Next Article in Journal
Chopping Roughage Length Improved Rumen Development of Weaned Calves as Revealed by Rumen Fermentation and Bacterial Community
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Allium Extract Supplementation on Egg Quality, Productivity, and Intestinal Microbiota of Laying Hens
Previous Article in Journal
The Effectiveness of Pharmacological Synchronization of the Estrous Cycle in Hinds (Cervus elaphus L.): A Pilot Field Trial
Previous Article in Special Issue
Eucommia ulmoides Flavones as Potential Alternatives to Antibiotic Growth Promoters in a Low-Protein Diet Improve Growth Performance and Intestinal Health in Weaning Piglets
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparative Efficacy of Selected Phytobiotics with Halquinol and Tetracycline on Gut Morphology, Ileal Digestibility, Cecal Microbiota Composition and Growth Performance in Broiler Chickens

by
Muhammad Abdul Basit
1,2,*,
Arifah Abdul Kadir
1,*,
Teck Chwen Loh
3,
Saleha Abdul Aziz
4,
Annas Salleh
5,
Zainul Amiruddin Zakaria
6 and
Sherifat Banke Idris
1,7
1
Department of Preclinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Selangor, Malaysia
2
Department of Biosciences, Faculty of Veterinary Sciences, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan 60000, Punjab, Pakistan
3
Department of Animal Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Selangor, Malaysia
4
Department of Veterinary Pathology & Microbiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Selangor, Malaysia
5
Department of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnostics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Selangor, Malaysia
6
Department of Biomedical Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Selangor, Malaysia
7
Department of Veterinary Pharmacology and Toxicology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Skoto 2346, Nigeria
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2020, 10(11), 2150; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10112150
Submission received: 30 August 2020 / Revised: 1 November 2020 / Accepted: 10 November 2020 / Published: 19 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Plant-Based Alternatives to Antimicrobial in Animal Feed)

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Antimicrobial growth promoters (AGPs) are banned in Europe but still used in many countries including Asia. However, their indiscriminate use resulted in antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains that possibly transfer the resistant genes to the microorganisms pertinent to human health. Hence, it is essential to find alternatives that can improve the production performance in broiler chickens. In this scenario, phytobiotics or phytogenic feed additives (PFAs) are widely investigated to evaluate their influence on improving gut health, increasing digestibility, and thereby the growth performance. The present study is a continuity of our experiments on dietary inclusion of Piper betle and Persicaria odorata leaf meal and the first of its kind to evaluate the comparative efficacy of phytobiotics (Piper betle and Persicaria odorata leaf meal), with halquinol and tetracycline in broiler chickens. The current experiment findings indicated that, in comparison with the control group, either of the dietary treatments positively modulated the gut morphology, improved ileal digestibility, maintained the intestinal population of Lactobacillus and reduced the pathogenic bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella, Escherichia coli, and Clostridium spp., thus improved the growth performance in broiler chickens.

Abstract

The current experiment was designed to estimate the comparative efficacy of selected phytobiotics Persicaria odorata leaf meal (POLM) and Piper betle leaf meal (PBLM) with halquinol, and tetracycline in broiler chickens. The 150-day-old broiler chickens were randomly assigned to five dietary groups. The dietary supplementation groups were the basal diet (BD), which served as the negative control (NC), and BD + 0.2 g/kg tetracycline, which served as the positive control (PC); BD + 0.03 g/kg halquinol (HAL), BD + 8 g/kg POLM (Po8), and BD + 4 g/kg PBLM (Pb4) were the treatment groups. Growth performance, gut morphology, ileal digestibility, and cecal microbiota composition were measured. On day 21, the body weight gain (BWG) was enhanced (p < 0.05) in the broiler chickens fed on phytobiotics (Po8 and Pb4) relative to the NC group, however, on day 42 and in terms of overall growth performance, BWG was enhanced (p < 0.05 in diets (Po8, Pb4, HAL and PC) in comparison with the NC group. Conversely, feed conversion ratio (FCR) was recorded reduced (p < 0.05) in Pb4, Po8, HAL, and PC group in comparison with the NC group. Supplementation of phytobiotics (Po8 and Pb4), HAL and PC, positively improved the gut morphology compared to the NC group. Furthermore, the maximum (p < 0.05) villus height (VH) in duodenum and jejunum was observed in broilers fed on diet Pb4. Supplementation of phytobiotics, HAL and PC, improved (p < 0.05) the digestibility of dry matter (DM) (except for HAL), organic matter (OM), crude protein (CP), ether extract (EE), and ash compared to the NC group. Dietary supplementation of phytobiotics (Po8 and Pb4), HAL and PC, significantly reduced the E. coli, Salmonella, and Staphylococcus aureus (except for HAL) counts compared to the NC group. However, supplementation of Pb4 resulted in significantly decreased total anaerobic bacteria and Clostridium spp. counts compared to the NC group. In addition, supplementation of phytobiotics significantly increased the Lactobacillus count compared to HAL, PC, and NC groups. In conclusion, dietary supplementation of phytobiotics improved the gut morphology, positively modulated and maintained the dynamics of cecal microbiota with enhanced nutrient digestibility, thus, increased the growth performance. Based on current results, phytobiotics could be used as an alternative to AGPs for sustainable broiler chicken production.

1. Introduction

In several countries, except Europe, sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics are added into diets to maintain gut health and increase the growth performance of broiler chickens [1,2]. However, consistent and indiscriminate use of antimicrobial growth promoters (AGPs) in broiler chickens’ diets resulted in the emergence of antimicrobial-resistant microorganisms, which may have the potential to disseminate the antibiotic-resistant pathogens among organisms [3,4]. Therefore, the European Union (EU) and many other countries have banned the use of AGPs in food-producing animals [5,6]. In this scenario, it is essential to find viable and potential alternatives for sustainable poultry production. Thus, extensive research is now focused on searching the alternative to AGPs with similar antimicrobial and growth-enhancing potential in broiler chickens [7,8].
At present, among several alternatives, phytobiotics or phytogenic feed additives (PFAs) have gained considerable attention [9]. The secondary bioactive compounds of phytobiotics possess comparable properties to synthetic AGPs [10] that can maintain the healthy gut and enhanced growth performance in broilers [11]. Numerous studies suggested that PFAs might be the potent and viable natural alternative to AGPs for poultry production [7,9,12,13]. Dietary supplementation of phytobiotics in broilers has considerable positive effects; their supplementation could improve gut health [14,15,16], positively modulate the dynamics of gut microbiota [17], and enhance feed efficiency [6,18], thus, increase growth performance [19,20,21,22,23]. Various studies have established the antibacterial efficacy of phytobiotics against pathogenic bacteria, such as Clostridium and E. coli, in broiler chickens [24,25].
The Piper betle is an essential herb of the Piperaceae family; it is primarily distributed in Asia and East Africa. In Malaysia and Indonesia, it is known as “daun sirih”. The P. betle has various properties, including anti-inflammatory [26], antioxidant [27], antimicrobial [28], and growth promoter [16]. Dried ground leaves of P. betle (100 g) contain 2.9 g of protein, 0.5 g fat, 2 g of crude fibre, 1.2 g ash, 5.6 g of carbohydrate, 9.8 mg of iron and 4.5 mg of vitamin C, [29]. This herb’s leaves have many traditional and medicinal uses [26]. The hydroxychavicol and eugenol are the main bioactive compounds present in P. betle leaf; these compounds have strong antibacterial properties [28,30].
Another essential herb is Persicaria odorata of the Polygonaceae family, and it is well distributed in Asia, including Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, and Brunei, known as “daun kesum” or “daun laska” [31]. This herb possesses various properties, including antimicrobial [32], antioxidant [33], and growth promoting [34]. The dried ground leaves of P. odorata contain 3.5% crude protein, 0.83% crude fat, 10.66% crude fibre, and 1.83% ash [35]. The myricetin and quercetin are essential bioactive compounds [36,37] and suggested to be responsible for antioxidant activity [38] and inhibit lipid peroxidation [39].
Halquinol is a quinolone but its mechanism of action is different from quinolones [40]. It is an antimicrobial, antifungal, and antiprotozoal substance [41,42]. Halquinol has a mechanism to slow peristalsis in the gut, thus helping to increase the absorption of nutrient from the gut [43]. Furthermore, it does induce a minimum bacterial resistance [42]. In countries such as Thailand, Brazil, India, Colombia, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Peru it is used as a feed additive in poultry [41,44] and growth promoter in swine.
To the best of our knowledge, no previous literature was available about the comparative efficacy of POLM, PBLM with halquinol and tetracycline as an alternative to AGPs in broiler chickens. Limited studies were reported about supplementation of herbs containing tannins. As previously described, it was believed that tannins might have an anti-nutritional effect when supplemented in broiler chickens’ diet. However, multiple studies from the recent past revealed that the feed additives with appropriate low doses of tannins should enhance the growth performance in broiler chickens [16,45].
The current study was intended to evaluate the comparative efficacy of phytobiotics (POLM and PBLM) as an alternative feed additive to conventional AGPs in broiler chickens by estimating their effects on gut morphology, ileal digestibility, cecal microbiota composition, and growth performance measures.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Phytobiotics Source and Preparation

Fresh leaves of Persicaria odorata and Piper betle were harvested and processed for diets (POLM and PBLM) according to the previously described method [16]. Samples were obtained from the Herb Garden, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM). The collected fresh leaves were dried using an oven which was pre-set at 50 °C. These leaves were dried up to 72 h to get the homogeneous weight, then milled to get a fine powder and stored at 4 °C until further use.

2.2. Halquinol and Tetracycline

The commercial product of halquinol (3 CARE FORTE) was supplied by M/S. Provimi Animal Nutrition India, while Tetracycline hydrochloride (cat:500105) was procured from Merck.

