Introduction
One of the most profitable and productive agricultural industries is the poultry industry. Recent advancements in nutrition, genetics, housing management, chicken health and welfare have allowed it to flourish, resulting in a growing of egg production at 8.51% and broiler production at 7.52% [
1]. The use of antibiotics as growth promoters has resulted in high levels of poultry output worldwide; these antibiotics have impacted chickens' intestinal flora and immune systems to aid in controlling disease [
2,
3]. Concern for global health security and the environment due to the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and antibiotic residues in meat and other livestock products has led many countries to restrict the use of antibiotics in animal feed [
4]. This has encouraged nutritionists and feed manufacturers around the world to search for alternatives to AGPs that can maintain efficient poultry production while ensuring that poultry meat and eggs are safe. Possible replacements for AGPs include feeding prebiotics, probiotics, synbiotics, enzymes, herbs, essential oils, acidifying feed with organic acids and postbiotics [
5].
While probiotics have many positive health benefits, their functionality and effectiveness are subject to debate. Recent findings suggest that for a variety of animal species, probiotics need to be tailored more specifically in order to maximize their beneficial effects. Furthermore, certain strains of probiotic bacteria were discovered to have antibiotic-resistance genes which can be passed on via plasmid transfer [
6,
7]. Additionally, studies showed that some probiotics can have a detrimental effect on the host by causing local inflammation in healthy hosts and exacerbating tissue inflammation in those with inflammatory bowel disease [
8]. The ‘postbiotic ‘hasemerged which extends the scope of the probiotic concept beyond its inherent viability [
9]. The term "postbiotic" refers to the soluble factors (stabilized bacteria, cellular products, or metabolic by-products) secreted by living microbes or released after microbial lysis [
10]. These are mainly derived from
Lactobacillus,
Bifidobacterium,
Streptococcus, faecal bacteria [
11,
12], and Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast [
13,
14]. Recent research suggests that postbiotics offer various health benefits through immune system modulation (cell wall compounds may strengthen immunity), increased adhesion to intestinal cells (which restricts pathogen growth), and secretion of various metabolites [
11,
15]. Non-viable microorganisms or microbial cell extracts have an additional advantage in Probiotic-supplemented feed preparations as their viability may differ and dead cells may outnumber the live cells [
16]. Moreover, these nonviable microbes and extracts can significantly reduce shelf life concerns while avoiding the risks related to microbial uptake and infection in consumer products [
17].The aim of this study was to examine the effects of probiotic (
Bacillus subtilis) and postbiotic (
Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product, SCFP) on the growth performance, immunity, gut health, and carcass characteristics of broiler chickensas an alternative to antimicrobials in poultry productionsystem to minimize the effect on global health security.
Discussion
The solution-based approach to increase poultry production, to reduce production cost and to decrease negative environmental impact is the priority for the poultry researchers. As modern poultry production system is associated with numerous stressors like change of feed, high stocking density, processing in the hatchery which reduces bird immunity and increases bacterial pathogen colonization affecting not only the bird health and growth, but also compromises the food safety concerns [
28].Use of antibiotics in sub-therapeutic dose in poultry feed was considered as one of such approach to control gut pathogens. Currently non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in poultry is facing reduced social acceptance as it may generate antimicrobial resistant commensals compromising the food safety and quality issues. European Union and United States-FDA banned the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock and poultry since long [
29,
30], but cessation of non-therapeutic antibiotic usage in poultry farming was correlated with reduced growth and increased mortality of the birds due to bacterial infections such as colibacillosis, salmonellosis and necrotic enteritis [
31].Replacement of antibiotics with a suitable alternative without hampering the growth, immunity and health of the birds is a pressing research question.
Saccharomyces cerevisiae is considered as the most promising candidate either as a probiotic (live yeast form) or as prebiotic in the poultry diet which showed remarkable improvement of growth performance, modulation of bird immune system, repairing the gastrointestinal tract and reducing the gut pathogen colonization [
32]. However, the research gap exists whether different methods of extraction affect the efficacy of
Saccharomyces cerevisiae as postbiotic. So, the present study was conducted to evaluate the effects of postbiotic (
Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product, SCFP) along with a probiotic (
Bacillus subtilis) on the growth performance, immunity, gut health, and carcass characteristics of broiler chickens.
