Dietary supplementation of cellulase-producing probiotic on nutrients digestibility of broiler chicken

The cellulose content in poultry feed is poorly digested due to low digestive enzyme activity and causes low nutrient availability and high intestinal lumen viscosity; Thus, cellulase is required to hydrolyze the cellulose content. This study aims to determine the efficacy of cellulase-producing pro...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Suryani, A. E., Anggraeni, A. S., Istiqomah, L., Sofyan, A., Sakti, A. A.
Format: Conference Proceeding
Language:English
Subjects:
Body weight
Cellulase
Cellulose
Chickens
Consortia
Covariance
Enzyme activity
Microorganisms
Nutrients
Poultry
Probiotics
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The cellulose content in poultry feed is poorly digested due to low digestive enzyme activity and causes low nutrient availability and high intestinal lumen viscosity; Thus, cellulase is required to hydrolyze the cellulose content. This study aims to determine the efficacy of cellulase-producing probiotics on the nutritional digestibility of broiler chickens. This study used one hundred broilers (Cobb line) aged 28 days which were randomly selected and divided into five treatments with four replications, with five chickens per replicate cage. A group of chicken in each replication was randomly allocated treatment consisting of control (SA), cellulase-producing Pediococcus acidilactici MK-20 (SB), cellulase-producing Saccharomyces cerevisiae M-41 (SC), cellulase-producing probiotic consortia (SD), and commercial probiotic (SE). The measured parameters consist of energy and protein consumption and excretion, apparent and true metabolizable energy (AME and TME), and the nitrogen corrected of apparent and true metabolizable energy (AMEn and TMEn). The collected data were analyzed by covariance analysis with the initial body weight as covariance. In order to evaluate differences among treatments, a post hoc test was applied by using. The results of this study showed that there was a significant difference between the consortium probiotic treatment (SD treatment) to commercial probiotics (SE treatment), but there was no significant difference between the consortium probiotic to the treatment that used a single microbial origin probiotic (SB and SC treatment). The probiotic consortium treatment tended to produce better results, as shown by the high presentation of energy retention and higher energy metabolism value achieved.
ISSN:0094-243X
1551-7616
DOI:10.1063/5.0143996