2.3. Experimental Design and Supplemented Diets

This study adhered to the guidelines approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, UPM, in terms of animal care and experimental procedures with the reference number: (UPM/IACUC/AUP-R033/2018). One hundred and fifty 1-day-old male broilers (Cobb500) were obtained and wing-banned upon their arrival. The birds were randomly allocated into 5 treatment groups. Each experimental group contained five replicates of six birds each. The chickens were raised in cages with wire mesh floor (length 120 cm × width 120 cm × height 45 cm), which were placed in a conventional open-sided shed. The broiler chickens in all groups were reared under the same environmental and managemental conditions. The cyclic temperature in the house ranged between a maximum of 34 °C and a minimum of 24 °C, while the humidity ranged between a maximum of 91% and a minimum of 65% [34]. This study consisted of five dietary groups, and the diets were offered to the birds for 42 days (starter phase day 1–21 and finisher phase day 22–42). The basal diets Gold Coin® (without any feed enzyme or premixing of antioxidant, antimicrobial, and anticoccidial drugs) were procured from feed supplier (Fajama Trading, No.52 JLN LP 1A/5 Taman Lestari Perdana 43300, Seri Kembangan, Selangor, Malaysia). The experimental diets were prepared, which met or exceeded NRC [46] recommendations (Table 1). The supplemented diets were the basal diet (BD), which served as the negative control (NC); BD + 0.2 g/kg tetracycline, which served as the positive control (PC); BD + 0.03 g/kg halquinol (HAL), BD + 8 g/kg POLM (Po8), and BD + 4 g/kg PBLM (Pb4), which were the treatment groups. The specific concentrations of diets were selected as earlier reported, PC [47], Po8 and Pb4 [16,34], while HAL as designated by [44]. There was free access to water and feed to the chicks during the entire experimental period, with continuous lighting. The vaccination and brooding of the birds were conducted according to [34].

2.4. Sample Collection

The chicks were weighed upon arrival to record the initial body weight at day 0. Then weekly, the feed intake (FI) and body weight (BW) were obtained during the entire experimental period. The body weight gain (BWG) and feed conversion ratio (FCR) were calculated to measure the growth performance of broilers. The mortality of broilers was noted when it occurred. At day 42, ten broiler chickens were randomly selected from each supplemented treatment (two from each replicate) and slaughtered according to the procedure described by “The Malaysian Standard (MS) 1500:2009” [48]. From each slaughtered bird, the intestinal samples were obtained to measure nutrient digestibility, gut morphology, and cecal microbiota composition, as well as ileal digesta, which was collected from each bird to measure the apparent ileal digestibility.

2.5. Nutrient Digestibility

To measure nutrient digestibility, titanium dioxide (TiO2), an indigestible maker, was added in all experimental treatment groups at a rate of 3 g/kg of feed at days 39–42 [49]. The ileal digesta samples were obtained from the slaughtered birds and then stored at −80 °C until analysis. The ‘‘TiO2” concentrations of digesta and feed were measured [50]. Meanwhile, the crude protein (CP), dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM), ether extract (EE), and ash of digesta and feed were determined using proximate analysis procedure AOAC [51]. The apparent ileal digestibility (AID) of DM, OM, CP, EE and Ash was determined using TiO2 ratios in the feed and ileal digesta according to [52] using Formula (1):
Apparent ileal digestibility (AID) of nutrient = 100 – ((% TiO2 in feed/%TiO2 in ileal content) × (% of nutrient in ileal content/%nutrient in feed × 100)).

2.6. Histomorphology of Intestine

Histomorphometry of gut was performed according to the procedure as designated by Alshelmani et al. [49]. Approximately 5 cm intestinal portions of duodenum, ileum, and jejunum were obtained, followed by flushing with buffered saline before to be fixed in formalin solution (10%). The intestinal segments were cut approximately into 3.5 mm sections. These tissue sections of the intestine were then subjected to a series of dehydration sequences using tissue processor with automation (ASP300, Leica biosystem, Wetzlar, Germany). The embedding of gut sections was performed using a paraffin embedding station (EG1150 II, Leica, Wetzlar, Germany). The intestinal sections were trimmed up to 4–5 μm with a sectioning rotary microtome (RM2045, Leica Wetzlar, Germany). The staining of tissue sections was performed using haematoxylin and eosin staining procedures. The gut morphometric parameters were measured using the light microscope mounted with a digital camera (Leica DM LB2, Wetzlar, Germany). The 12 villi and crypts per each tissue were examined for analysis and observations. A method designated by Touchette et al. [53] was used to measure the villus height (VH) and crypt depth (CD) using the Image-Pro Plus software.

2.7. Cecal Microbiota Composition and Cecal pH

The cecal contents were collected aseptically into the sterilised plastic bags from the ceca of slaughtered birds. The cecal contents were immediately stored at −20 °C and processed within 24 h for the cecal microbiota population count. The collected cecal digesta homogenates were serially diluted from 10−1 to 10−7. Selected agar media were used for the enumeration of targeted bacterial groups. The Escherichia. coli was enumerated using Brilliance E.coli/coliform media (CM 0956; Oxoid, UK), total anaerobic was cultured using Wilkins Chalgren Agar (CM 0619; Oxoid, UK), Pseudomonas aeruginosa was cultured using Pseudomonas Cetrimide agar (CM 0579; Oxoid, UK) Salmonella was cultured using XLD agar (CM 0469; Oxoid, UK), Clostridium was cultured using reinforced clostridial agar (CM0149; Oxoid, UK), Staphylococcus aureus was cultured using Baird parker agar (CM 0275; Oxoid, UK) and Lactobacillus was cultured using MRS agar (CM0361; Oxoid, UK). The culture plates were then incubated at 37 °C for a period of 48 h. In the case of clostridia plates, incubation was performed anaerobically at 37 °C for a period of 48 h. A colony counter was used for the enumeration of visible colonies, and the results were expressed as log10 CFU/g of cecal digesta. The cecum pH was measured using a digital pH meter (AG8603, Benchtop pH Meter; Mettler Toledo, Switzerland).

2.8. Statistical Analysis

The obtained data were analysed using Statistical Analysis System software (SAS) version 9.4 [54] (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) using one-way ANOVA. Group differences were then elucidated and compared by Duncan’s multiple range test. Statistically significant differences were considered at p < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Growth Performance

On day 21, broiler chickens raised on diets Po8 and Pb4 showed enhanced (p < 0.05) body weight gain (BWG) relative to the broilers raised on NC diet. On day 42, dietary supplementation of Po8, Pb4, HAL, and PC increased (p < 0.05) BWG relative to NC group. Considering the overall growth performance, BWG was higher (p < 0.05) in Po8, Pb4, HAL, and PC, compared to the NC group; however, maximum improved (p < 0.05) BWG was recorded in Pb4 group. Conversely, decreased (p < 0.05) feed conversion ratio (FCR) was noted throughout the experimental period in supplemented groups Po8, Pb4, Hal, and PC compared to the NC group. Regarding feed intake (FI), no significant differences were observed among experimental broiler chickens in the entire experimental period (Table 2).

3.2. Nutrient Digestibility

Dietary inclusion of Po8, Pb4, HAL, and PC, improved (p < 0.05) the apparent ileal digestibility of crude protein (CP), dry matter (DM) (except for HAL), organic matter (OM), ether extract (EE), and ash in comparison with the NC group (Table 3).

3.3. Histomorphology of Intestine

Supplementation of phytobiotics (Po8 and Pb4), HAL, and PC resulted in improved (p < 0.05) villus height (VH) in the jejunum and duodenum compared with NC; regarding ileum increased VH was noted in phytobiotics supplemented group and PC group relative to HAL and NC group. Furthermore, Pb4 supplementation resulted in maximumly improved (p < 0.05) VH in the jejunum and duodenum. Conversely, broilers fed on supplemented diets Po8, Pb4, HAL, and PC significantly reduced (p < 0.05) the crypt depth (CD) in the duodenum and ileum relative to the NC group; however, no difference (p > 0.05) was noted for CD in the jejunum among the experimental broiler chickens. Significantly increased villus height to crypt depth ratio (VH: CD) ratio was recorded in the duodenum, ileum, and jejunum of broilers fed on, phytobiotics, HAL, and PC in comparison with the broiler chickens fed on the NC diet (Table 4).

3.4. Cecal Microbiota

The composition of the cecal microbial population of broiler chickens fed on phytobiotics, HAL, tetracycline (PC), and basal diet (NC) is shown in Table 5. Dietary supplementation of phytobiotics (Po8 and Pb4), HAL, and PC decreased (p < 0.0001) the Escherichia coli (E. coli) count relative to the NC group. Supplementation of Pb4 decreased (p < 0.05) the total anaerobic bacteria compared to HAL and the NC groups. Furthermore, except for HAL, supplementation of phytobiotics and PC significantly decreased the Staphylococcus aureus count relative to the NC group; however, the lowest (p < 0.0001) Staphylococcus aureus count was noted in PC and Pb4 groups compared to Po8 group. In addition, no significant difference was observed in the Pseudomonas aeruginosa count between phytobiotic, HAL, PC, and NC groups. The Clostridium counts were decreased (p < 0.003) with supplementation of Pb4 and PC compared to Po8, HAL, and NC groups. Dietary supplementation (phytobiotic, HAL, PC, and NC) decreased (p < 0.0001) the Salmonella count in comparison with the NC group. The significantly lowest (p < 0.0001) Salmonella counts were recorded in Pb4 and PC group compared to Po8, HAL, and NC groups. However, supplementation of Po8 and HAL resulted in a significantly decreased Salmonella count in comparison with the NC group. Furthermore, supplementation of phytobiotics increased (p < 0.0001) the Lactobacillus count compared to HAL, PC, and NC groups; however, two latter groups, HAL and PC, were not significantly different compared to the NC group. The cecum pH was significantly decreased (p < 0.001) in supplemented groups Po8, Pb4, HAL and PC, in comparison with the NC group.

