Original Article • Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 26 (4) • 2024 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9061-2024-2003 linkcopy
ABSTRACT
A total of 200 one-day-old Ross 308 male broilers were randomly assigned to 4 treatments and 5 replicates in a completely randomized design to assess growth performance, serum biochemicals, and intestinal characteristics for 42 days. Treatments comprised Control (C), probiotic, prebiotic and pomegranate peel powder (PPP). The results showed that birds fed probiotic had higher average daily feed intake (ADFI) and average daily gain (ADG) compared to the C and prebiotic groups from day 1 to 42 (p<0.05). Adding PPP improved ADFI (+2.73%) and ADG (+3.16%) compared to the C and prebiotic groups from day 1 to 42. Adding probiotic, prebiotic and PPP significantly reduced and increased feed conversion ratio (FCR) in the grower and finisher periods in comparison to C, respectively. Moreover, probiotic, prebiotic and PPP had no significant effect on FCR from day 1 to 42. Birds fed probiotic had higher villus height (VH) and lower crypt depth (CD) of the duodenum than those from other treatments (p<0.05). Birds fed probiotic and prebiotic diets had numerically lower villus surface area (VSA) in the duodenum than those in the C treatment. Probiotic supplementation enhanced the VSA in the jejunum compared to the PPP and C treatments (p<0.05). Superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity of serum increased in the probiotic and prebiotic-fed birds, but not in PPP ones (p<0.05). Probiotic, prebiotic and PPP declined serum malondialdehyde (MDA) levels in comparison to the C treatment (p<0.05). Overall, probiotic and PPP inclusion in diets improved the growth performance of broiler chicks.
Keywords:Prebiotic; probiotic; broilers; growth performance; pomegranate peel powder
INTRODUCTION
The rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in poultry has spurred interest in alternatives like probiotics, prebiotics, and phytobiotics. These additives enhance poultry health and offer benefits to consumers, addressing both animal welfare and public health (Grashorn, 2010; Dong et al., 2024).
Probiotics are viable microorganisms that boost host health status and growth performance through competition for nutrients and colonization sites, production of toxic compounds against pathologic bacteria, improvement of feed intake (FI), the activity of digestive enzymes, and the stimulation of the immune system (Rehman et al., 2020). Moreover, they improve the absorption of nutrients, particularly small peptides and amino acids, by enhancing the absorption ability of epithelium cells in the small intestine (). For instance, lactic acid bacteria modulate the gut microbiota, develop intestinal immunity, and promote gut health (Perricone et al., 2020). However, probiotic inclusion effects have shown inconsistencies in previous studies due to survivability, stability, specificity of probiotics to their hosts, preparation methods, doses, frequency of administration, interaction with other drugs, health status, age, and genetics of the host (Blajman et al., 2014; ).
Prebiotics are non-digestible feed ingredients that benefit the consumer by selectively stimulating the growth of favorable bacteria such as Lactobacilli and Bifidobacteria, regulating metabolic functions, and improving the defense system (; Worawong et al., 2022). Like probiotics, however, some factors such as administration levels, rearing systems (cage vs. floor pen) and environmental conditions (normal vs. heat stress) lead to inconsistencies among studies (Adhikari & Kim, 2017).
Recently, plant-origin feed additives such as pomegranate peel (PP) have gained increasing attention in poultry nutrition (Abdel Baset et al., 2022; Shirangi et al., 2023; Xu et al., 2024). Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) is a drought-resistant tree cultivated in Iran, India, and Mediterranean countries (Zarfeshany et al., 2014). Interestingly, the nutraceutical impact of pomegranate is not limited to its edible part, since PP showed the highest health-beneficial crude fiber, antioxidant and antibacterial properties due to its phenolic content (Azmat et al., 2024; Siddiqui et al., 2024). In fact, the crude fiber of PP and its aqueous extract act as a prebiotic that blocks the adherence of pathogens onto the intestinal mucosal layer, while also promoting the growth of beneficial microbiota in the digestive tract (Akhtar et al., 2015; Hamady et al., 2015; Al-Moghazy et al., 2023). In addition, polyphenol compounds of PP can improve FCR in the diet by manipulating gut microflora due to the improved utilization of dietary energy (Kanatt et al., 2010). Abdel Baset et al. (2022) revealed that a lower dosage of PP (2 g/kg diet) significantly enhances body weight gain (BWG) between days 1-35 compared to the control group. A recent study showed that adding PP (fermented or unfermented) to a corn-based diet significantly improved BWG and reduced the serum MDA and jejunum CD of E.coli-challenged birds (Xu et al., 2024). Moreover, the disposal of vast amounts of PP waste is an environmental problem, and adding it to the diet would be a strategy to address this issue. Thus, PP can be a viable alternative feed additive to poultry diets. Ahmadipour et al. (2021) studied the health-beneficial effects of PP (7.5 to 10 g/kg air-dried PPP) on improving growth performance and lowering serum MDA content. Furthermore, Hafeez et al. (2023) demonstrated that PP (3 g/kg air-dried PPP) improved intestinal barrier function and enhanced nutrient absorption. Similarly, Xu et al. (2024) reported that PP (air-dried PPP and fermented PPP) supplementation significantly increased VH and reduced CD in broiler chickens, indicating an improved gut health. Research by Ghasemi-Sadabadi et al. (2021) also showed that PP (air-dried PPP) supplementation reduced oxidative stress markers and enhanced antioxidant enzyme activities in broiler chickens under heat-stressed conditions. Furthermore, Sharifian et al. (2019) indicated that PP (650 mg/kg of methanolic extract of PP) improved growth performance and jejunum morphology of heat-stressed broilers. A recent study by Khorrami et al. (2022) announced that PP (100 mg/kg of ethanolic extract of PP) significantly enhanced the growth performance of Emeria-challenged broilers in comparison to the control treatment. ) evaluated a probiotic (Protexin™) and PP extract (PPE) in broiler diets and suggested that adding PPE (100-200 mg/kg ethanolic PPE, Total phenol =191 g GA Eq/kg Galic acid) enhances the growth performance of broiler chicks due to the higher amount of proanthocyanidin (8420 mg/kg), and can be used as a natural antimicrobial in broiler diets instead of probiotics. Since previous studies have focused on the effects of air-dried and aqua/alcoholic extract of PP on different parameters of broiler chicks, this study was suggested due to the lack of information on the effects of freeze-dried crude juice of PP.