Feeding with SCFP (T
3 group) significantly improved average daily feed intake (ADFI) and average daily gain (ADG) of chickens compared to the T
1 (control) and T
2 (probiotic) groups from 1 to 14 days of age. Similarly, feeding with yeast hydrolysate significantly improved ADFI, ADG, and body weight during starter and grower phase of the experimental birds than the control groups [
32,
33]. It could be explained with the increased villi height associated with better absorption of nutrients, increasing the secretion of auxiliary digestive enzymes and anti-inflammatory effects of yeast hydrolysate in animals [
34,
35]. In contrast, few studies [
36,
37] reported improvement of body weight gain during later phase (after 21 days) of the growth with the feeding of yeast hydrolysate, associated with presence of gut microbiota secreting short chain fatty acids (SCFA) and improved metabolic activities. Although not evaluated, but the findings of present study could be correlated with the presence of SCFA-forming beneficial gut microbiota during starter and grower phase of the growth. Significant improvement of FCR in SCFP-fed birds (T
3) than the control (T
1) groups across the entire period of the experiment (1-42 days) is supported with the earlier findings [
36,
37].The meta-analysis of the findings [
38] suggested inclusion of yeast or yeast products (less than 10 gram/Kg of diet) could improve growth and FCR of the birds.
The absence of statistically significant differences in slaughter body weight, eviscerated carcass weight, dressing percentage, weight of breast, frame, thigh, drumstick, wing, neck, gizzard, liver, heart, spleen, and bursa between the treatment groups is corroborative with the earlier studies [
33,
39]. Addition of probiotics in the diet helps in detoxification process which might be the reason for normal size of the liver in the treatment groups [
40].
Dietary addition of SCFP in the experimental birds did not alter the concentration of glucose, total protein, albumin, triglyceride and uric acid in serum which confirmed the absence of adverse side effects in the studied birds [
33]. In supportive with earlier reports [
41,
42], the present study also confirmed significant reduction of blood cholesterol concentration in SCFP-treated birds than the control or probiotic fed groups. Lower serum concentration of cholesterol in the birds is associated with production of eggs with low egg cholesterol level having market demands specially in the health-conscious consumers [
43].
The present study revealed that dietary supplementation of SCFP had no significant effect on haemoglobin, total leukocyte count, difference leukocyte count and ratio of heterophil and lymphocyte which was also observed in a previous study in which dietary supplementation of
Saccharomyces cerevisiae with
Nigella sativa did not find any significant effect on blood biochemical profile in broiler chickens [
44].
Effect of SCFP dietary supplementation on poultry gut microbiome revealed significant reduction of total
E. coli, pathogenic
E. coli (EHEC) and
Salmonella in comparison to the probiotic-fed group and control birds. Reduction of
E. coli and
Salmonella colonization was also observed in earlier studies in the birds fed with the yeast products which could be explained by exclusion of the pathogens due to competition for carbon source in the gut, binding of the pathogens with surface of yeast produced functional carbohydrates instead of intestinal receptors which prevent activation of pro-inflammatory cytokines based signaling pathways and production of enzymes to disintegrate bacterial toxins [
28,
45].
Saccharomyces cerevisiae was found more effective against Gram-negative pathogens such as
E. coli and
Salmonella due to its capacity to disintegrate the bacterial outer membrane, found only in Gram-negative bacteria, causing increased permeability and depolarization of the cytoplasmic membrane [
46]. Agglutination of pathogens expressing mannose specific type-1 fimbriae (such as
E. coli and
Salmonella) by the yeasts is another possible mechanism [
47].
Dietary treatments did not have a notable impact on the counts of
Lactobacillus in the caecaldigesta. Similarly feeding with dried yeast culture [
44] and other prebiotics [
48] did not reveal significant modulation on
Lactobacillus count in broiler chickens.
Lactobacillus itself can act as probiotic by preventing colonization of gut pathogens and the lactic acid produced by the lactobacilli is used by butyric acid producers increasing the digestibility of the birds [
49]. Hence in the present study maintenance of lactobacilli in the treatment groups
at par to the control group could be found to be beneficial.
One of the noteworthy findings of the present study is significant reduction of antimicrobial resistant pathogens (ESBL-producing
Enterobacteriaceae) in the treatment groups in comparison to the control group.