4. Discussion

4.1. Growth Performance

Phytobiotics, such as natural herbs and their secondary bioactive compound, possess the considerable potential to enhance the growth performance of broilers by increasing their feed efficiency [10,30,55]. Phytobiotics possess antioxidant, antimicrobial, and anti-inflammatory properties. Their use as a feed additive can positively enhance the intestinal health, increase the absorption and digestibility of nutrients; hence, improve feed efficiency [18,56].
In this study on day 21, the improved (p < 0.05) BWG was noted in phytobiotic (Po8 and Pb4) groups in comparison with the control group. Furthermore, on day 42, increased BWG was observed in Po8, Pb4, HAL, and PC groups relative to the NC group. Conversely, FCR was decreased (p < 0.05) in Po8, Pb4, HAL, and PC group in comparison with the NC group. Hassan et al. [57] endorsed current study results; he reported that the supplementation of the phytobiotic (Sanguinarine) enhanced the BWG and significantly decreased the FCR parallel to conventional AGPs. Various other studies showed that in-feed supplementation of phytobiotics or PFAs in broiler chickens improved the BWG and decreased FCR, Furthermore, these studies indicated that the phytobiotics might be used as an alternative to AGPs [12,55].
Herbs possess flavonoids, tannins, polyphenols, and alkaloids; these secondary metabolites have the potential to enhance the health of birds [56]. The current study results might be due to the presence of secondary metabolites, mainly due to the presence of bioactive compounds like quercetin and eugenol. Both bioactive compounds have been successfully quantified—quercetin from POLM, while the eugenol from PBLM (unpublished data). The polyphenol, such as flavonoid (quercetin), and phenolic compounds such as eugenol, are presumed to increase the growth measures in broilers when supplemented as feed additives [20,58].
The eugenol can increase appetite [59] and stimulate digestive enzymes secretions [60]. In the current study, the broiler chickens fed on diet Pb4, which contains tannins and secondary bioactive compound eugenol, showed enhanced growth performance. These results are in line with Paraskeuas et al. [20] who stated that the dietary inclusion of PFAs (eugenol, menthol, and anethol) in broiler birds increase the growth measures. Likewise, Oso et al. [45] described that dietary inclusion of PFAs in the form of a mixture including Piper betle, Piper nigrum, and Cynodon dactylon improved weight gain and decreased FCR. Phytobiotics containing tannins are previously considered not suitable for monogastric animals, including poultry [61]. The feed palatability of birds might be decreased when supplemented with higher concentrations of tannins [62]; however, tannins positively influence the growth performance of birds when supplemented in appropriate low doses [16,63]. Balanced supplementation of tannins enhanced the digestion of nutrients, which can positively modulate the intestinal microbiota, which helps to increase the production performance of broiler chickens [61,64].
Flavonoids such as quercetin (bioactive compound of POLM), which is a flavone, enhance the secretion of insulin-like growth factor-1, which results due to the increased concentration of growth hormone and stimulation of hepatic growth hormone receptor [65]. Thus, the supplementation of quercetin improved production performance in broilers [66]. In the present study, broilers fed on the diet Po8 showed increased growth performance compared to the NC group; these outcomes are parallel to Aroche et al. [67] and Zhou et al. [68] where they reported that supplementation of PFAs mix powder and baicalein flavonoids resulted in increased BWG and improved FCR in broiler chickens.
The present study results showed that in terms of overall growth performance, BWG was significantly enhanced (p < 0.05) in Po8, Pb4, HAL, and PC supplemented groups relative to NC group; however, maximumly increased (p < 0.05) BWG was observed in birds raised on dietary supplementation Pb4. On the other hand, FCR was significantly decreased in Po8, Pb4, HAL, and PC groups compared to the NC group. Current study results are supported by various other studies supplementing phytobiotics to broiler chickens [20,23].
Conclusively, dietary inclusion of phytobiotics (PBLM and POLM) in broilers showed improved growth performance. In addition, this enhanced growth performance in broiler chickens was parallel to the PC (AGPs). Numerous previous studies showed similar outcomes where phytobiotics were supplemented to broilers and showed parallel results to AGPs [7,21,30,57,69]. Based on current study findings, it was concluded that phytobiotics (PBLM and POLM) could be used as alternative growth promoters to AGPs in broiler chickens.

4.2. Nutrient Digestibility

Phytobiotics, such as herbs, can stimulate the secretion of enzymes [70] and positively modulate the intestine by increasing the VH and their surface area [45]. Thus, enhance the nutrient digestion and absorption from the gut of broiler chickens [1,19]. In the present experiment, the broiler chickens fed on diets Po8, Pb4, HAL and AGPs showed improved (p < 0.05) digestibility of crude protein (CP), dry matter (DM) (except for HAL), organic matter (OM), ether extract (EE), and ash compared to the NC group. The current study results added information to previous studies that showed a positive influence of phytobiotics to increase absorption and digestibility of nutrients in broiler chickens [16,18,71].
Phytobiotics can enhance palatability, modify the intestinal walls, and improve nutrient absorption. In addition, it can reduce the pathogenic microbial load and inflammation along with the increased secretion of digestion enzymes, thus, it can enhance the nutrient digestibility [1,17]. The present study results showed that supplementation of phytobiotics enhanced the apparent ileal digestibility of DM, OM, EE, CP, and ash. These results are similar to the outcome of Hassan et al. [72] and Farahat et al. [73], where supplementation of phytobiotics, artichoke (Cynara scolymus), and grape seed tannin in broiler diets improved digestibility of DM, EE, and CP. Halquinol can slow peristalsis in the gut [43]; this slowed passage of food in the gut may help in enhanced absorption.
In conclusion, the supplementation of Po8 and Pb4 increased the digestibility of nutrients. The bioactive compounds, such as flavonoids and polyphenols, present in phytobiotics (Pb4 and Po8) positively modulate the gut and improve nutrient digestibility, thus, enhancing the growth performance of broiler chickens [9,74].

4.3. Gut Morphology

The gut is an important organ that contributes to some important functions, including digestion and host defence. Any impairment in gut function can alter the digestibility of nutrients; thus, health and growth performance of chickens might be declined [75]. The VH and CD are significant factors of the gut that indicate its function, as well as the health status of animals [76]. Increased VH and decreased CD with bigger surface area, can help to increase the absorption of nutrients. Furthermore, increased VH enhances the transport of nutrients, thus, improves the growth performance of birds [77]. Broiler chickens are fast-growing, their intestinal epithelia have an ability to increase nutrient absorption and then conversion of absorbed nutrients into body mass [75].
The current study showed that supplementation of phytobiotics (Po8 and Pb4), HAL, and PC diets resulted in increased (p < 0.05) VH in the duodenum as well as in the jejunum relative to the NC group. Furthermore, Pb4 supplementation resulted in maximum (p < 0.05) VH in the duodenum and jejunum of broiler chickens. Conversely, broilers fed on supplemented diets Po8, Pb4, HAL, and PC exhibited decreased (p < 0.05) CD in the duodenum and ileum compared to the NC group. On the other hand, significantly higher VH: CD ratios were observed in the duodenum, jejunum and ileum of broilers fed on Po8, Pb4, HAL, and PC diets in comparison with the broiler chickens fed on the NC diet. The current outcomes are in line with the idea that in-feed supplementation of phytobiotics in broiler chickens can positively improve the gut function by stimulating the secretion of gut mucus, changing the morphological architecture of intestine, such as increase in VH and decrease in CD [74]. Thus, in-feed inclusion of phytobiotics in broiler chickens enhanced the intestinal function and maintained the healthy gut [17,56]. Murugesan et al. [9] found that phytobiotics can increase VH, reduce inflammatory events, and enhance the absorption efficiency in broiler chickens. Soliman et al. [71] and Oso et al. [45] endorsed current study findings where supplementation of PFAs had significantly increase VH and decrease CD. As with the present study results, the positive influence of phytobiotics on gut morphology in broiler chickens was reported in several studies [14,17,24]. Various other studies endorsed the present study findings, where dietary supplementation of phytobiotics possessing polyphenols, including flavonoids and phenolic compounds, modulated the gut health through improved gut microarchitecture [25,56].
The intestinal crypts are considered as a source of epithelial cells in the gut villi; additionally, the CD is having a direct correlation with the epithelial cell turnover. The deeper crypts reflect increased cellular turn over and needed more energy to uphold the gut function in the broiler birds [78]. The present study results show that supplementation of phytobiotics leads to shallow crypts, which designate healthy intestine with reduced cellular turnover. A cellular turnover is an energy-utilising event; shallow crypts resulted in decreased cellular turnover, thus reduced energy utilisation which might be used in growth events of broiler chickens. These findings are endorsed by earlier reports that showed increased VH, and shallow crypts indicated enhanced growth performance of birds [14,25,71].
Conclusively supplementation of phytobiotics (Pb4 and Po8) positively modulate the gut, the increased VH, and decreased CD, recorded in dietary groups, might be an explanation for improved growth performance in broiler chickens.

