Investigating the effects of commercial probiotics on broiler chick quality and production efficiency

E. E. O'Dea, G. M. Fasenko*, G. E. Allison, D. R. Korver, G. W. Tannock, L. L. Guan

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    59 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    A study was undertaken to test the effect of 2 commercially available probiotics on the production efficiency of broiler chickens hatched from the same breeder flock at 3 different ages (28, 43, and 57 wk). At each of the 3 breeder flock ages, 1,600 broiler chickens were hatched and randomly allocated to 1 of 4 treatments: 1) no probiotics (control), 2) probiotic 1 administered in the drinking water, 3) probiotic 1 administered as a spray, and 4) probiotic 2 administered in the feed. A coccidiostat was included in the feed, but no other antimicrobial agents were given. Broilers were then reared on straw litter in identical floor pens for a period of 6 wk. There were no significant differences in broiler BW, feed conversion, or mortality between the probiotic treatments and the control group in any of the trials. The 43-wk-old breeder flock had the highest fertility and hatchability and the lowest percentage of chicks culled at hatching. Throughout the broiler production period, the broilers from the 43- and 57-wk-old breeder flocks had higher BW and weight gains than the broilers produced at 28 wk of breeder flock age. Broiler feed conversion over the 6-wk production period decreased as the breeder flock aged. Probiotics had no effect on chick quality or production efficiency in broilers produced by the breeder flock ages examined.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1855-1863
    Number of pages9
    JournalPoultry Science
    Volume85
    Issue number10
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2006

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Investigating the effects of commercial probiotics on broiler chick quality and production efficiency'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this