Delivery routes for probiotics: Effects on broiler performance,intestinal morphology and gut microflora

Four delivery routes, via, feed, water, litter and oral gavage, were examined for their efficacy in delivering a novel probiotic of poultry origin, Lactobacillus johnsonii, to broilers. Seven treatments of 6 replicates each were allocated using 336 one-day-old Cobb broiler chicks. The treatments consisted of a basal diet with the probiotic candidate, L. johnsonii, added to the feed, and three treatments with L. johnsonii added to the drinking water, sprayed on the litter, or gavaged orally. In addition, a positive control treatment received the basal diet supplemented with zinc-bacitracin(Zn B, 50 mg/kg). The probiotic strain of L.johnsonii was detected in the ileum of the chicks for all four delivery routes. However, the addition of L.johnsonii as a probiotic candidate did not improve body weight gain, feed intake and feed conversion ratio of broiler chickens raised on litter during the 5-week experimental period regardless of the route of administration. The probiotic treatments, regardless of the routes of delivery, affected(P 0.05) the pH of the caecal digesta and tended(P = 0.06) to affect the p H of the ileal digesta on d 7, but the effect disappeared as the birds grew older. All probiotic treatments reduced the number of Enterobacteria in the caeca on d 21, and tended(P 0.054) to reduce it in the ileum and caeca on d 7 and in the ileum on d 21 compared with the controls. The probiotic also tended to increase the number of lactic acid bacteria and lactobacilli in the ileum and caeca on d 7, but this trend was not evident on d 21. The trend appeared most pronounced when the probiotic was delivered orally or via litter. The probiotic also decreased(P 0.05) the population of Clostridium perfringens rapidly from an early age to d 21 in the caeca, leading to a3-fold decrease in the number of C. perfringens between d 7 and 21. It also showed that the probiotic treatment presented the lowest number of C. perfringens in the caeca. Delivery of the probiotic through feed, water and litter increased(P 0.01) the weight of the pancreas on d 21, but the probiotic did not affect other morphometric parameters of the gut. Furthermore, the probiotic did not affect the p H and the concentrations of short chain fatty acids and lactic acid in either the ileum or caeca.