Bacillus subtilis probiotic strains earlier showed
in-vitro antimicrobial effect against ESBL-producing
E. coli, although failed to prevent gut colonization of ESBL-bacteria when studied
in-vivo [
50]. There is no report on efficacy SCFP on ESBL-producing
Enterobacteriaceae to compare the present finding. The present study revealed maximum occurrence of
blaCTM-Type followed by
blaSHV-Type and
blaTEM-Typein the studied birds which is supportive with earlier studies. The CTX-M is considered as the major ESBL determinant in apparently healthy poultry, whereas the SHV and TEMdeterminants are predominant in poultry with subclinical infections (Olsen et al. 2014).
The villi height in duodenum, jejunum and ileum was significantly increased in the birds supplemented with SCFP and probiotic than control group which confirms the earlier observations [
32,
51]. Whereas the ratio between villi height and crypt depth was significantly increased in ileum of SCFP fed group than the birds supplemented with probiotic and the control group.
Saccharomyces cerevisiae has trophic effect on illeal and jejunal villi than the duodenum as detected in the present study which is consistent with earlier observations [
52]. The ileum is the primary site for amino acid absorption and longer ileal villi implies higher nutritional utilization reflected in better growth performance.
On day 28, antibody titres against both the IBD and NDV vaccine were significantly higher in the SCFP (T
3) groups compared to the probiotic (T
2) and control (T
1) groups. The oligosaccharides present in the yeast hydrolysate can activate the macrophages and the cytokines are released to generate the acquired immune response [
33]. Like the mammals, the immune response in birds after vaccination is characterized with the generation of IgM first (up to day 30 post vaccination) followed by IgY [
53]. The previous study explored dietary supplementation of yeast products promote the production of IgM in the birds vaccinated against NDV [
37] which is the reason for higher antibody titre in T3 group than the others on the day 28. Whereas the effect of yeast supplementation on generation of IgY is still unclear and it might explain the absence of variations in all the groups in antibody titre on day 35. However, significantly higher antibody titre against IBDV in the birds fed with SCFP was not detected earlier.
The present study could not find modulation of cell mediated immune response in the studied birds which was more pronounced in challenge studies specially with intracellular pathogens (for example,
Coccidia) fed with yeast hydrolysate and was also dependent on the dosage of the yeast products [
54].
Table 1.
Ingredient and nutrient compositionofbasal diets.
Table 1.
Ingredient and nutrient compositionofbasal diets.
SL. No. |
Ingredients (%) |
Starter (1-14 d) |
Grower (15-28 d) |
Finisher (29-42 d) |
1 |
Maize |
57.289 |
59.381 |
62.519 |
2 |
Soyabean meal |
37.247 |
34.035 |
30.003 |
3 |
Soybean oil |
1.841 |
3.143 |
4.208 |
4 |
Dicalcium phosphate |
1.503 |
1.375 |
1.261 |
5 |
Limestone phosphate |
0.756 |
0.835 |
0.828 |
6 |
Salt |
0.322 |
0.324 |
0.326 |
7 |
DL-methionine |
0.314 |
0.260 |
0.231 |
8 |
L-lysineHCL |
0.226 |
0.154 |
0.131 |
9 |
L-threonine |
0.084 |
0.055 |
0.055 |
10 |
Toxin Binder1
|
0.050 |
0.050 |
0.050 |
11 |
Sodium bi-carbonate |
0.100 |
0.100 |
0.100 |
12 |
Bio-Choline2
|
0.050 |
0.070 |
0.070 |
13 |
Trace mineral mixture3
|
0.100 |
0.100 |
0.100 |
14 |
Vitamin premix4
|
0.100 |
0.100 |
0.100 |
15 |
Antioxidant5
|
0.010 |
0.010 |
0.010 |
16 |
Phytase6
|
0.010 |
0.010 |
0.010 |
Nutrient composition |
1 |
Metabolizable energy (kcal/kg)7
|
3000.00 |
3100.00 |
3200.00 |
2 |
Crude protein (%)8
|
22.24 |
20.74 |
19.12 |
3 |
Ether extract (%)8
|
4.37 |
5.73 |
6.81 |
4 |
Crude fiber (%)8
|
3.72 |
3.66 |
3.54 |
5 |
Calcium (%)8
|
0.93 |
0.90 |
0.86 |
6 |
Available phosphorus (%)7
|
0.45 |
0.42 |
0.39 |
7 |
Digestible lysine (%)7
|
1.22 |
1.09 |
0.98 |
8 |
Digestible methionine (%)7
|
0.60 |
0.53 |
0.49 |
9 |
Digestible methionine + cysteine (%)7
|
0.88 |
0.80 |
0.74 |
10 |
Digestible threonine (%)7
|
0.77 |
0.70 |
0.65 |
Table 2.