4.4. Cecal Microbiota

Gut microbiota has a significant effect on the nutritional status, metabolism, and health of the broilers [79]. The mechanism by which AGPs improve growth performance in birds is still unclear; however, it is believed that AGPs enhanced the growth performance of birds through modulation of gut microbiota [80]. A healthy gut with a balanced microbiota population is important to enhance feed efficiency, protection against pathogens, and to improve growth performance of birds [81]. Beneficial microbes such as Lactobacillus are important for gut functions, including metabolism, energy transfer, and growth [82]. On the other hand, an increased population of harmful pathogens such as E. coli, Salmonella, and Clostridium can change the balanced ecosystem of the gut and result in compromised growth [83].
Phytobiotics can reduce pathogenic microbial growth [84], can favourably improve microbiota balance and improve intestinal function [17]. Thus, phytobiotics can enhance the health status and performance of the birds [85]. Several studies reported the antimicrobial activity of PFAs possessing polyphenols, including flavonoid (quercetin) and eugenol [14,59]. Antimicrobial activity is one of the properties of phytobiotics when supplemented as growth promoters in the ration of broilers [86].
In the current study, the dietary supplementation of phytobiotics (Po8 and Pb4), HAL, and PC decreased (p < 0.0001) the E. coli count relative to the NC group. Furthermore, the supplementation of phytobiotics and PC significantly decreased the Staphylococcus aureus count in comparison with the NC group. Dietary supplementation of Pb4 reduced (p < 0.05) the total anaerobic bacteria compared to HAL and NC groups. The Clostridium counts were reduced (p < 0.003) with dietary inclusion of Pb4 and PC compared to Po8, HAL, and NC group. In addition, dietary supplementation of Po8 and Pb4, HAL, and PC reduced (p < 0.0001) the Salmonella count compared to the NC group; however, the significantly lowest (p < 0.0001) Salmonella counts were recorded in Pb4 and PC groups. Furthermore, supplementation of Po8 and Pb4 increased (p < 0.0001) the Lactobacillus count compared to HAL, PC, and NC groups.
The present study results are in good agreement with the work of Wati et al. [12] who reported that the supplementation of PFAs and bacitracin methylene disalicylate in broiler chickens’ diet were equally effective. In addition, the PFAs significantly decreased the Salmonella, E. coli and Clostridium counts compared to the NC; conversely, significantly increased Lactobacillus count was recorded in the PFA group in comparison with PC and NC groups. Very much similar results were described by Murugesan et al. [9] where dietary supplementation of bacitracin and phytobiotics in broilers significantly reduced the total anaerobic bacteria and Clostridium counts, however, only phytobiotics reduced the Coliforms count. Furthermore, phytobiotics significantly increased the Lactobacillus count compared to PC and NC groups. Several studies endorsed the current study findings of supplemented groups Po8 and Pb4, where supplementation of the phytobiotics leaf meal in broilers’ diet possessing secondary metabolites polyphenols such as flavonoid and phenolic compound can positively modulate the microbiota balance [22,87,88].
To understand the detailed effects of AGPs and phytobiotics on chicken intestinal microbiota, it is necessary to know the mechanisms of growth promotion [89]. In the current study, the phytobiotics (especially Pb4) showed better results than the HAL, PC and NC groups. In addition, supplementation of Pb4 was superior in the modulation of gut microbiota compared to all other treatments. Previous studies showed that the presence of tannins in P. betle [28], and their balanced dose can improve the gut microbiota and positively modulate the gut, hence, enhance the growth performance in broilers [13,16,61,63,90]. The antimicrobial mechanism of action of tannins is proposed to limit the metal ion and interact with the cell membrane in terms of complexes. Furthermore, tannins can morphologically change the cell wall and also increase the permeability of cell membrane [64,91]. The number of pathogenic microorganisms, including E. coli, Salmonella, and staphylococcus, was reported sensitive to tannins [64,92,93]. The tannin mechanism of iron chelation resulted in less metal ion availability, which may inhibit microbial growth other than Lactobacillus, as these microorganisms do not need iron for their growth [94].
The secondary bioactive compounds quercetin and eugenol were successfully quantified from POLM and PBLM, respectively (unpublished data). Previous studies revealed that eugenol and quercetin possess strong antimicrobial properties [95,96,97,98]. Eugenol has shown antimicrobial activity against Gram-negative bacteria, including Salmonella, E. coli, and P. aeruginosa, also, against Gram-positive microorganisms, including Staphylococcus aureus and Clostridium [97,99]. The proposed antimicrobial mechanism of eugenol is increasing the permeability of the cell membrane and has disruptive action on the cytoplasmic membrane of bacteria [100]. Furthermore, the dietary supplementation of eugenol in broiler chickens resulted in the reduced pathogenic microbial count of bacteria like Salmonella [101,102]. On the other hand, Quercetin has exhibited bacteriostatic activity against different strains of bacteria, such as S. aureus and E. coli [95,103]. The current study results are parallel to Wang et al. [96], where in-feed supplementation of quercetin in broiler chickens resulted in a significantly reduced count in the microbial population of S. aureus, E. coli and Salmonella and significantly increased Lactobacillus count compared to the control group. These results are endorsed by other studies that showed that quercetin and other flavonoids had an inhibitory effect on E. coli [64], S. aureus [104], and Salmonella [105]. Additionally, quercetin and other flavonoids play an important role in increasing Lactobacillus count [106]. The proposed antimicrobial mechanism of flavonoids, such as quercetin, showed increased permeability of cell walls and cell membranes [107].
In the current study, the supplementation of phytobiotics (Po8 and Pb4), HAL, and PC significantly reduced the cecal pH; however, the least (p < 0.05) pH values were recorded in the cecum of broiler chickens fed on phytobiotics supplemented diets. These results might be due to an increased Lactobacillus count in phytobiotics treated groups, which helps to decrease gut pH and modulate an environment that is not favourable for the growth of pathogenic microorganisms. The current idea is endorsed by Ripon et al. [108], where supplementation of PFAs lowering the gut pH, thus inhibiting the pathogenic bacteria as positive modulation of gut microbiota, has a primary role in host health. A similar idea was reported by Saki et al. [109].
In conclusion, supplementation of phytobiotics positively modulated the gut health by increasing the beneficial microbes, such as Lactobacillus, and restricting the growth of pathogenic bacteria, including E. coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella, and Clostridium. Current results are supported by a variety of other studies that reported that phytobiotics supplementation in broiler chickens significantly reduced the pathogenic bacteria including E. coli, Salmonella and Clostridium and significantly increased the beneficial bacteria (Lactobacillus) [9,14,24,71].