Despite these promising findings regarding probiotics, prebiotics, and phytogenic components like PPP, many claims about their protective roles remain inconclusive or contradictory. On the other hand, there has been no research to compare the prebiotic property of PPP (freeze-dried crude juice of PP) to a commercial prebiotic in broiler chicks. Therefore, this study was aimed to systematically compare the potential benefits of these alternative feed additives on growth performance, blood biochemicals, and gut morphology in broilers throughout a standard rearing period. By addressing these inconsistencies and exploring the specific impacts of each additive type on poultry health outcomes, this research seeks to contribute valuable insights for poultry nutrition optimization while mitigating antibiotic resistance concerns.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Birds and treatments
The study was conducted at Shirangi Poultry Farm and Grogan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. Two hundred one-day-old Ross 308 male broiler chicks (average BW = 43 g) were randomly assigned to four groups with five replicates (10 birds/floor pen). The experiment was conducted in a completely randomized design with treatment groups consisting of a basal diet as control group (C), and others provided with a supplementing probiotic (Protexin™, Probiotics international Ltds, UK:1 g/l via drinking water at d 1-10, 100 mg/kg in-feed at d 11-24, and 50 mg/kg in-feed at d 25-42), prebiotic (1000 mg/kg Meito MHF-Y™, Japan: in-feed at d 0-42), or PPP premix 40 % (in order to provide 150 mg/kg PPP in feed at d 1-42). Depending on type of treatment, the filler content (fine silica powder) was replaced with probiotic, prebiotic or PPP premix 40 %. Protexin is a probiotic consisting of seven different naturally occurring bacteria (Bacillus plantarum, Bacillus bulgaricus, Bacillus acidophilus, Bacillus rhamnosus, Bifidobacterium bifidum, Streptococcus thermophilus, Enterococcus faecium) and two yeasts (Aspergillus oryzae and Candida pinpolopesi). Meito is a prebiotic consisting of 5% dextran oligosaccharide. The PPP dosage of the current study was selected from a performance dose-response study by Shirangi et al. (2023).
The basal diet providing all recommended nutrients as indicated for Ross 308 (Aviagen, 2019) was fed through the starter (d 1-10), grower (d 11-24) and finisher (d 25-42) periods (Table 1). All birds were kept in the same management system and had free access to mash feed and water.
Table 1
Ingredients and chemical composition of the basal diets (as-fed).
Growth performance
ADFI in each period was calculated based on the difference between the total amount of feed offered and refused divided by the sampling size and dividing the weight by the number of days since that last weighting. Likewise, ADG in each period was calculated by the difference between bird weight at the end and the start of the period, divided by sampling size and dividing the weight by the number of days since that last weighting. ADFI and ADG values were used to calculate the feed conversion ratio (FCR) in each period.
Preparation of pomegranate peel powder
There are different methods for the extraction of PP, such as traditional and green extraction techniques (Singh et al., 2023). However, these techniques depend on heat-dried PP, solvent (water or alcohol), and high-tech devices in the processing, which is space-dependent, time and energy-consuming. A recent study by Abu‐Niaaj et al. (2024) revealed that an aqueous extract of dried-PP (at room temperature) had higher antioxidants than the alcoholic extract (butanol, ethanol and methanol). Therefore, the recent PPP procedures were selected based on the feasibility of the process, total phenol (TP) and antioxidant capacity (IC50), and one-year-stability of PPP based on the method by Shirangi et al. (2023). Briefly, fresh pomegranate fruits were procured (Walshabad, Gorgan, Iran) and peeled. The fresh PP particles were separated, crushed, and extracted (Panasonic® four-in-one, Japan) following the method described by Shirangi et al. (2023). First, the crude juice was freeze-dried (Beta 2-8 LD plus, Christ, Germany) and then stored at −20 ºC within an anti-UV glass bottle. Secondly, an anti-caking silica was mixed with PPP to produce PPP premix (w/w, 40 %).