Effect of probiotic (Bacillus subtilis) andpostbiotic (Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation products) on final body weight (BW), Average daily gain (ADG), average daily feed intake (ADFI) and feed conversion ratio (FCR) and liveability of broiler chickens.
Table 2.
Effect of probiotic (Bacillus subtilis) andpostbiotic (Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation products) on final body weight (BW), Average daily gain (ADG), average daily feed intake (ADFI) and feed conversion ratio (FCR) and liveability of broiler chickens.
Attribute |
Treatment1
|
SEM2
|
P-Value |
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
ADG (g/d) |
1-14 d |
30.12b
|
30.35b
|
31.99a
|
0.232 |
0.001 |
15-28 d |
76.19 |
76.10 |
75.11 |
0.377 |
0.446 |
29-42 d |
85.71 |
87.84 |
89.52 |
1.699 |
0.669 |
1-42 d |
64.01 |
64.76 |
65.54 |
0.565 |
0.554 |
Final BW (g) |
2737.33 |
2770.02 |
2802.45 |
23.704 |
0.547 |
ADFI (g/d) |
1-14 d |
33.74b
|
33.76b
|
35.65a
|
0.232 |
0.000 |
15-28 d |
104.89a
|
102.57b
|
100.38c
|
0.431 |
0.000 |
29-42 d |
154.47 |
153.03 |
153.36 |
1.367 |
0.090 |
1-42 d |
97.70 |
96.45 |
96.46 |
0.533 |
0.561 |
FCR (g intake/g gain) |
1-14 d |
1.12 |
1.11 |
1.12 |
0.058 |
0.922 |
15-28 d |
1.38a
|
1.35ab
|
1.34b
|
0.007 |
0.059 |
29-42 d |
1.81 |
1.76 |
1.73 |
0.022 |
0.293 |
1-42 d |
1.53a
|
1.49ab
|
1.47b
|
0.008 |
0.015 |
Livability (%) |
97.22 |
97.22 |
97.22 |
0.813 |
1.000 |
Table 4.
Effect of probiotic (Bacillus subtilis) andpostbiotic (Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation products) on blood biochemical profile (35 d) serum cortisol concentration in broiler chickens.
Table 4.
Effect of probiotic (Bacillus subtilis) andpostbiotic (Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation products) on blood biochemical profile (35 d) serum cortisol concentration in broiler chickens.
Attribute |
Treatment1
|
SEM2
|
P-Value |
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
Glucose (mg/dl) |
137.03 |
136.49 |
138.38 |
2.991 |
0.967 |
Total Protein (mg/dl) |
2.86 |
2.88 |
2.67 |
0.060 |
0.309 |
Albumin (mg/dl) |
1.77 |
1.79 |
1.72 |
0.065 |
0.912 |
Cholesterol (mg/dl) |
118.09a
|
120.41a
|
90.01b
|
3.868 |
0.001 |
Triglyceride (mg/dl) |
145.97 |
142.68 |
139.55 |
3.311 |
0.742 |
Uric Acid (mg/dl) |
2.85 |
3.30 |
3.17 |
0101 |
0.181 |
Corticosterone(nmol/L) |
28 d |
2.615 |
2.837 |
2.200 |
0.128 |
0.117 |
35d |
2.027a
|
1.840a
|
1.049b
|
0.122 |
0.001 |
Table 5.
Effect of probiotic (Bacillus subtilis) andpostbiotic (Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation products) on blood haematological profile in broiler chickens at day 35.
Table 5.
Effect of probiotic (Bacillus subtilis) andpostbiotic (Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation products) on blood haematological profile in broiler chickens at day 35.
Attribute |
Treatment1
|
SEM2
|
P-Value |
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
Haemoglobin (g/dl) |
13.45 |
13.72 |
13.85 |
0.520 |
0.953 |
Total leukocyte count (nX103 /μL) |
22.28 |
21.82 |
21.85 |
0.367 |
0.859 |
Heterophil (%) |
33.80 |
33.56 |
32.34 |
0.681 |
0.657 |
Eosinophil (%) |
1.80 |
1.55 |
1.58 |
0.228 |
0.890 |
Basophil (%) |
1.91 |
1.24 |
1.65 |
0.235 |
0.516 |
Lymphocyte (%) |
59.28 |
60.56 |
60.98 |
0.738 |
0.632 |
Monocyte (%) |
3.22 |
3.09 |
3.46 |
0.268 |
0.857 |
Heterophil:lymphocyte |
0.58 |
0.56 |
0.54 |
0.017 |
0.598 |
Table 6.