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, dietary supplementation of phytobiotics (Po8 and Pb4) positively improved the gut microarchitecture, modulated the dynamics of cecal microbiota with enhanced nutrient digestibility, thus, improved the growth performance. In comparison with NC, HAL and PC phytobiotics showed improved growth performance, increased intestinal villi height, reduced pathogenic bacteria count (E. coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella, and Clostridium) and enhanced the beneficial microbes such as Lactobacillus. Moreover, among the phytobiotics, Pb4 showed superior results. Based on the present findings, phytobiotics, especially Pb4, could be used as an alternative to conventional AGPs for sustainable broiler chicken production.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.A.B., A.A.K., T.C.L., S.A.A., and A.S.; methodology, M.A.B., A.A.K., T.C.L., S.A.A., and A.S.; sample collection M.A.B., A.A.K., and S.B.I.; formal analysis, M.A.B., A.A.K., L.T.C., S.A.A., and A.S.; investigation, M.A.B., A.A.K., T.C.L., A.S., Z.A.Z., and S.B.I.; resources, A.A.K. and L.T.C.; writing—original draft preparation, M.A.B., A.A.K., T.C.L., S.A.A., A.S., and Z.A.Z.; writing—review and editing, M.A.B., A.A.K., T.C.L., S.A.A., A.S., Z.A.Z., and S.B.I.; supervision, A.A.K., T.C.L., S.A.A., and A.S.; project administration, A.A.K.; funding acquisition, A.A.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Geran Putra: Universiti Putra Malaysia.: Grant Code: GP/2018/9616700.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abudabos, A.M.; Alyemni, A.H.; Dafalla, Y.M.; Khan, R.U. The Effect of Phytogenic Feed Additives to Substitute In-Feed Antibiotics on Growth Traits and Biochemical Blood Parameters in Broiler Chicks Challenged with Salmonella Typhimurium. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 151–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Proctor, A.; Phillips, G.J. Differential Effects of Bacitracin Methylene Disalicylate (BMD) on the Distal Colon and Cecal Microbiota of Young Broiler Chickens. Front. Vet. Sci. 2019, 6, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Ma, J.L.; Zhao, L.H.; Sun, D.D.; Zhang, J.; Guo, Y.P.; Zhang, Z.Q.; Ma, Q.G.; Ji, C.; Zhao, L.H. Effects of Dietary Supplementation of Recombinant Plectasin on Growth Performance, Intestinal Health and Innate Immunity Response in Broilers. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2020, 12, 214–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Boovaragamoorthy, G.M.; Anbazhagan, M.; Piruthiviraj, P.; Pugazhendhi, A.; Kumar, S.S.; Al-Dhabi, N.A.; Mohammed Ghilan, A.K.; Arasu, M.V.; Kaliannan, T. Clinically Important Microbial Diversity and Its Antibiotic Resistance Pattern towards Various Drugs. J. Infect. Public Health 2019, 12, 783–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. The European Parliament; The Council of the European Union. Regulation (EC) NO 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition. Off. J. Eur. Commun. 2003, 268, 29–43. [Google Scholar]
  6. Tang, K.L.; Caffrey, N.P.; Nóbrega, D.B.; Cork, S.C.; Ronksley, P.E.; Barkema, H.W.; Polachek, A.J.; Ganshorn, H.; Sharma, N.; Kellner, J.D.; et al. Examination of Unintended Consequences of Antibiotic Use Restrictions in Food-Producing Animals: Sub-Analysis of a Systematic Review. One Health 2019, 7, 100095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yang, C.; Chowdhury, M.A.K.; Hou, Y.; Gong, J. Phytogenic Compounds as Alternatives to In-Feed Antibiotics: Potentials and Challenges in Application. Pathogens 2015, 4, 137–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Rashid, Z.; Mirani, Z.A.; Zehra, S.; Gilani, S.M.H.; Ashraf, A.; Azhar, A.; Al-Ghanim, K.A.; Al-Misned, F.; Al-Mulahim, N.; Mahboob, S.; et al. Enhanced Modulation of Gut Microbial Dynamics Affecting Body Weight in Birds Triggered by Natural Growth Promoters Administered in Conventional Feed. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2020, 27, 2747–2755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Murugesan, G.R.; Syed, B.; Haldar, S.; Pender, C. Phytogenic Feed Additives as an Alternative to Antibiotic Growth Promoters in Broiler Chickens. Front. Vet. Sci. 2015, 2, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Mohammadi Gheisar, M.; Kim, I.H. Phytobiotics in Poultry and Swine Nutrition—A Review. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 17, 92–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Stevanović, Z.D.; Bošnjak-Neumüller, J.; Pajić-Lijaković, I.; Raj, J.; Vasiljević, M. Essential Oils as Feed Additives—Future Perspectives. Molecules 2018, 23, 1717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Wati, T.; Ghosh, T.K.; Syed, B.; Haldar, S. Comparative Efficacy of a Phytogenic Feed Additive and an Antibiotic Growth Promoter on Production Performance, Cecal Microbial Population and Humoral Immune Response of Broiler Chickens Inoculated with Enteric Pathogens. Anim. Nutr. 2015, 1, 213–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Díaz Carrasco, J.M.; Redondo, E.A.; Pin Viso, N.D.; Redondo, L.M.; Farber, M.D.; Fernandez Miyakawa, M.E. Tannins and Bacitracin Differentially Modulate Gut Microbiota of Broiler Chickens. BioMed Res. Int. 2018, 2018, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Ahsan, U.; Kuter, E.; Raza, I.; Köksal, B.H.; Cengiz, O.; Yıldız, M.; Kızanlık, P.K.; Kaya, M.; Tatlı, O.; Sevim, O. Dietary Supplementation of Different Levels of Phytogenic Feed Additive in Broiler Diets: The Dynamics of Growth Performance, Cecal Microbiota, and Intestinal Morphometry. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Avic. 2018, 20, 737–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hussein, E.O.S.; Ahmed, S.H.; Abudabos, A.M.; Aljumaah, M.R.; Alkhlulaifi, M.M.; Nassan, M.A.; Suliman, G.M.; Naiel, M.A.E.; Swelum, A.A. Effect of Antibiotic, Phytobiotic and Probiotic Supplementation on Growth, Blood Indices and Intestine Health in Broiler Chicks Challenged with Clostridium Perfringens. Animals 2020, 10, 507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Basit, M.A.; Arifah, A.K.; Loh, T.C.; Saleha, A.A.; Salleh, A.; Kaka, U.; Idris, S.B. Effects of Graded Dose Dietary Supplementation of Piper betle Leaf Meal and Persicaria odorata Leaf Meal on Growth Performance, Apparent Ileal Digestibility, and Gut Morphology in Broilers. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2020, 27, 1503–1513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Yadav, S.; Jha, R. Strategies to Modulate the Intestinal Microbiota and Their Effects on Nutrient Utilization, Performance, and Health of Poultry. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2019, 10, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Suresh, G.; Das, R.K.; Kaur Brar, S.; Rouissi, T.; Avalos Ramirez, A.; Chorfi, Y.; Godbout, S. Alternatives to Antibiotics in Poultry Feed: Molecular Perspectives. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 2018, 44, 318–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Abudabos, A.M.; Alyemni, A.H.; Dafalla, Y.M.; Khan, R.U. Effect of Organic Acid Blend and Bacillus Subtilis Alone or in Combination on Growth Traits, Blood Biochemical and Antioxidant Status in Broilers Exposed to Salmonella Typhimurium Challenge during the Starter Phase. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2017, 45, 538–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Paraskeuas, V.; Fegeros, K.; Palamidi, I.; Hunger, C.; Mountzouris, K.C. Growth Performance, Nutrient Digestibility, Antioxidant Capacity, Blood Biochemical Biomarkers and Cytokines Expression in Broiler Chickens Fed Different Phytogenic Levels. Anim. Nutr. 2017, 3, 114–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mashayekhi, H.; Mazhari, M.; Esmaeilipour, O. Eucalyptus Leaves Powder, Antibiotic and Probiotic Addition to Broiler Diets: Effect on Growth Performance, Immune Response, Blood Components and Carcass Traits. Animal 2018, 12, 2049–2055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Rahman, M.M.; Yang, D.K. Effects of Ananas Comosus Leaf Powder on Broiler Performance, Haematology, Biochemistry, and Gut Microbial Population. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2018, 47, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Saleh, A.A.; Ragab, M.M.; Ahmed, E.A.M.; Abudabos, A.M.; Ebeid, T.A. Effect of Dietary Zinc-Methionine Supplementation on Growth Performance, Nutrient Utilization, Antioxidative Properties and Immune Response in Broiler Chickens under High Ambient Temperature. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2018, 46, 820–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mohiti-Asli, M.; Ghanaatparast-Rashti, M. Comparing the Effects of a Combined Phytogenic Feed Additive with an Individual Essential Oil of Oregano on Intestinal Morphology and Microflora in Broilers. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2017, 46, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Abudabos, A.M.; Alyemni, A.H.; Dafalla, Y.M.; Khan, R.U. The Effect of Phytogenics on Growth Traits, Blood Biochemical and Intestinal Histology in Broiler Chickens Exposed to Clostridium perfringens Challenge. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2018, 46, 691–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Biswajit Patra, M.T.D.; Dey, S.K. A Review on Piper betle L. J. Med. Plants Stud. 2016, 4, 185–192. [Google Scholar]
  27. Sarma, C.; Rasane, P.; Kaur, S.; Singh, J.; Singh, J.; Gat, Y.; Garba, U.; Kaur, D.; Dhawan, K. Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Potential of Selected Varieties of Piper betle L. (Betel leaf). An. Acad. Bras. Cienc. 2018, 90, 3871–3878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Syahidah, A.; Saad, C.R.; Hassan, M.D.; Rukayadi, Y.; Norazian, M.H.; Kamarudin, M.S. Phytochemical Analysis, Identification and Quantification of Antibacterial Active Compounds in Betel leaves, Piper betle Methanolic Extract. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 2017, 20, 70–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Vijayanchali, S.S. Nutrient Composition, Phytonutrient Constituents and Antioxidant Activity of The Dried Betel leaves (Piper betle ). Int. J. Res. Dev. 2018, 5, 24–28. [Google Scholar]
  30. Attia, Y.A.; Bakhashwain, A.A.; Bertu, N.K. Utilisation of Thyme Powder (Thyme Vulgaris L.) as a Growth Promoter Alternative to Antibiotics for Broiler Chickens Raised in a Hot Climate. Eur. Poult. Sci. 2018, 82, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Dash, G.K.; Zakaria, Z.B. Pharmacognostic Studies on Persicaria odorata (Lour.) Sojak. J. Pharm. Res. 2016, 10, 377–380. [Google Scholar]
  32. Abubakar, M.A.; Zulkifli, R.M.; Nur, W.; Wan, A.; Husni, A.; Shariff, M.; Ahmad, N.; Nik, N.; Zakaria, Z.; Ahmad, F. Antibacterial Properties of Persicaria minor (Huds.) Ethanolic and Aqueous-Ethanolic Leaf Extracts. J. Appl. Pharm. Sci. 2015, 5 (Suppl. 2), 50–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Abdullah, M.Z.; Mohd Ali, J.; Abolmaesoomi, M.; Abdul-Rahman, P.S.; Hashim, O.H. Anti-Proliferative, in Vitro Antioxidant, and Cellular Antioxidant Activities of the Leaf Extracts from Polygonum minus Huds: Effects of Solvent Polarity. Int. J. Food Prop. 2017, 20, S846–S862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Basit, M.A.; Kadir, A.A.; Loh, T.C.; Aziz, S.A.; Salleh, A.; Kaka, U.; Idris, S.B. Effects of Inclusion of Different Doses of Persicaria odorata Leaf Meal (POLM) in Broiler Chicken Feed on Biochemical and Haematological Blood Indicators and Liver Histomorphological Changes. Animals 2020, 10, 1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sim, O.P.; Rasid, R.A.; Hardy, N.; Daud, A.; David, D.; Haya, B.A.; Saibeh, K.; Silip, J.J.; Milan, A.R.; Alimon, A.R. Preliminary Investigation on the Chemical Composition of Local Medicinal Herbs (Curcuma Longa L., Persicaria Odorata L. and Eleutherine Palmifolia L.) as Potential Layer Feed Additives for the Production of Healthy Eggs. Trans. Sci. Technol. 2019, 6, 221–227. [Google Scholar]