Determination of total phenol of PPP
The total phenol content of the extract was determined via the Folin-Ciocalteu method (Kanatt et al., 2010). In summary, 20 mL of diluted extract was mixed with 1.16 mL distilled water and 100 µL Folin-Ciocalteu reagent. After 5 min, 300 µL Na2CO3 was added and the solution was heated in a 40 ºC water bath for 30 min. Total phenol content was determined via colorimetric assay at 765 nm and expressed as mg of gallic acid equivalents. The total phenol content of the PPP premix was 185.65 mg of gallic acid equivalents.
DPPH Radical Scavenging Activity of PPP
The antioxidant activity of PPP was measured using DPPH (2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl) radical scavenging activity, as described in the study by Yildirim et al. (2001). Briefly, 1 mL FDPPE was mixed with 1 mL DPPH solution in ethanol (500 µM) and vigorously vortexed for 1 min. The absorbance was read at 517 nm after a 30-minute incubation period. The percentage of DPPH scavenging activity was calculated as [(control absorbance - extract absorbance)/control absorbance] × 100. In the current experiment, the relative DPPH activity of PPP premix was 32.77%.
Blood biochemicals
On d 42, blood was sampled from the brachial vein of birds (n = 5/treatment) in test tubes without anticoagulant and centrifuged at 2500 g for 15 min. The serum was removed, apportioned into 2-mL microtubes and stored at −20 ºC until analysis. Malondialdehyde (MDA, nmol/mL) and superoxide dismutase (SOD, U/mL) levels were measured calorimetrically using commercial laboratory kits according to the manufacturer’s instruction (Pars Azmoon Kits; Pars Azmoon, Tehran, Iran).
Intestinal histomorphology
One bird from each replicate was selected based on mean BW of each treatment at day 42, and selected birds were killed. Then, the small intestines of the birds were removed immediately, and a 1-cm sample from the duodenum and jejunum tissue was cut and fixed in a 10% buffered formalin solution for 72 h. Tissue samples were embedded in paraffin, cut into 5-µm sections, mounted on a slide, and stained with hematoxylin and eosin. Finally, the slides were analyzed for VH (µm, from the tip of the villus to the villus-crypt junction), CD (µm, from base to the villus-crypt junction) and VSA [µm2, 2π × (villus width/2) × villus length] using a light microscope equipped with a digital image analyzer (Image J software).
Statistical analysis
Data were arranged in Excel and then subjected to normality and homogeneity of variance tests, and one-way analysis using the GLM procedure of the Minitab 18™ software. The model used to analyze the data was as follows:
Where Yij is the individual observation; μ is the overall mean; αi is the treatment effect; and εij is the error component. Differences among means were tested by Tukey test at 5 percent probability level.
RESULTS
Growth performance
The growth performances were significantly affected by the dietary supplementation of probiotic, prebiotic and PPP (Table 2). Except for an insignificant phase from days 1-10, birds fed probiotic showed a significantly higher ADFI compared to the C treatment on days 11-24 (71.9 vs. 70.3 g), days 25-42 (169.1 vs. 157.1 g) and days 1-42 (101.5 vs. 94.9 g) of the experiment. During all experimental phases, ADG experienced a slightly different trend, whereby PPP and probiotic recorded significantly higher values than the C treatment. By contrast, FCR showed mixed results, not being significant on days 1-10 and days 1-42. However, lower significant values were recorded on days 11-24 in the dietary additive groups compared to the C group. Interestingly, higher significant values were noted on days 11-24 in both probiotic and prebiotic groups compared to C birds (1.76 and 1.77 vs. 1.64). Considering the whole rearing phase, FCR had no significant changes among the treated groups (Table 2).
Table 2
Effect of various dietary supplements on the growth performance of broilers.
Blood biochemicals
The superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity of birds fed probiotic or prebiotic was significantly higher than of those in the control (860.8 or 811.3 vs. 667.5 U/mL, p<0.05, Table 3). However, there was no significant difference between PPP and control for SOD (737.5 vs. 667.5 U/mL, p>0.05). Compared to the control birds, those fed a diet supplemented with probiotic, prebiotic, or PPP showed reduced MDA content in their serum samples (18.9 vs. 12.4, 10.8 or 13.5nm/mL, p<0.05).
Table 3
Effect of various dietary supplements on the blood parameters of broilers.
Intestinal histomorphology
Each of the dietary supplements increased duodenum villus height (Table 4). Compared to the control group, probiotic inclusion significantly increased duodenum villus height (1150 vs.1312 µm, p=0.012). Duodenum villus width was significantly higher in the PPP-fed than the probiotic and prebiotic-fed birds (217 vs. 127 and 127 µm, p=0.008).
Table 4
Effect of various dietary supplements on intestinal morphometry of broilers.
Birds with probiotic in their diet had significantly higher VSA compared to their counterparts from the control group (0.97 vs. 0.60 µm, p=0.009). Other parameters in the jejunum were not significantly different (p>0.05).
