Effect of Lactobacillus casei and Lactobacillus acidophilus in laying hens challenged by Escherichia coli infection
This study aimed to prove the potential of Lactobacillus casei and Lactobacillus acidophilus probiotics as alternative substitutes of antibiotic growth promoters in laying hens challenged by Escherichia coli infection in order to enhance their growth performance and hen day production. The study u...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
2020
|
| Online Access: | http://journalarticle.ukm.my/15459/1/3.pdf |
| _version_ | 1796932261317181440 |
|---|---|
| author | Lokapirnasari, Widya Paramita Sahidu, Adriana Monica Maslachah, Lilik Sabdoningrum, Emy Koestanti Yulianto, Andreas Berny |
| author_facet | Lokapirnasari, Widya Paramita Sahidu, Adriana Monica Maslachah, Lilik Sabdoningrum, Emy Koestanti Yulianto, Andreas Berny |
| author_sort | Lokapirnasari, Widya Paramita |
| collection | UKM |
| description | This study aimed to prove the potential of Lactobacillus casei and Lactobacillus acidophilus probiotics as alternative
substitutes of antibiotic growth promoters in laying hens challenged by Escherichia coli infection in order to enhance
their growth performance and hen day production. The study used a total of 120 laying hens aged 25 weeks, divided
into 3×2 treatments with each comprising 4 replications, and each replication consisted of 5 hens. The study used a
completely randomised factorial design; factor a was the feed additive (control, antibiotics growth promoters /AGP,
probiotic), whereas factor b was the E. coli infection (non-infection and E. coli infection). The results showed that there
were significant differences (p<0.05) between the treatment of feed additive (factor a), and E. coli infection (factor b),
and interaction (p<0.05) between the feed and the infection for the egg weight, hen day production, feed conversion
ratio and feed efficiency. The probiotic use of 0.5% L. casei + 0.5% L. acidophilus in hens either infected or uninfected
with E. coli still produced the highest egg weight, hen day production, feed efficiency and reduced feed conversion
ratio compared to all treatments. Based on the results, it can be concluded that the use of probiotics 0.5% L. casei and
0.5% L. acidophilus act as alternative substitutes for antibiotic growth promoters in laying hens challenged by E. coli
infection. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T04:30:10Z |
| format | Article |
| id | ukm.eprints-15459 |
| institution | Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T04:30:10Z |
| publishDate | 2020 |
| publisher | Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | ukm.eprints-154592020-10-30T04:06:48Z http://journalarticle.ukm.my/15459/ Effect of Lactobacillus casei and Lactobacillus acidophilus in laying hens challenged by Escherichia coli infection Lokapirnasari, Widya Paramita Sahidu, Adriana Monica Maslachah, Lilik Sabdoningrum, Emy Koestanti Yulianto, Andreas Berny This study aimed to prove the potential of Lactobacillus casei and Lactobacillus acidophilus probiotics as alternative substitutes of antibiotic growth promoters in laying hens challenged by Escherichia coli infection in order to enhance their growth performance and hen day production. The study used a total of 120 laying hens aged 25 weeks, divided into 3×2 treatments with each comprising 4 replications, and each replication consisted of 5 hens. The study used a completely randomised factorial design; factor a was the feed additive (control, antibiotics growth promoters /AGP, probiotic), whereas factor b was the E. coli infection (non-infection and E. coli infection). The results showed that there were significant differences (p<0.05) between the treatment of feed additive (factor a), and E. coli infection (factor b), and interaction (p<0.05) between the feed and the infection for the egg weight, hen day production, feed conversion ratio and feed efficiency. The probiotic use of 0.5% L. casei + 0.5% L. acidophilus in hens either infected or uninfected with E. coli still produced the highest egg weight, hen day production, feed efficiency and reduced feed conversion ratio compared to all treatments. Based on the results, it can be concluded that the use of probiotics 0.5% L. casei and 0.5% L. acidophilus act as alternative substitutes for antibiotic growth promoters in laying hens challenged by E. coli infection. Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia 2020-06 Article PeerReviewed application/pdf en http://journalarticle.ukm.my/15459/1/3.pdf Lokapirnasari, Widya Paramita and Sahidu, Adriana Monica and Maslachah, Lilik and Sabdoningrum, Emy Koestanti and Yulianto, Andreas Berny (2020) Effect of Lactobacillus casei and Lactobacillus acidophilus in laying hens challenged by Escherichia coli infection. Sains Malaysiana, 49 (6). pp. 1237-1244. ISSN 0126-6039 http://www.ukm.my/jsm/malay_journals/jilid49bil6_2020/KandunganJilid49Bil6_2020.html |
| spellingShingle | Lokapirnasari, Widya Paramita Sahidu, Adriana Monica Maslachah, Lilik Sabdoningrum, Emy Koestanti Yulianto, Andreas Berny Effect of Lactobacillus casei and Lactobacillus acidophilus in laying hens challenged by Escherichia coli infection |
| title | Effect of Lactobacillus casei and Lactobacillus acidophilus in laying hens challenged by Escherichia coli infection |
| title_full | Effect of Lactobacillus casei and Lactobacillus acidophilus in laying hens challenged by Escherichia coli infection |
| title_fullStr | Effect of Lactobacillus casei and Lactobacillus acidophilus in laying hens challenged by Escherichia coli infection |
| title_full_unstemmed | Effect of Lactobacillus casei and Lactobacillus acidophilus in laying hens challenged by Escherichia coli infection |
| title_short | Effect of Lactobacillus casei and Lactobacillus acidophilus in laying hens challenged by Escherichia coli infection |
| title_sort | effect of lactobacillus casei and lactobacillus acidophilus in laying hens challenged by escherichia coli infection |
| url | http://journalarticle.ukm.my/15459/1/3.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT lokapirnasariwidyaparamita effectoflactobacilluscaseiandlactobacillusacidophilusinlayinghenschallengedbyescherichiacoliinfection AT sahiduadrianamonica effectoflactobacilluscaseiandlactobacillusacidophilusinlayinghenschallengedbyescherichiacoliinfection AT maslachahlilik effectoflactobacilluscaseiandlactobacillusacidophilusinlayinghenschallengedbyescherichiacoliinfection AT sabdoningrumemykoestanti effectoflactobacilluscaseiandlactobacillusacidophilusinlayinghenschallengedbyescherichiacoliinfection AT yuliantoandreasberny effectoflactobacilluscaseiandlactobacillusacidophilusinlayinghenschallengedbyescherichiacoliinfection |