  36. Christapher, P.V.; Parasuraman, S.; Asmawi, M.Z.; Murugaiyah, V. Acute and Subchronic Toxicity Studies of Methanol Extract of Polygonum minus Leaves in Sprague Dawley Rats. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2017, 86, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Pawłowska, K.A.; Strawa, J.; Tomczyk, M.; Granica, S. Changes in the Phenolic Contents and Composition of Persicaria odorata Fresh and Dried Leaves. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2020, 91, 103507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Christapher, P.; Parasuraman, S.; Christina, J.A.; Vikneswaran, M.; Asmawi, M.Z. Review on Polygonum minus. Huds, a Commonly Used Food Additive in Southeast Asia. Pharmacogn. Res. 2015, 7, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Hassan, S.M.; Khalaf, M.M.; Sadek, S.A.; Abo-Youssef, A.M. Protective Effects of Apigenin and Myricetin against Cisplatin-Induced Nephrotoxicity in Mice. Pharm. Biol. 2017, 55, 766–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. FAO; WHO. Evaluation of Certain Veterinary Drug Residues in Food (Eighty-Fifth Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives) WHO Technical Report Series, No 1008; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018; Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/259895/9789241210171-eng.pdf;jsessionid=E271946E46D0616CAC0C94420CA4E03B?sequence=1 (accessed on 16 August 2020).
  41. Maíra, F.; Haese, D.; Sobreiro, R.P.; Haddade, I.R.; Lima, A.L.; Saraiva, A. Prebiotic and Antimicrobials on Performance, Carcass Characteristics, and Antibody Production in Broilers. Cienc. Rural 2016, 46, 1070–1075. [Google Scholar]
  42. Habib, M.A.; Haque, M.A.; Islam, M.S.; Liton, M.R. Effect of Dietary Halquinol Supplementation on the Productive Performances, Carcass Traits and Blood Profile of Sonali Chicken. Asian J. Med. Biol. Res. 2020, 5, 316–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Kandepu, N.; Kodaganur, S.C.; Mantri, A.P.; Saha, S. RP-HPLC Method for Quantitative Estimation of Halquinol in Pharmaceutical Dosage Forms. Eurasian J. Anal. Chem. 2012, 7, 7–12. [Google Scholar]
  44. Costa, M.C.; Bessegatto, J.A.; Alfieri, A.A.; Weese, J.S.; Filho, J.A.B.; Oba, A. Different Antibiotic Growth Promoters Induce Specific Changes in the Cecal Microbiota Membership of Broiler Chicken. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0171642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Oso, A.O.; Suganthi, R.U.; Reddy, G.B.M.; Malik, P.K.; Thirumalaisamy, G.; Awachat, V.B.; Selvaraju, S.; Arangasamy, A.; Bhatta, R. Effect of Dietary Supplementation with Phytogenic Blend on Growth Performance, Apparent Ileal Digestibility of Nutrients, Intestinal Morphology, and Cecal Microflora of Broiler Chickens. Poult. Sci. 2019, 98, 4755–4766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. NRC. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  47. Humam, A.M.; Loh, T.C.; Foo, H.L.; Samsudin, A.A.; Mustapha, N.M.; Zulkifli, I.; Izuddin, W.I. Effects of Feeding Different Postbiotics Produced by Lactobacillus Plantarum on Growth Performance, Carcass Yield, Intestinal Morphology, Gut Microbiota Composition, Immune Status, and Growth Gene Expression in Broilers under Heat Stress. Animals 2019, 9, 644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Department of Standards Malaysia. Halal Food—Production, Preparation, Handling and Storage—General Guideline; Department of Standards Malaysia: Cyberjaya, Malaysia, 2009; pp. 1–26. Available online: www.jsm.gov.my (accessed on 26 September 2020).
  49. Alshelmani, M.I.; Loh, T.C.; Foo, H.L.; Sazili, A.Q.; Lau, W.H. Effect of Feeding Different Levels of Palm Kernel Cake Fermented by Paenibacillus Polymyxa ATCC 842 on Nutrient Digestibility, Intestinal Morphology, and Gut Microflora in Broiler Chickens. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2016, 216, 216–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Short, F.J.; Gorton, P.; Wiseman, J.; Boorman, K.N. Determination of Titanium Dioxide Added as an Inert Marker in Chicken Digestibility Studies. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1996, 59, 215–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Cunniff, P. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, 16th ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Washington, DC, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  52. Khatun, J.; Loh, T.C.; Akit, H.; Foo, H.L.; Mohamad, R. Influence of Different Sources of Oil on Performance, Meat Quality, Gut Morphology, Ileal Digestibility and Serum Lipid Profile in Broilers. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2018, 46, 479–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Carroll, J.; Touchette, K.J.; Matteri, R.L.; Dyer, C.J.; Allee, G.L. Effect of Spray-Dried Plasma and Lipopolysaccharide Exposure on Weaned Pigs: II. Effects on the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal Axis of Weaned Pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 2002, 80, 502–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. SAS. User’s Guide, 9th ed.; SAS Institute, Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  55. Movahhedkhah, S.; Rasouli, B.; Seidavi, A.; Mazzei, D.; Laudadio, V.; Tufarelli, V. Summer Savory (Satureja hortensis l.) Extract as Natural Feed Additive in Broilers: Effects on Growth, Plasma Constituents, Immune Response, and Ileal Microflora. Animals 2019, 9, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Umatiya, R.V.; Srivastava, A.K.; Pawar, M.M.; Chauhan, H.D.; Jain, A.K. Efficacy of Garlic (Allium sativum) and Ginger (Zingiber officinale) Powder as Phytogenic Feed Additive in Diet of Broiler Chickens. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 2018, 7, 1136–1140. [Google Scholar]
  57. Hassan, H.M.A.; Samy, A.; Youssef, A.W.; Mohamed, M.A. Using Different Feed Additives as Alternative to Antibiotic Growth Promoter to Improve Growth Performance and Carcass Traits of Broilers. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2018, 17, 255–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Gole, M.; Manwar, S.J.; Chaudhary, S.P.; Kawitkar, S.V.; Khose, K.K. The Impact of Feeding Clove Essential Oils and Organic Acids on Immunity, Gut Health and Economics of Broiler Production. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 2020, 9, 1417–1422. [Google Scholar]
  59. Kumar, M.; Kumar, V.; Roy, D.; Kushwaha, R.; Vaswani, S. Application of Herbal Feed Additives in Animal Nutrition—A Review. Int. J. Livest. Res. 2014, 4, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Pradhan, D.; Biswasroy, P.; Suri, K. Various Factors Influencing the Percentage Content of Hydroxychavicol in Different Extracts of Piper betle L. by Altering the Extraction Parameters. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Technol. Res. 2014, 2, 517–530. [Google Scholar]
  61. Huang, Q.; Liu, X.; Zhao, G.; Hu, T.; Wang, Y. Potential and Challenges of Tannins as an Alternative to In-Feed Antibiotics for Farm Animal Production. Anim. Nutr. 2018, 4, 137–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Mansoori, B.; Rogiewicz, A.; Slominski, B.A. The Effect of Canola Meal Tannins on the Intestinal Absorption Capacity of Broilers Using a D-Xylose Test. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2015, 99, 1084–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Bee, G.; Silacci, P.; Ampuero-Kragten, S.; Čandek-Potokar, M.; Wealleans, A.L.; Litten-Brown, J.; Salminen, J.P.; Mueller-Harvey, I. Hydrolysable Tannin-Based Diet Rich in Gallotannins Has a Minimal Impact on Pig Performance but Significantly Reduces Salivary and Bulbourethral Gland Size. Animal 2017, 11, 1617–1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Liu, X.L.; Hao, Y.Q.; Jin, L.; Xu, Z.J.; McAllister, T.A.; Wang, Y. Anti-Escherichia Coli O157: H7 Properties of Purple Prairie clover and Sainfoin Condensed Tannins. Molecules 2013, 18, 2183–2199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ouyang, K.; Xu, M.; Jiang, Y.; Wang, W. Effects of Alfalfa Flavonoids on Broiler Performance, Meat Quality, and Gene Expression. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 96, 332–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Kim, D.; Hong, E.; Kim, J.; Bang, H.; Choi, J.; Ji, S. Effects of Dietary Quercitin on Growth Performance, Blood Biochemical Parameter, Immunologlobulin and Blood Antioxidant Activity in Broiler Chickens. Korean J. Poult. Sci. 2015, 42, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Aroche, R.; Martínez, Y.; Ruan, Z.; Guan, G.; Waititu, S.; Nyachoti, C.M.; Más, D.; Lan, S. Dietary Inclusion of a Mixed Powder of Medicinal Plant Leaves Enhances the Feed Efficiency and Immune Function in Broiler Chickens. J. Chem. 2018, 2018, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Zhou, Y.; Mao, S.; Zhou, M. Effect of the Flavonoid Baicalein as a Feed Additive on the Growth Performance, Immunity, and Antioxidant Capacity of Broiler Chickens. Poult. Sci. 2019, 98, 2790–2799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Vispute, M.M.; Sharma, D.; Mandal, A.B.; Rokade, J.J.; Tyagi, P.K.; Yadav, A.S. Effect of Dietary Supplementation of Hemp (Cannabis sativa) and Dill Seed (Anethum graveolens) on Performance, Serum Biochemicals and Gut Health of Broiler Chickens. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2019, 103, 525–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zeng, Z.; Zhang, S.; Wang, H.; Piao, X. Essential Oil and Aromatic Plants as Feed Additives in Non-Ruminant Nutrition: A Review. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2015, 6, 40104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Soliman, N. Efficiency of Phytogenic Feed Additives in Improving Broiler Performance, Intestinal Bacteria and Ileal Histomorphology. Egypt. J. Nutr. Feed. 2019, 22, 625–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hassan, H.M.A.; Youssef, A.W.; Ali, H.M.; Mohamed, M.A. Adding Phytogenic Material and/or Organic Acids to Broiler Diets: Effect on Performance, Nutrient Digestibility and Net Profit. Asian J. Poult. Sci. 2015, 9, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Farahat, M.H.; Abdallah, F.M.; Ali, H.A.; Hernandez-Santana, A. Effect of Dietary Supplementation of Grape Seed Extract on the Growth Performance, Lipid Profile, Antioxidant Status & Immune Response of Broiler Chickens. Animal 2017, 11, 771–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Yitbarek, M.B. Phytogenics as Feed Additives in Poultry Production: A Review. Int. J. Extensive Res. 2015, 3, 49–60. [Google Scholar]
  75. Mishra, B.; Jha, R. Oxidative Stress in the Poultry Gut: Potential Challenges and Interventions. Front. Vet. Sci. 2019, 6, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Marchini, C.F.P.; Silva, P.L.; Nascimento, M.R.B.M.; Beletti, M.E.; Silva, N.M.G.E. Body Weight, Intestinal Morphometry and Cell Proliferation of Broiler Chickens Submitted to Cyclic Heat Stress. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2011, 10, 455–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Kamboh, A.A.; Arain, M.A.; Mughal, M.J.; Zaman, A.; Arain, Z.M.; Soomro, A.H. Flavonoids: Health Promoting Phytochemicals for Animal Production—A Review. J. Anim. health Prod. 2015, 11, 369–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Parsaie, S.; Shariatmadari, F.; Zamiri, M.J.; Khajeh, K. Influence of Wheat-Based Diets Supplemented with Xylanase, Bile Acid and Antibiotics on Performance, Digestive Tract Measurements and Gut Morphology of Broilers Compared with a Maise-Based Diet. Br. Poult. Sci. 2007, 48, 594–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Falcinelli, S.; Picchietti, S.; Rodiles, A.; Cossignani, L.; Merrifield, D.L.; Taddei, A.R.; Maradonna, F.; Olivotto, I.; Gioacchini, G.; Carnevali, O. Lactobacillus Rhamnosus Lowers Zebrafish Lipid Content by Changing Gut Microbiota and Host Transcription of Genes Involved in Lipid Metabolism. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 8–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Angelakis, E. Weight Gain by Gut Microbiota Manipulation in Productive Animals. Microb. Pathog. 2017, 106, 162–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Panaite, T.D.; Saracila, M.; Papuc, C.P.; Predescu, C.N.; Soica, C. Influence of Dietary Supplementation of Salix alba Bark on Performance, Oxidative Stress Parameters in Liver and Gut Microflora of Broilers. Animals 2020, 10, 958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Rinttilä, T.; Apajalahti, J. Intestinal Microbiota and Metabolites-Implications for Broiler Chicken Health and Performance. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2013, 22, 647–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Oz, H.S. Nutrients, Infectious and Inflammatory Diseases. Nutrients 2017, 9, 1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Chang, C.L.T.; Chung, C.Y.; Kuo, C.H.; Kuo, T.F.; Yang, C.W.; Yang, W.C. Beneficial Effect of Bidens pilosa on Body Weight Gain, Food Conversion Ratio, Gut Bacteria and Coccidiosis in Chickens. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0146141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Prabakar, G.; Gopi, M.; Karthik, K.; Shanmuganathan, S.; Kirubakaran, A.; Pavulraj, S. Review Article Phytobiotics: Could the Greens Inflate the Poultry Production. Asian J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 2016, 11, 383–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Laptev, G.Y.; Filippova, V.A.; Kochish, I.I.; Yildirim, E.A.; Ilina, L.A.; Dubrovin, A.V.; Brazhnik, E.A.; Novikova, N.I.; Novikova, O.B.; Dmitrieva, M.E.; et al. Examination of the Expression of Immunity Genes and Bacterial Profiles in the Caecum of Growing Chickens Infected with Salmonella enteritidis and Fed a Phytobiotic. Animals 2019, 9, 615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  87. Liaqat, S.; Mahmood, S.; Ahmad, S.; Kamran, Z.; Koutoulis, K.C. Replacement of Canola Meal with Moringa oleifera Leaf Powder Affects Performance and Immune Response in Broilers. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2016, 25, 352–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Mustafa, M.A.G. Effect of Eucalyptus Leaves and Its Supplementation with Diet on Broiler Performance, Microbial and Physiological Statues to Alleviate Cold Stress. Iraqi J. Agric. Sci. 2019, 50, 359–368. [Google Scholar]