Effect of probiotic (Bacillus subtilis) andpostbiotic (Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation products) on viable bacteria numbers (log10 CFU/g) in caecal content in broiler chickens at day 42.
Table 6.
Effect of probiotic (Bacillus subtilis) andpostbiotic (Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation products) on viable bacteria numbers (log10 CFU/g) in caecal content in broiler chickens at day 42.
Attribute |
Treatment1
|
SEM2
|
P-Value |
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
Lactobacillus |
5.898 |
5.928 |
5.890 |
0.008 |
0.108 |
Total E. coli
|
7.377a
|
7.136b
|
7.058b
|
0.051 |
0.024 |
Enterohaemorrhagic E. coli |
3.882a
|
3.245b
|
3.140b
|
0.661 |
0.000 |
ESBL producing Enterobacteriaceae |
3.109a
|
2.833b
|
2.298c
|
0.0664 |
0.000 |
Salmonella |
7.526a
|
7.045b
|
6.813c
|
0.061 |
0.000 |
Table 7.
Effect of probiotic (Bacillus subtilis) andpostbiotic (Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation products) on gut morphology in broiler chickens at day 42.
Table 7.
Effect of probiotic (Bacillus subtilis) andpostbiotic (Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation products) on gut morphology in broiler chickens at day 42.
Attribute |
Treatment1
|
SEM2
|
P-Value |
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
Duodenum |
Villi height (VH; μm) |
814.33b
|
991.25a
|
1049a
|
37.409 |
0.023 |
Villi width (VW; μm) |
92.67 |
89.83 |
84.75 |
3.158 |
0.598 |
Crypt depth (CD; μm) |
99.83a
|
80.00b
|
79.58b
|
2.991 |
0.004 |
VH/CD ratio |
8.33b
|
12.74a
|
13.76a
|
0.704 |
0.002 |
Jejunum |
Villi height (VH; μm) |
818.58b
|
948.67a
|
967.75a
|
26.797 |
0.042 |
Villi width (VW; μm) |
95.42 |
99.42 |
100.58 |
2.285 |
0.633 |
Crypt depth (CD; μm) |
98.58a
|
82.75ab
|
78b
|
3.635 |
0.049 |
VH/CD ratio |
8.86b
|
12.00a
|
12.68a
|
0.528 |
0.004 |
Ileum |
Villi height (VH; μm) |
857.75b
|
967.08ab
|
1035.50a
|
29.147 |
0.036 |
Villi width (VW; μm) |
105.67 |
106 |
106.67 |
3.539 |
0.994 |
Crypt depth (CD; μm) |
90.83a
|
87.25a
|
74.75b
|
2.436 |
0.014 |
VH/CD ratio |
9.65b
|
11.24b
|
14.03a
|
0.497 |
0.000 |
Table 8.
Effect of probiotic (Bacillus subtilis) andpostbiotic (Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation products) on antibody titre (log10) against Infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) and Newcastle disease virus (NDV), phagocytic activity of neutrophil (as expressed in optical density at 450 nm) and lymphocytes (stimulation index) in broiler chickens at 35 day.
Table 8.
Effect of probiotic (Bacillus subtilis) andpostbiotic (Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation products) on antibody titre (log10) against Infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) and Newcastle disease virus (NDV), phagocytic activity of neutrophil (as expressed in optical density at 450 nm) and lymphocytes (stimulation index) in broiler chickens at 35 day.
Attribute |
Treatment1
|
SEM2
|
P-Value |
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
Antibody titre |
IBDV-28 d |
2.719b
|
2.808ab
|
3.041a
|
0.052 |
0.028 |
IBDV-35 d |
2.757 |
3.009 |
2.871 |
0.066 |
0.307 |
NDV-28 d |
2.608b
|
2.985a
|
2.865a
|
0.051 |
0.006 |
NDV-35 d |
2.401 |
2.576 |
2.556 |
0.061 |
0.453 |
In vitro phagocytic activity |
Neutrophil |
0.567 |
0.515 |
0.544 |
0.012 |
0.227 |
Lymphocyte |
1.124 |
1.145 |
1.133 |
0.028 |
0.958 |