DISCUSSION
In the current study, adding probiotic was more effective than other feed additives in improving ADFI and ADG in the grower, finisher, and overall periods. The probiotic supplementation changed gut morphology by increasing duodenum VH, decreasing duodenum CD, and enhancing jejunum VSA, and it caused better growth performance than the other treatments. It seems that PPP and prebiotic act as substrates of gut microbiota and have a lesser impact than probiotic supplementation. Our findings displayed the neutral effect of prebiotic on the overall growth performance (1-42 d), even though Mahmoudi et al. (2015) reported a positive effect of prebiotic (1000 mg/kg Meito) on growth performance (e.g., BWG and FCR). A previous study indicated that when a large number of probiotic bacteria are fed to an animal, they competitively exclude indigenous beneficial microflora, incurring adverse effects (Perumalla et al., 2023). Therefore, the higher finisher FCR of the probiotic and prebiotic-fed broilers may be due to the higher intake of probiotic or prebiotic in finisher periods, which caused disturbance of the microflora balance of the gastrointestinal tract, altering gut morphology through increasing endogenous protein loss from higher mucin production.
However, broilers fed probiotic, prebiotics and PPP had lower FCR in the grower period than those in the C treatment. The results of this study were in agreement with Azadegan Mehr et al. (2007) and Derakhshan et al. (2023), who showed that a probiotic (Protexin™) could improve BWG and reduce FCR. A recent investigation by Abbasnejad Shani and Irani (2023) observed that prebiotic (1000 mg/kg Meito) supplementation in the early life stage of broiler chickens (stater phase) had a greater impact on gut health.
In contrast to our findings, Midilli et al. (2008) reported that supplementing the diet with a probiotic, prebiotic, or their mixture had no significant effect on the BW, BWG and FI of broilers. However, FCR significantly improved in the supplemented group (Midilli et al., 2008). In the present study, PPP-fed broilers had significantly higher BWG in the starter and grower, but not in the finisher and overall periods. Moreover, the FI, BW and FCR of broilers were not significantly affected following oral administration of the combination of green tea and PPE at days 1-10, 11-20, 21-49 and the overall period (Perricone et al., 2020).
In contrast to our results, adding PP (100 mg/kg ethanol extract of PP) to the diet improved the chicken BW, BWG, and FI in a standard rearing period (Hamady et al., 2015). Furthermore, dietary supplementation of PPP (1 %), black pepper powder, or their mixture significantly improved the BW, BWG, FI, and FCR of broilers subjected to oxidative stress (Al-Shammari et al., 2019). The imprecise growth performance results might be related to the type of additives, the level of administration, and the environmental conditions of these experiments.
Several studies have been conducted to elucidate the effect of probiotics (Protexin™) alone or in combination with other compounds, such as the phytase enzyme (Derakhshan et al., 2023) or artichoke extract (Ghasemian et al., 2022) on the blood antioxidant status of broilers. For example, feeding probiotic (Protexin™) to broilers was effective in enhancing GPx, CAT and TAC, but not SOD, compared to the control birds (Derakhshan et al., 2023). However, a significant reduction in the MDA level was also noted in Protexin-fed broilers. Although our results are not consistent with the report above in terms of SOD, a similar finding was observed in the MDA content. Probiotics can modulate the host’s redox status through their capacity to chelate metal ions. They also possess antioxidative enzymes, produce antioxidant metabolites, up-regulate the antioxidative enzyme activities of the host, increase the levels of antioxidant metabolites in the host, down-regulate the activities of enzymes that produce reactive oxygen species (ROS), and regulate the composition of the intestinal microbiota (Wang et al., 2017).
In the present study, reduced MDA levels may result from the antioxidant effect of PPP, as indicated by the increased SOD activity. In agreement with our findings, the MDA-lowering dose-response effect was observed following the PP inclusion in the diet of broiler chicks (Ahmadipour et al., 2021). In another similar study, SOD activity increased dose-responsively after PPE inclusion in the diet of rabbits (Hassan et al., 2020). Al-Shammari et al. (2019) showed that adding 1 % PPP (PPP, Xi’an Tonking Biotech Co., Ltd., China) plus 0.5 % H2O2 to the drinking water significantly increased the serum SOD and decreased the serum MDA content of broiler chicks in comparison to 0.5 % H2O2 in drinking water treatment.
The antioxidative potential of a prebiotic in our study was in agreement with another study in which mannan-oligosaccharides increased serum total antioxidants of broilers under thermoneutral or cyclic heat stress conditions (Sohail et al., 2011). However, feeding symbiotics in micocapsulated form was not effective in increasing serum SOD activity in broilers (Wang et al., 2018).
Probiotic, but not prebiotic or PPP, appeared to affect intestinal histomorphology, especially in the duodenum section. The improved growth parameters in the probiotic-fed broilers might be explained by an increase in VH, but a decrease in the CD of the duodenum. The CD indicates health conditions in the intestine, and reduced CD reflects higher tissue turnover and an active epithelial cell renewal process (Sobolewska et al., 2017). In addition, the increased duodenum VH seems to enhance the efficacy of digestion and absorption processes (Solis de los Santos et al., 2005). In a similar study, VH and CD were not significantly affected following dietary supplementation with 250, 450 or 650 mg/kg PPE in broilers subjected to heat stress from days 25 to 42 (Sharifian et al., 2019).
