormones of laying hens. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 2017;9:292-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-017-9252-3 
  26. Lokaewmanee K, Yamauchi K, Komori T, Saito K. Enhancement of egg yolk color by paprika combined with a probiotic. J Appl Poult Res 2011;20:90-4. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr.2009-00140 
  27. Sobczak A, Kozlowski K. The effect of a probiotic preparation containing Bacillus subtilis ATCC PTA-6737 on egg production and physiological parameters of laying hens. Ann Anim Sci 2015;15:711-23. https://doi.org/10.1515/aoas-2015-0040 
  28. Yeum KJ, Russell RM. Carotenoid bioavailability and bioconversion. Annu Rev Nutr 2002;22:483-504. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.nutr.22.010402.102834 
  29. Yuniarti M, Bidura IG, Siti NW. Effect of probiotic supplementation in the diet on the production and physical quality of eggs in laying hens. World J Biol Pharm Health Sci 2023;15:138-44. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjbphs.2023.15.1.0313