  89. Wang, L.; Lilburn, M.; Yu, Z. Intestinal Microbiota of Broiler Chickens as Affected by Litter Management Regimens. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  90. Chamorro, S.; Romero, C.; Brenes, A.; Sánchez-Patán, F.; Bartolomé, B.; Viveros, A.; Arija, I. Impact of a Sustained Consumption of Grape Extract on Digestion, Gut Microbial Metabolism and Intestinal Barrier in Broiler Chickens. Food Funct. 2019, 10, 1444–1454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Mcallister, T.A.; Martinez, T.; Hee, D.B.; Muir, A.D.; Yanke, L.J.; Jones, G.A. Characterization of Condensed Tannins Purified from Legume Forages: Chromophore Production, Protein Precipitation, and Inhibitory Effects on Cellulose Digestion. J. Chem. Ecol. 2005, 31, 2049–2068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Banso, A.; Adeyemo, S.O. Evaluation of Antibacterial Properties of Tannins Isolated from Dichrostachys cinerea. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2007, 6, 1785–1787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Ahameethunisa, A.R.; Hopper, W. Antibacterial Activity of Artemisia nilagirica Leaf Extracts against Clinical and Phytopathogenic Bacteria. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2010, 10, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Yilmaz, B.; Li, H. Gut Microbiota and Iron: The Crucial Actors in Health and Disease. Pharmaceuticals 2018, 11, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Jaisinghani, R.N. Antibacterial Properties of Quercetin. Microbiol. Res. 2017, 8, 13–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Wang, S.; Yao, J.; Zhou, B.; Yang, J.; Chaudry, M.T.; Wang, M.; Xiao, F.; Li, Y.; Yin, W. Bacteriostatic Effect of Quercetin as an Antibiotic Alternative in Vivo and Its Antibacterial Mechanism in Vitro. J. Food Prot. 2018, 81, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Requena, R.; Vargas, M.; Chiralt, A. Eugenol and Carvacrol Migration from PHBV Films and Antibacterial Action in Different Food Matrices. Food Chem. 2019, 277, 38–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. El-Saber Batiha, G.; Beshbishy, A.M.; Ikram, M.; Mulla, Z.S.; Abd El-Hack, M.E.; Taha, A.E.; Algammal, A.M.; Ali Elewa, Y.H. The Pharmacological Activity, Biochemical Properties, and Pharmacokinetics of the Major Natural Polyphenolic Flavonoid: Quercetin. Foods 2020, 9, 374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  99. Baskaran, S.A.; Kollanoor-Johny, A.; Nair, M.S.; Venkitanarayanan, K. Efficacy of Plant-Derived Antimicrobials in Controlling Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia Coli Virulence in Vitro. J. Food Prot. 2016, 79, 1965–1970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Sharma, G.; Raturi, K.; Dang, S.; Gupta, S.; Gabrani, R. Combinatorial Antimicrobial Effect of Curcumin with Selected Phytochemicals on Staphylococcus Epidermidis. J. Asian Nat. Prod. Res. 2014, 16, 535–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Sharma, U.K.; Sharma, A.K.; Pandey, A.K. Medicinal Attributes of Major Phenylpropanoids Present in Cinnamon. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2016, 16, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Hu, Q.; Zhou, M.; Wei, S. Progress on the Antimicrobial Activity Research of Clove Oil and Eugenol in the Food Antisepsis Field. J. Food Sci. 2018, 83, 1476–1483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Galvao, S.S.A.S.; Monteiro, E.P.; Siqueira, M.R.; Bomfim, M.V.; Dias-Souza, G.F.; Ferreira, A.M.; Denadai, A.R.; Santos, V.; Lucia Dos Santos, E.M.; de Souza-Fagundes, E.S.; et al. Annona glabra Flavonoids Act as Antimicrobials by Binding to Pseudomonas Aeruginosa Cell Walls. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Hayashi, K.; Fukushima, A.; Hayashi-Nishino, M.; Nishino, K. Effect of Methylglyoxal on Multidrug-Resistant Pseudomonas Aeruginosa. Front. Microbiol. 2014, 5, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Ghasemzadeh, A.; Jaafar, H.Z.E.; Rahmat, A.; Ashkani, S. Secondary Metabolites Constituents and Antioxidant, Anticancer and Antibacterial Activities of Etlingera elatior (Jack) R.M.Sm Grown in Different Locations of Malaysia. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2015, 15, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Huang, J.; Chen, L.; Xue, B.; Liu, Q.; Ou, S.; Wang, Y.; Peng, X. Different Flavonoids Can Shape Unique Gut Microbiota Profile In Vitro. J. Food Sci. 2016, 81, H2273–H2279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Sanver, D.; Murray, B.S.; Sadeghpour, A.; Rappolt, M.; Nelson, A.L. Experimental Modeling of Flavonoid-Biomembrane Interactions. Langmuir 2016, 32, 13234–13243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Ripon, M.M.R.; Rashid, M.H.; Rahman, M.M.; Ferdous, M.F.; Arefin, M.S.; Sani, A.A.; Hossain, M.T.; Ahammad, M.U.; Rafiq, K. Dose-Dependent Response to Phytobiotic Supplementation in Feed on Growth, Hematology, Intestinal PH, and Gut Bacterial Load in Broiler Chicken. J. Adv. Vet. Anim. Res. 2019, 6, 253–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Saki, A.A. Herbal Additives and Organic Acids as Antibiotic Alternatives in Broiler Chickens Diet for Organic Production. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2012, 11, 2139–2145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Ingredient (% as feed) and nutritional analysis feed used in the current study.
Table 1. Ingredient (% as feed) and nutritional analysis feed used in the current study.
Ingredients %StarterFinisher
NCPCHALPo8Pb4NCPCHALPo8Pb4
Corn54.4054.4054.4054.4054.4058.9558.9558.9558.9558.95
Soybean Meal (SBM) (44%)33.9033.9033.9033.9033.9028.0028.0028.0028.0028.00
Palm Oil2.642.642.642.642.644.144.144.144.144.14
Dicalcium Phosphate 1.091.091.091.091.090.840.840.840.840.84
Choline Chloride0.110.110.110.110.110.100.100.100.100.10
Salt0.380.380.380.380.380.280.280.280.280.28
DL-Methionine0.180.180.180.180.180.180.180.180.180.18
L-Lysine0.340.340.340.340.340.340.340.340.340.34
Fish Meal5.335.335.335.335.335.745.745.745.745.74
Limestone1.061.061.061.061.060.860.860.860.860.86
Mineral Mix 10.280.280.280.280.280.280.280.280.280.28
Vitamin Mix 20.290.290.290.290.290.290.290.290.290.29
Treatments g/kg of Feed 3
Tetracycline (PC)00.200000.2000
Halquinol (HAL)000.0300000.0300
POLM (Po8)0008000080
PBLM (Pb4)0000400004
Calculated Analysis (%) 4
Metabolisable Energy (ME) MJ/kg13.1013.1013.1013.1013.1013.4013.4013.4013.4013.40
Crude Protein, %22.0122.2022.0922.421.98120.1020.0919.9319.9520.05
Ether Extract, %5.275.225.295.225.187.017.107.217.097.12
Calcium, %0.990.990.990.990.990.900.900.900.900.90
Available P, %0.420.420.420.420.420.360.360.360.360.36
1 Premix administered minerals per kg of dietary feed: Zinc, 100.01 (mg); Iron, 120.0 (mg); I, 0.8 (mg); Mg, 16.0 (mg); Cu, 19.99 (mg); Co, 0.6 (mg).2 Premix administered vitamins per (kg) of dietary feed: Vitamin E, 0.02 (mg); Vitamin A (retinol), 1950 (μg); Vitamin K (menadione) 1.33 (mg); Vitamin D3 30 (μg); Vitamin B3 24 (mg); Biotin, 0.03 (mg); Riboflavin, 2.0 (mg); Vitamin B12, 0.03 (mg); Vitamin B1, 0.83 (mg); Vitamin B6, 1.37 (mg); Calcium d-Panthothenate, 3.69 (mg); Folic acid, 0.33 (mg). 3 NC: (basal diet; negative control); PC: (basal diet + 0.2 g/kg tetracycline; positive control); HAL: (basal diet + 0.03 g/kg halquinol); Po8: (basal diet + POLM 8 g/kg); Pb4 (basal diet + PBLM 4 g/kg). 4 Calculated according to NRC [46].
Table 2. Growth performance and mortality of broilers supplemented with phytobiotics, HAL and antimicrobial growth promoters (AGPs).
Table 2. Growth performance and mortality of broilers supplemented with phytobiotics, HAL and antimicrobial growth promoters (AGPs).
ParametersTreatments
NCPCHALPo8Pb4SEMp-Value
1–21 days
Body weight gain (g)631.2 b667.3 ab666.8 ab675.3 a688.7 a6.410.04
Feed Intake (g/bird)1030.601023.71021.61029.01028.56.190.98
FCR1.63 a1.53 b1.53 b1.52 b1.50 b0.020.03
21–42 days
Body weight gain (g)1658.5 b1716.3 a1714.6 a1722.1 a1748.4 a9.470.03
Feed Intake (g/bird)3010.03011.23013.03014.03016.08.360.99
FCR1.82 a1.75 b1.76 b1.75 b1.73 b0.010.02
1–42 days
Body weight gain (g)2291.7 c2383.6 b2381.4 b2397.4 b2437.5 a11.09<0.0001
Feed Intake (g/bird)4043.04035.04036.24043.04045.011.010.99
FCR1.76 a1.69 b1.69 b1.69 b1.66 b0.01<0.0001
Mortality rate (%) day 1–42
103.666.663.660.00--
Note: a–c means with different superscripts in the same row differ significantly(p < 0.05). NC: (basal diet; negative control); PC: (BD + 0.2 g/kg tetracycline; positive control); HAL: (BD + 0.03 g/kg halquinol); Po8: (BD + POLM 8 g/kg); Pb4 (BD + PBLM 4 g/kg). FCR, feed conversion ratio. SEM: standard error of mean.
Table 3. Nutrient digestibility of broilers supplemented with phytobiotics, HAL and AGPs.
Table 3. Nutrient digestibility of broilers supplemented with phytobiotics, HAL and AGPs.
Treatment
ParameterNCPCHALPo8Pb4SEMp-Value
Dry matter (DM)70.00 b76.92 a75.63 ab77.31 a78.68 a0.960.03
Organic matter (OM)71.50 b 78.20 a77.05 a78.34 a79.10 a0.930.01
Ether extract (EE)67.76 b74.94 a74.25 a75.17 a75.3 a0.930.04
Crude protein (CP)69.87 b76.26 a76.05 a77.72 a77.19 a0.920.04
Ash32.20 b35.32 a35.03 a35.08 a35.47 a0.390.03
Note: a,b means with different superscripts in the same row indicate significant difference, (p < 0.05). NC: (basal diet; negative control); PC: (BD + 0.2 g/kg tetracycline; positive control); HAL: (BD + 0.03 g/kg halquinol); Po8: (BD + POLM 8 g/kg); Pb4 (BD + PBLM 4 g/kg). SEM: standard error of mean.
Table 4. Gut morphology of broilers supplemented with phytobiotics, HAL and AGPs.
Table 4. Gut morphology of broilers supplemented with phytobiotics, HAL and AGPs.
Treatment
ParameterNCPCHALPo8Pb4SEMp-Value
Villus height
Duodenum1383.8 c1460.1 b1451.7 b1476.4 ab1489.0 a6.30<0.0001
Jejunum970.8 c1040.2 b1030.1 b1043.6 ab1063.0 a5.43<0.0001
Ileum642.8 b663.8 a655.8 ab664.7 a667.4 a2.850.04
Crypt depth
Duodenum185.5 a168.5 b167.6 b171.5 b169.9 b2.010.02
Jejunum143.6138.9138.7138.3137.81.520.76
Ileum135.0 a124.2 b123.1 b123.9 b123.2 b1.470.03
VH: CD
Duodenum7.5 b8.7 a8.7 a8.7 a8.8 a0.130.002
Jejunum6.8 b7.5 a7.5 ab7.6 a7.8 a0.120.04
Ileum4.80 b5.4 a5.4 a5.4 a5.5 a0.070.04
Note: a–c means with different superscripts in the same row indicate significant difference, (p < 0.05). NC: (basal diet; negative control); PC: (BD + 0.2 g/kg tetracycline; positive control); HAL: (BD + 0.03 g/kg halquinol); Po8: (BD + POLM 8 g/kg); Pb4 (BD + PBLM 4 g/kg). SEM: standard error of mean.
Table 5. Cecal microbiota composition of broilers supplemented with phytobiotics, HAL and AGPs.
Table 5. Cecal microbiota composition of broilers supplemented with phytobiotics, HAL and AGPs.
Treatment
MicroorganismNCPCHALPo8Pb4SEMp-Value
E. coli6.32 a5.82 b5.87 b5.86 b5.71 b0.04<0.0001
Total anaerobic bacteria5.92 a5.70 ab5.90 a5.84 ab5.60 b0.040.032
Staphylococcus aureus2.60 a1.21 c2.56 a1.80 b1.27 c0.09<0.0001
Pseudomonas aeruginosa4.804.704.784.754.650.040.75
Lactobacillus spp.6.23 b6.40 b6.41 b6.89 a6.98 a0.05<0.0001
Clostridium spp.5.20 a4.88 b5.18 a5.12 a4.90 b0.040.003
Salmonella3.01 a2.27 c2.65 b2.70 b2.23 c0.05<0.0001
Cecum pH6.685.996.236.075.870.070.001
Note: a–c means with different superscripts in the same row differ significantly (p < 0.05). NC: (basal diet; negative control); PC: (BD + 0.2 g/kg tetracycline; positive control); HAL:(BD + 0.03 g/kg halquinol); Po8: (BD + POLM 8 g/kg); Pb4 (BD + PBLM 4 g/kg). SEM: standard error of mean.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Basit, M.A.; Kadir, A.A.; Loh, T.C.; Abdul Aziz, S.; Salleh, A.; Zakaria, Z.A.; Banke Idris, S. Comparative Efficacy of Selected Phytobiotics with Halquinol and Tetracycline on Gut Morphology, Ileal Digestibility, Cecal Microbiota Composition and Growth Performance in Broiler Chickens. Animals 2020, 10, 2150. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10112150

