Welcome to International Network for Natural Sciences | INNSpub

Paper Details

Research Paper | August 1, 2021

| Download 33

Small intestine morphology evaluation of broiler chicken (Gallus domesticus) supplemented with lactic acid bacteria serum (LABS) and added with varying levels of probiotic through drinking water

Niña Mae R. Villar, Rizza Mae Ceballos

Key Words:

J. Bio. Env. Sci.19(2), 102-110, August 2021


JBES 2021 [Generate Certificate]


The study was conducted to evaluate the small intestine morphology of broiler chicken (Gallus domesticus). A total of 60-day-old chicks regardless of sex were randomly distributed into four dietary treatments and replicated three times. Birds were given feed and water ad libitum feeding throughout the rearing period. Treatments were introduced through supplementation in drinking water with the following levels of Lactic Acid Bacteria Serum and commercial probiotics with the following treatments: Treatment 1 = 15mL of LAB serum + 0mL probiotics + 1 liter water (control), Treatment 2 = 15mL of LAB serum + 5mL probiotics + 1 liter water, Treatment 3 = 15mL of LAB serum + 10mL probiotics +1 liter water and Treatment 4 = 15mL of LAB serum + 15mL probiotics +1 liter water. All the data were analyzed using the Analysis of Variance in Complete Randomized Design. Differences among the treatment means showed significant differences were compared using Least Significant Differences. Based on the statistical result, there were highly significant differences observed among treatments (p>0.01) on the villous height of the duodenum and jejunum and significant difference in ileum villous height of the three sections of small intestine with those receiving Lactic Acid Bacteria Serum and commercialized probiotic having taller villi. The appearance of absorptive cells and goblet cells did not show significant changes. In conclusion, the results indicated that the Lactic Acid Bacteria Serum and probiotic enhance the performance by improving nutrient metabolizable and digestive tract development.


Copyright © 2021
By Authors and International Network for
Natural Sciences (INNSPUB)
This article is published under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution Liscense 4.0

Small intestine morphology evaluation of broiler chicken (Gallus domesticus) supplemented with lactic acid bacteria serum (LABS) and added with varying levels of probiotic through drinking water

Abdulla NR, Loh TC, Akit H, Sazili AQ, Foo HL. 2016. Effect of oil on growth performance and gut morphology. South African J. Animal Science 46(No.1)

Austic RE. 2005. Poultry Production. Philadelphia PA. http://epa.gov/101poultrysystem.Access:January 2017.

Charles OW, Duke S. 1978. The response of laying hems to dietary fermentation products and probiotic-antibiotic combinations. Poult. Sci 57, 1125. (Abstract).

Fioramonti J, Theodorou V, Bueno L. 2003. Probiotics: What are they? What are their effects on gut physiology? Best Pract. Res. Clin. Gastroenterol 17, 711-724.

Fritts Ca, Kersey Jh Motl Ma, Kroger Ec, Yan F, Si J. 2000. Bacillus subtilis C-3102 (Calsporin) improves live performance and microbiological status of broiler chickens. J Appl Poult Res 9, 149-55.

Fuller R. 2001. The chicken gut microflora and probiotic supplements. J. Poult. Sci 38, 189-196.

Green AA, Sainsburry DWB. 2001. The role of probiotics an producing quality poultry products. XV. European Symposium on the quality of poutry meat 9-12 September 2001 kusadasi/ Turkey 245-251.

Khan P, Rothwell EE, Galyov P, Barrow A, Burnside J, Wigley P. 2000. Differential cytokine expression in avain cells in response to invasion by Salmonella Typhimuruim, Salmonella Enteritidis, and Salmonella Galiinarum, Microbiology 146, 3217-3226.

Kleyn R, Chrystal P. 2008. Feeding the young broiler chicken in practice: a review 2008. 23rd World’s Poultry Congress. Brisbane, Australia.

Maneewan B, Yamauchi K. 2005. Recovery of duodenal villi and cells in chicken refed protein, carbohydrates and fat Brit. Poultry Sci 46 415 423 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science®],, [Google Scholar]).

May JD, Deaton JW. 1989. Digestive tract clearance of broilers cooped or deprived of water. Poultry Sci 68, 627-630.

May JD, Lott BD, Deaton JW. 1990. The effect of light and environmental temperature on broiler digestive tract contents after feed withdrawal. Poultry. Sci 69, 1681-1684.

Nava GM, Bielke LR, Callaway TR, Castañeda MP. 2005. Probiotic alternatives to reduce gastrointestinal infections: The poultry experience. Animal Health Res. Rev. 6,105-118.

Nether, wood T, Gilbert HJ, Parker DS, O’donnell AG. 2005. Probiotics shown to change bacterial community structure in the avain gastrointestinal tract. J Appl Environ Microbial 65, 5134-8.

Pascual M, Hugas JI, Badiola J, Monfort M, Garriga M. 1999. Lactobacillus salivarius CTC2197 prevents Salmonella Enteriditis colonization in chickens. Appl. Environ. Microbial 65, 4981-4986.

Smith MW, Mitchell MA, Peacock MA. 2007. Effects of genetic selection on growth rate and intestinal structure in the domestic fowl (Gallus domesticus). Comparative Biochemistry Physiology 97A, 57-63.

Uni Z, Ganot S, Sklan D. 1998a. Post-hatch development of muscosal function in the broiler small intestine. Poultry Science 77, 75-82.

Uni Z, Noy Y, Sklan D. 1996. Development parameters of the small intestine in heavy and light strain chicks pre and post-hatch. British Poultry Science 36, 63-71.

YamauchI K, Samanya M, Seki K, Ijiri N, Thongwitaya N. 2006. Influence of dietary sesame meal level on histological alterations of the intestinal mucusa and growth performance of chickens. J. Appl. Poult. Res 15, 266 273.

Yamauchi K. 2002. Review on chicken intestinal villus histological alternations related with intestinal function J. Poultry Sci 39 229 242 [Cressref],, [Google Scholar]