CONCLUSION
In the present study, the inclusion of probiotics and pomegranate peel powder (PPP) at a rate of 150 g/ton feed demonstrated greater impacts on growth performance, intestinal histomorphology, and serum biochemical parameters when compared to prebiotics. This study suggests that agro-industrial by-products such as PPP can serve as viable feed additives for poultry nutrition. However, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the study was conducted under controlled environmental conditions, which may not fully replicate the variability encountered in commercial poultry production settings. Second, the sample size, while sufficient for statistical analysis, may limit the generalizability of the findings across different breeds or age groups of broilers. Finally, further research is needed to explore optimal dosages and combinations of probiotics and PPP, as well as their effects in various environmental conditions and production systems. Thus, while our findings are promising, additional studies are required to confirm and expand upon these results.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Faculty of Animal Science, and Shirangi poultry farm members.
REFERENCES
- Abdel Baset S, Ashour EA, Abd El-Hack ME, et al. Effect of different levels of pomegranate peel powder and probiotic supplementation on growth, carcass traits, blood serum metabolites, antioxidant status and meat quality of broilers. Animal Biotechnology 2022;33(4):690-700. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495398.2020.1825965
» https://doi.org/10.1080/10495398.2020.1825965 - Abu-Niaaj LF, Al-Daghistani HI, Katampe I, et al. Pomegranate peel: bioactivities as antimicrobial and cytotoxic agents. Food Science & Nutrition 2024;12(4):2818-32. https://doi.org/10.1002/ fsn3.3963
- Adhikari PA, Kim WK. Overview of prebiotics and probiotics: focus on performance, gut health and immunity-a review. Annals of Animal Science 2017;17(4):949-66. https://doi.org/10.1515/aoas-2016-0092
» https://doi.org/10.1515/aoas-2016-0092 - Ahmadipour B, Pat S, Abaszadeh S, et al. Pomegranate peel as a phytogenic in broiler chickens: Influence upon antioxidant, lipogenesis and hypotensive response. Veterinary Medicine and Science 2021;7(5):1907-13. https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.556
» https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.556 - Akhtar S, Ismail T, Fraternale D, et al. Pomegranate peel and peel extracts: chemistry and food features. Food Chemistry 2015;174:417-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.11.035
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.11.035 - Al-Moghazy M, El-Sayed HS. Antimicrobial-prebiotic: novel dual approach of pomegranate peel extract in vitro and in food system. Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology 2023;49:102664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcab.2023.102664
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcab.2023.102664 - Al-Shammari KI, Batkowska J, Zamil SJ. Role of pomegranate peels and black pepper powder and their mixture in alleviating the oxidative stress in broiler chickens. International Journal of Poultry Science 2019;18(3):122-8. https://doi.org/10.3923/IJPS.2019.122.128
» https://doi.org/10.3923/IJPS.2019.122.128 - Aviagen. Ross broiler management handbook. Huntsville: Aviagen Group; 2009.
- Azadegan Mehr M, Shams Shargh M, Dastar B, et al. Effect of different levels of protein and Protexin on broiler performance. International Journal of Poultry Science 2007;6(8):573-7. https://doi.org/10.3923/ ijps.2007.573.577
- Azmat F, Safdar M, Ahmad H, et al. Phytochemical profile, nutritional composition of pomegranate peel and peel extract as a potential source of nutraceutical: a comprehensive review. Food Science & Nutrition 2024;12(2):661-74. https://doi.org/10.1002/ fsn3.3777
- Blajman JE, Frizzo LS, Zbrun MV, et al. Probiotics and broiler growth performance: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. British Poultry Science 2014;55(4):483-94. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2014.931930
» https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2014.931930 - Caku S, Midilli M, Alp M, et al. Effects of dietary probiotic and prebiotic supplementation on growth performance and serum IgG concentration of broilers. South African Journal of Animal Science 2008;38(1):21-7. https://doi.org/10.4314/sajas.v38i1.4104
» https://doi.org/10.4314/sajas.v38i1.4104 - Derakhshan M, Ghasemian SO, Gholami-Ahangaran M. The effects of probiotic and phytase on growth performance, biochemical parameters and antioxidant capacity in broiler chickens. Veterinary Medicine and Science 2023;9(2):860-6. https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.1075
» https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.1075 - Dong S, Li L, Hao F, et al. Improving quality of poultry and its meat products with probiotics, prebiotics, and phytoextracts. Poultry Science 2024;103(2):103287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2023.103287
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2023.103287 - Ghasemian SO, Gholami-Ahangaran M, Pourmahdi O, et al. Dietary supplementation of protexin and artichoke extract for modulating growth performance and oxidative stress in broilers. Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi 2022;69(3):281-8. https://doi.org/10.33988/auvfd.833094
» https://doi.org/10.33988/auvfd.833094 - Ghasemi-Sadabadi M, Ebrahimnezhad Y, Maheri-Sis N, et al. Immune response and antioxidant status of broilers as influenced by oxidized vegetable oil and pomegranate peel. Journal of Animal Science and Technology 2021;63(5):1034. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
- Grashorn MA. Use of phytobiotics in broiler nutrition-an alternative to infeed antibiotics. Journal of Animal and Feed Science 2010;19(3):338-47. https://doi.org/10.22358/jafs/66297/2010
» https://doi.org/10.22358/jafs/66297/2010 - Hafeez A, Piral Q, Naz S, et al. Ameliorative effect of pomegranate peel powder on the growth indices, oocysts shedding, and intestinal health of broilers under an experimentally induced coccidiosis condition. Animals 2023;13(24):3790. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13243790
» https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13243790 - Hamady GA, Abdel-Moneim MA, El-Chaghaby GA, et al. Effect of Pomegranate peel extract as natural growth promoter on the productive performance and intestinal microbiota of broiler chickens. African Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology 2015;(12):514-9.
- Hassan FA, Ibrahim MR, Arafa SA. Effect of dietary pomegranate by-product extract supplementation on growth performance, digestibility, and antioxidant status of growing rabbit. Tropical Animal Health and Production 2020;52:1893-901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-020-02201-0
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-020-02201-0 - Kanatt SR, Chander R, Sharma A. Antioxidant and antimicrobial activity of pomegranate peel extract improves the shelf life of chicken products. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2010;45(2):216-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1365-2621.2009.02124.x
- Khorrami P, Gholami-Ahangaran M, Moghtadaei-Khorasgani E. The efficacy of pomegranate peel extract on Eimeria shedding and growth indices in experimental coccidiosis in broiler chickens. Veterinary Medicine and Science 2022;8(2):635-41. https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.714
» https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.714 - Los Santos FS de, Farnell MB, Tellez GU, et al. Effect of prebiotic on gut development and ascites incidence of broilers reared in a hypoxic environment. Poultry Science 2005;84(7):1092-100. https://doi.org/10.1071/ AN22295
- Mahmoudi M, Farhoomand P, Nourmohammadi R. Effects of different levels of hemp seed (Cannabis sativa L.) and dextran oligosaccharide on growth performance and antibody titer response of broiler chickens. Italian Journal of Animal Science 2015;14(1):3473. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2015.3473
» https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2015.3473 - Perricone V, Comi M, Giromini C, et al. Green tea and pomegranate extract administered during critical moments of the production cycle improves blood antiradical activity and alters cecal microbial ecology of broiler chickens. Animals 2020;10(5):785. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10050785
» https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10050785 - Perumalla AV, Wythe LA, Ricke SC. Probiotics in poultry preharvest food safety: historical developments and current prospects. In: Callaway TR, Ricke SC, editors. Direct-fed microbials and prebiotics for animals: science and mechanisms of action. Berlin: Springer; 2023. p;127-66. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40512-9_7
» https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40512-9_7 - Rehman A, Arif M, Sajjad N, et al. Dietary effect of probiotics and prebiotics on broiler performance, carcass, and immunity. Poultry Science 2020;99(12):6946-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2020 09.043
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2020 - Sarica S, Ürkmez D. The use of grape seed-, olive leaf-and pomegranate peel-extracts as alternative natural antimicrobial feed additives in broiler diets. European Poultry Science/Archiv für Geflügelkunde 2016;80(121). https://doi.org/10.1399/eps.2016.121
» https://doi.org/10.1399/eps.2016.121 - Sharifian M, Hosseini-Vashan SJ, Nasri MF, et al. Pomegranate peel extract for broiler chickens under heat stress: Its influence on growth performance, carcass traits, blood metabolites, immunity, jejunal morphology, and meat quality. Livestock Science 2019;227:22-28. https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.livsci.2019.06.021
» https://doi.org/10.1016 - Shirangi SG, Shargh MS, Ashayerzadeh O, et al. Effects of different levels of pomegranate peel crude juice powder and a commercial prebiotic on growth performance and gut microbial population of boilers chickens. Animal Environment Journal 2022;14(2):143-50. https://doi.org/10 22034/ AEJ.2022.340786.2803
» https://doi.org/10 - Siddiqui SA, Singh S, Nayik GA. Bioactive compounds from pomegranate peels-Biological properties, structure-function relationships, health benefits and food applications- a comprehensive review. Journal of Functional Foods 2024;116:106132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2024.106132
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2024.106132 - Singh J, Kaur HP, Verma A, et al. Pomegranate peel phytochemistry, pharmacological properties, methods of extraction, and its application: a comprehensive review. ACS Omega 2023;8(39):35452-69. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.3c02586
» https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.3c02586 - Sobolewska A, Bogucka J, Dankowiakowska A, et al. The impact of synbiotic administration through in ovo technology on the microstructure of a broiler chicken small intestine tissue on the 1 st and 42 nd day of rearing. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology 2017;8:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-017-0193-1
» https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-017-0193-1 - Sohail MU, Rahman ZU, Ijaz A, et al. Single or combined effects of mannan-oligosaccharides and probiotic supplements on the total oxidants, total antioxidants, enzymatic antioxidants, liver enzymes, and serum trace minerals in cyclic heat-stressed broilers. Poultry Science 2011;90(11):2573-7. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2011-01502
» https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2011-01502 - Uzabaci E, Yibar A. Effects of probiotic supplementation on broiler growth performance: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Animal Production Science 2023;63(7):645-51. https://doi.org/10.1071/ AN22295
- Wang J, Ji H. Influence of probiotics on dietary protein digestion and utilization in the gastrointestinal tract. Current Protein and Peptide Science 2019;20(2):125-31. https://doi.org/10.2174/13892037196 66180517100339
» https://doi.org/10.2174/13892037196 - Wang Y, Dong Z, Song D, et al. Effects of microencapsulated probiotics and prebiotics on growth performance, antioxidative abilities, immune functions, and caecal microflora in broiler chickens. Food and Agricultural Immunology 2018;29(1):859-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540105.2018.1463972
» https://doi.org/10.1080/09540105.2018.1463972 - Wang Y, Wu Y, Wang Y, et al. Antioxidant properties of probiotic bacteria. Nutrients 2017;9(5):521. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu9050521
» https://doi.org/10.3390/nu9050521 - Worawong K, Nasri T, Siripornadulsil W, et al. Effects of prebiotic supplementation on the concentration of short-chain fatty acids in the ceca of broiler chickens: a meta-analysis of controlled trials. Animal Feed Science and Technology 2022;288:115296. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.anifeedsci.2022.115296
- Xu P, Wang J, Chen P, et al. Effects of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) peel on the growth performance and intestinal microbiota of broilers challenged with Escherichia coli. Poultry Science 2024;103(2):103304. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.psj.2023.103304
- Yildirim A, Mavi A, Kara AA. Determination of antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of Rumex crispus L. extracts. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2001;49(8):4083-9. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf0103572
» https://doi.org/10.1021/jf0103572 - Zarfeshany A, Asgary S, Javanmard SH. Potent health effects of pomegranate. Advanced Biomedical Research 2014;3(1):100. https://doi.org/10.4103/2277-9175.129371
» https://doi.org/10.4103/2277-9175.129371
- FUNDING
This research received financial support from Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources (Grant no. 99-430-47).
- DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data will be available upon request.
- DISCLAIMER/PUBLISHER’S NOTE
The published papers’ statements, opinions, and data are those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s). The editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions, or products referred to in the content.
Data availability
Data will be available upon request.
Publication Dates
- Publication in this collection
10Feb2025 - Date of issue
2024
History
- Received
08Sept2024 - Accepted
28Nov2024
Authorship
M Shams Shargh
Conceptualization
methodology
validation
writing-original draft preparation
supervision
project administration
funding acquisition
read
agreed to the published version of the manuscript
Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Faculty of Animal Science, Department of Animal and Poultry Nutrition, Gorgan, Iran.
O Ashayerizadeh
validation
writing-review and editing
read
agreed to the published version of the manuscript
Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Faculty of Animal Science, Department of Animal and Poultry Nutrition, Gorgan, Iran.
MH Mohammadi
Conceptualization
methodology
software
validation
formal analysis
resources
writing-review and editing
visualization
read
agreed to the published version of the manuscript
University of Tehran, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Department of Animal Science, Karaj, Iran.
Corresponding author e-mail address Mahmoud Shams Shargh Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Faculty of Animal Science, Department of Animal and Poultry Nutrition, Gorgan, 4918943464, Iran. Phone: +98 911 175 6673 Email:shams@gau.ac.ir
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Section Editor:
Rodrigo Garófallo Garcia
Tables
- Tables (4)
Table 1
Ingredients and chemical composition of the basal diets (as-fed).
Table 2
Effect of various dietary supplements on the growth performance of broilers.
Table 3
Effect of various dietary supplements on the blood parameters of broilers.
Table 4
Effect of various dietary supplements on intestinal morphometry of broilers.
table_chartTable 1 Ingredients and chemical composition of the basal diets (as-fed).
| Items | Rearing period | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Starter (d 1-10) | Grower (d 11-24) | Finisher (d 25-42) | |
| Corn (CP = 7.5 %) | 52.37 | 57.70 | 64.60 |
| Soybean meal (CP = 42 %) | 36.99 | 32.37 | 26.42 |
| Corn gluten (CP = 60 %) | 2.50 | 2.50 | 2.50 |
| Oil | 3.20 | 3.00 | 2.50 |
| DL-methionine | 0.33 | 0.27 | 0.24 |
| L-lysine | 0.26 | 0.21 | 0.20 |
| L-threonine | 0.13 | 0.09 | 0.07 |
| Dicalcium phosphate | 2.23 | 1.94 | 1.66 |
| Calcium carbonate | 0.90 | 0.83 | 0.72 |
| Sodium bicarbonate | 0.24 | 0.24 | 0.24 |
| Mineral and vitamin premix† | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 |
| Filler | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.10 |
| NaCl | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
| Chemical composition | |||
| Metabolizable energy (Kcal/kg) | 2950 | 3000 | 3050 |
| Crude protein (%) | 22.61 | 20.80 | 18.58 |
| Crude fiber (%) | 3.01 | 2.93 | 2.84 |
| Calcium (%) | 0.98 | 0.87 | 0.75 |
| Available phosphor (%) | 0.47 | 0.42 | 0.37 |
| Sodium (%) | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.18 |
| Lysin (%) | 1.38 | 1.22 | 1.06 |
| Methionine (%) | 0.67 | 0.59 | 0.53 |
| Methionine + cysteine (%) | 1.03 | 0.93 | 0.84 |
- †
Provided vitamins and minerals per kg diet. Vitamin A, 10000 IU; Vitamin D3, 3000 IU; Vitamin E, 10 mg; Vitamin K, 1 mg; Vitamin B1, 1 mg; Vitamin B2; 5 mg; Vitamin B6, 1.5 mg; Vitamin B12; 0.015 mg; Folic acid, 0.8 mg; niacin; 30 mg; pantetonic acid, 10 mg; biotin, 0.05 mg; Mn, 60 mg; Zn, 50 mg; Fe, 30 mg; Cu, 4 mg; I, 3 mg; Se, 0.1 mg, Cobalt 0.1 mg
table_chartTable 2 Effect of various dietary supplements on the growth performance of broilers.
| Items | Treatments†‡ | SEM | p value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | Probiotic | Prebiotic | PPP | |||
| ADFI (g/bird per day) | ||||||
| Starter (d 1-10) | 20.1 | 21.4 | 20.5 | 21.2 | 0.51 | 0.280 |
| Grower (d 11-24) | 70.3b | 71.9a | 69.6ab | 69.2 b | 0.59 | 0.005 |
| Finisher (d 25-42) | 157.1b | 169.1a | 160.1ab | 161.8ab | 2.23 | 0.010 |
| Overall (d 1-42) | 94.9b | 101.5a | 96.7b | 97.5ab | 1.03 | 0.002 |
| ADG (g/bird per day) | ||||||
| Starter (d 1-10) | 16.2b | 18.2a | 17.6ab | 18.2a | 0.43 | 0.010 |
| Grower (d 11-24) | 43.3b | 51.2a | 48.0a | 47.2a | 1.17 | 0.003 |
| Finisher d 25-42) | 95.7a | 96.2a | 95.8b | 96.0a | 1.14 | 0.0001 |
| Overall (d 1-42) | 59.3b | 62.6a | 58.9b | 61.2ab | 0.65 | 0.003 |
| FCR (%) | ||||||
| Starter (d 1-10) | 1.24 | 1.18 | 1.17 | 1.16 | 0.028 | 0.220 |
| Grower (d 11-24) | 1.58a | 1.41b | 1.41b | 1.47b | 0.026 | 0.020 |
| Finisher (d 25-42) | 1.64b | 1.76a | 1.77a | 1.69ab | 0.029 | 0.017 |
| Overall (d 1-42) | 1.60 | 1.62 | 1.64 | 1.59 | 0.015 | 0.160 |
- †
Birds were subjected to control (C), probiotic (Protexin™, based on manufacturer instruction), prebiotic (Meito™ consisting of 5% dextran oligosaccharide, based on manufacturer instruction) or PPP (150 mg/kg diet pomegranate peel powder) treatment in a 42-d rearing period.
- ‡
Means bearing different letters within each row differ significantly (p < 0.05)
table_chartTable 3 Effect of various dietary supplements on the blood parameters of broilers.
| Items | Treatments†‡ | SEM | p value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | Probiotic | Prebiotic | PPP | |||
| SOD (U/ml) | 667.5b | 860.8a | 811.3b | 737.5ab | 34 | 0.006 |
| MDA (nmol/ml) | 18.9a | 12.4b | 10.8b | 13.5b | 0.67 | 0.0001 |
- †
Birds were subjected to control (C), probiotic (Protexin™, based on manufacturer instruction), prebiotic (Meito™ consisting of 5% dextran oligosaccharide, based on manufacturer instruction) or PPP (150 mg/kg diet pomegranate peel powder) treatment in a 42-d rearing period.
- ‡
Means bearing different letters within each row differ significantly (p < 0.05)
table_chartTable 4 Effect of various dietary supplements on intestinal morphometry of broilers.
| Items | Treatments†‡ | SEM | p value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | Probiotic | Prebiotic | PPP | |||
| Duodenum | ||||||
| VH (μm) | 1150b | 1312a | 1103b | 1222ab | 38.44 | 0.012 |
| CD (μm) | 255a | 171b | 234ab | 202ab | 16.44 | 0.017 |
| VSA (mm2) | 0.60ab | 0.52b | 0.43b | 0.83a | 0.066 | 0.009 |
| Jejunum | ||||||
| VH (μm) | 1212 | 1449 | 1392 | 1323 | 70.11 | 0.150 |
| CD (μm) | 179 | 160 | 175 | 213 | 13.33 | 0.080 |
| VSA (mm2) | 0.60b | 0.97a | 0.78ab | 0.70b | 0.066 | 0.009 |
- †
Birds were subjected to control (C), probiotic (Protexin™, based on manufacturer instruction), prebiotic (Meito™ consisting of 5% dextran oligosaccharide, based on manufacturer instruction) or PPP (150 mg/kg diet pomegranate peel powder) treatment in a 42-d rearing period.
-
Villus height (VH), crypt depth (CD), villus surface area (VSA).
- ‡
Means bearing different letters within each row differ significantly (p < 0.05).