AMA Style

Basit MA, Kadir AA, Loh TC, Abdul Aziz S, Salleh A, Zakaria ZA, Banke Idris S. Comparative Efficacy of Selected Phytobiotics with Halquinol and Tetracycline on Gut Morphology, Ileal Digestibility, Cecal Microbiota Composition and Growth Performance in Broiler Chickens. Animals. 2020; 10(11):2150. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10112150

Chicago/Turabian Style

Basit, Muhammad Abdul, Arifah Abdul Kadir, Teck Chwen Loh, Saleha Abdul Aziz, Annas Salleh, Zainul Amiruddin Zakaria, and Sherifat Banke Idris. 2020. "Comparative Efficacy of Selected Phytobiotics with Halquinol and Tetracycline on Gut Morphology, Ileal Digestibility, Cecal Microbiota Composition and Growth Performance in Broiler Chickens" Animals 10, no. 11: 2150. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10112150

APA Style

Basit, M. A., Kadir, A. A., Loh, T. C., Abdul Aziz, S., Salleh, A., Zakaria, Z. A., & Banke Idris, S. (2020). Comparative Efficacy of Selected Phytobiotics with Halquinol and Tetracycline on Gut Morphology, Ileal Digestibility, Cecal Microbiota Composition and Growth Performance in Broiler Chickens. Animals, 10(11), 2150. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10112150

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop