ABSTRACT
A preliminary study was carried out to determine the prevalence of Aflatoxin B1
(AfB1) contamination and common moulds growing in some selected poultry feed
ingredients in Zaria town, Nigeria. Twenty-five (25) samples of five different feed
ingredients, which included Maize (MZ), soybean cake (SBC), groundnut cake (GNC),
brewers dried grain (BDG) and maize offal (M/O) were collected. Samples were
collected in March from four commercial feed mills and the open market. The common
moulds isolated from the samples were Mucor spp., Aspergillus s pp., Fusarium spp.,
Penicillum spp., Curvularia spp. and Rhizopus spp. Aflatoxin B1 contamination
showed that maize and soya bean cake were less than the 20 parts per billion (ppb)
permissible limits for AfB1 in poultry feed ingredients, while BDG, M/O and GNC
were 40, 60 and 80 % respectively above 20 ppb permissible limits. Three feeding
trials were conducted using broiler chickens. The first experiment was conducted to
evaluate the effect of four levels of Mycofix® in diets of broiler chickens, experiment
two evaluated the response of broiler chickens fed diets containing four levels of
Biotronic
®
SE and experiment three evaluated the response of broiler chickens fed
diets containing single and combined levels of Mycofix® and Biotronic ® SE. In
experiment one; 330 day old Ross broiler chicks were used for the feeding trial. The
chicks were allotted in a completely randomized design (CRD) to five dietary
treatments replicated thrice with 22 chicks per replicate. Treatment one was the control
diet without Mycofix®, while treatments 2, 3, 4 and 5 had Mycofix® included at the
rate of 100, 200, 300 and 400 g / 100kg diet respectively. In experiments two and three,
a total of 396 day old Ross chicks each were used. In experiment 2, Treatment one was
the positive control diet without Biotronic® SE and Oxytetracycline, treatments, 2, 3, 4,
5 had Biotronic® SE at the rate of 200, 300, 400, 500g Biotronic® SE / 100kg diet and
Tretment 6 (negative control) had 100g Oxytetracycline/100kg feed. Experiment 3,
Treatment one was the postive control diet without Mycofix®, Biotronic® SE and
Oxytetracycline, treatments 2, 3, 4, 5 had 400g Mycofix®, 500g Biotronic® SE,
200gMycofix® + 250 Biotronic® SE, 400g Mycofix®+ 400g Biotronic® SE and
treatment 6 (negative control) 100g Oxyteracycline/ 100kg of feed respectively. The
diets were formulated to meet standard requirements for starter and finisher broiler
chickens. Feed and water were given to the birds ad libitum for the experimentl
periods. Data collected included the average of body weight gain, feed intake, feed
conversion ratio, carcass percentage, nutrient digestibility; others were haematological,
biochemical indices, kidney function test, microbial analysis of digesta, drug residue in
meat samples and villi morphometerics. Data collected were subjected to Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) using General Linear Model procedure of SAS and significant
differences among treatment means were compared using Dunnette test of significance.
Experiment One, starter phase showed that dietary treatments had significant effect (P
< 0.05) on final weight gain, feed conversion ratio, feed cost and feed cost per
kilogram gain. Birds fed 400g/100kg diet Mycofix® had the best final body weight gain
at both starter (839.67g) and finisher phases (2350.34g) respectively. The feed
conversion ratio at the starter phase was significantly (P<0.05) lower in the
experimental treatments and at the finisher phase, 400g Mycofix® treatment had a
significantly (P<0.05) lower feed conversion ratio. There were no significant
differences (P<0.05) across treatments for cut parts and organ weights of carcass.
Haematological and biochemical indices were not significantly affected by dietary
treatments as parameters were within the normal reference range for broiler chickens.
Nutrient digestibility was significantly improved at 400g inclusion. Experiment Two,
xviii
starter phase results showed similar (P>0.05) weight gain in birds on 500g Biotronic® SE and100g Oxytetracycline. The birds fed 500g Biotronic® SE had the best feed
conversion ratio (1.7) and feed cost per kilogram gain (₦151.42) values. The finisher
phase result showed no significant (P>0.05) differences in weight gain among
Treatments 3, 4, 5 and 6. Birds on 400g Biotronic® SE had a lower (P > 0.05) FCR and
feed cost per kilogram gain.The dressing percentage for the carcass was best in 500g
Biotronic® SE and Oxytetracycline treatments. Prime cuts: breast, drumstick and wings
were better in birds on 400g Biotronic® SE. Haematological parameters were not
affected by dietary treatments. The values of alkaline phosphatase (ALP) were
significantly (P>0.05) higher in the experimental treatments, alanine amino transferase
(ALT) values was significantly (P>0.05) higher in the antibiotic treatment while
aspartate aminotransferase (AST) values was significantly (P > 0.05) higher in birds on
400g Biotronic® SE and Oxytetracycline group. The crude protein values (86.54, 89.31
and 94.50 %) for nutrient digestibility was significantly (P<0.05) higher in 200, 300
and 400g Biotronic® SE groups respectively. The crude fibre (76.43 %) and ether
extract (89.82 %) values were significantly (P<0.05) lower across treatments. The
levels of Biotronic® SE was more effective in increasing aerobic plate count and
coliform counts in both ileum and ceacum of broiler chicks. Birds fed the control diet
showed no drug detected, while birds fed 200, 300, 400 and 500g Biotronic® SE were
low and Oxytetracycline treatment showed high concentration of drug. In experiment
three, results of the starter phase showed no significant (P>0.05) differences in most of
the parameters measured across treatments. Birds on Oxytetracycline treatment had a
significantly (P <0.05) higher feed intake (1920.44g) from the rest treatment groups
and control. At the finisher phase, birds on 100g Oxytetracycline had a significantly (P
< 0.05) higher weight gain, average daily weight gain and feed conversion ratio and
least feed cost /kilogram gain Carcass result showed better breast weight for birds fed
diets with Oxytetracycline and better drum stick for birds fed diets with 400g
Biotronic® SE. No significant (P>0.05) differences for organ weights across
treatments. No significant (P>0.05) differences were recorded across treatments for
haematological profile, liver and Kidney function tests. Nutrient digestibility for birds
fed 400g Biotronic® SE was better (P<0.05) in its percentage composition for dry
matter, crude protein, crude fibre and ash content across treatments but similar to
control. Results of villi morphometrics of sections of the jejunum showed that birds fed
400g® Mycofix and 400g Biotronic® SE had a significantly (P<0.05) higher villi crypt
across treatment groups and control. Villi roundness for birds on control diet was
significantly (P<0.05) higher other rest treatment groups. The study concludes the
growth of fungi spp. in feed ingredients samples and presence of AfB1. The findings of
the feeding trials concludes that the use of Mycofix® a toxin binder, improved
performance significantly at both starter and finisher phases at the rate of 4kg/tone
which was above the recommended level of 2-3kg /tone. The use of Biotronic® SE as a
gut acidifier gave a better result for all the growth performance parameters above the
control; at 500g/100kg for starter phase and 400g/kg at finisher phase. It had a positive
effect on maintenance of normal microbial activity of ileum and ceacum and no
residues in meat samples. The combined and single use of Mycofix® and Biotronic®
SE did not significantly improve growth of broiler chickens, but performed comparable
to the antibiotic treatment in all the parameters measured. The combinations had no
adverse effect on measured performance parameters, haematological parameters, liver
and kidney function tests and improved villi crypt an evidence of a positive synergy in
their combination. It is recommended that Mycofix® can be singly used at 400g/100kg
and 500g/100kg feed of Biotronic ® SE as a means of alleviating the incidences of
xix
mycotoxins in feed and improving gut health.The combined inclusion recommended is
at 200g Mycofix® and 200g Biotronic ® SE/100kg feed.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COVER PAGE…………………………………………………………………………..i
TITLE PAGE……………………………………………………………………………ii
DECLARATION……………………………………………………………………….iii
CERTIFICATION………………………………………………………………………iv
DEDICATION………………………………………………………………………..…v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………..…………vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………….…………………………………………………vii
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………….…..………………xiv
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………xvi
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………….xvii
CHAPTER ONE…………………………………………………………………………1
1.0 INTRODUCTION…………..…………………………………………………….1
1 Justification for the study…………………………………………………………….3
1.2 Objectives of the study…………..………………………………………………..4
1.3 Research Hypotheses……………………………………………………………,,,..5
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………………6
2.1Mycotoxins……………………………………………………………………………6
2.1.1 Impact of Mycotoxins on Feed…………………………………………………….8
2.1.2 Impact of Mycotoxin on animals and humans……………………………………….8
2.2. Some Mycotoxins relevant to poultry……………………………..……….……12
2.2.1 Aflatoxins……………………………………………………………………..…,,12
2.2. 2 Ochratoxin A………………………………………………………………………13
2.2.3 Trichothecenes……………………………………………………………………14
2.2. Fumonisins…………………………………………………………………………16
2.3 Mycotoxin Binders………………………………………………………………….16
2.4 Types of mycotoxin adsorbent / binder…………………………………………..17
viii
2.4.1 Inorganic binders (clay group)……………………………………………………18
2.4.2 Organic Binders…………………………………………………….…………….19
2.4.3 Charcoal or activated carbon……………………………………………………..20
2.4.4 Silicate binder……………………………………………………………………..20
2.4.5 Organic polymers as binders……………….……………………………………..21
2.5 Impact of mycotoxins on animal nutrition and health…………………………..23
2.6 Effect of toxin binder on broiler chickens…………………………………………25
2.6.1 Effect of toxin binders on growth performance………………..…………………25
2.6.2 Effect of toxin binders on feed conversion efficiency……………….……………26
2.6.3 Efeect of toxin binders on feed intake……………………………………………26
2.6.4 Effect of toxin binders on carcass characteristics………………………………..26
2.6.5 Effect of toxin binders on nutrient digestibility……………………………………27
2.7 Haematology……………….………………………………………………………..27
2.7.1 Significance of haematological parameters………………………………..……..28
2.7.2 Haematological components and their functions………………………………….30
2.7.2.1 Red blood cells…………………………….……………………………….. …30
2.7.2.2 White blood cells…………………………………………………………..……30
2.7.2.3 Packed cell volume………………………………………………………..……31
2.7.2.4 Haemoglobin……………………………………………………………………..31
2.7.2.5 Mean corpuscular volume………………………………………………..…….32
2.7.2.6 Mean corpuscular haemoglobin and mean corpuscular haemoglobin….………32
2.7.2.7 Blood platelets……………………………………………………….…………33
2.7.2.8 Leucocytes (White Cell) differential count…………,,,…………..……………33
2.8 Effect of toxin binder on blood constituents……………………….……………34
2.8.1 Effect of toxin binders on serum biochemistry…………………………………..34
2.9 Acidifiers……………………………………………………………………………35
2.10 Organic acids………………………………………………………..………………37
ix
2.10.1. Formic acid……………………………………………………………….……38
2.10.2 Propionic acid……………………………………….………….………………39
2.10.3 Acetic acid……………………………………………………………….………40
2.10.4 Citric acid……………………………………………………………………….40
2.10.5 Lactic acid………………………………………………………………………..41
2.10.6 Butyric acid…………………………………………………………………….41
2.11 Acidifiers in animal nutrition……………………………………………………41
2.12 Impact of acidifiers on digestive system of chickens.…………………………..43
2.13 Broiler gut microbiota……………………….…….…………………..………..45
2.14 Effect of organic acid on the gastro-intestinal tract…..……………………….48
2.15 Effect of organic acid on broiler chickens performance..……..………………50
2.16 Anti-microbial activity of organic acids…………………..……………………51
2.17 Effect of organic acid on nutrient utilisation……………………………………..52
2.18 Effect of acidifier on digestion…………………………..………………………..53
2.19 Effect of organic acid on feed……………………………..…………………….54
CHAPTER THREE……………………………………………..……………………56
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS…………………………………………………56
3.1 Survey of feedstuff for aflatoxin………………..…………………………………56
3.1.1 Sample collection…………………………………………………..………………..56
3.1.2 Aflatoxin determination……………………………………………..……………56
3.1.3 Fungal cultivation and isolation………………………………………..…………57
3.2 Experimental site and location…………………………………… ……..………….57
3.2.1 Source of experimental birds……………………………… …….……..………58
3.2.2 Source of toxin binder, organic acid and oxytetracycline………………………….58
3.3 Laboratory studies………………………………………………………………..58
3.4 Experiment 1: Effect of varying levels of Mycofix® on feed utilization by
broiler chickens…………………..………………………………………………..59
x
3.4.1Experimental diets…………………………………………………………………59
3.4.2 Starter phase (0 – 4 weeks)……………………………………………………………59
3.4.3 Finisher phase (5 – 8 weeks)……………………………………………………….59
3.5 Experimental design and management of birds…………………………….……….62
3.6 Growth study…………………………………………………..…………………….62
3.7 Haematological analysis… ……………………………………………………….62
3.8 Evaluation of blood serum constitue…….………………… .. ………………….63
3.9 Carcass evaluation ……………………………………………..……………………..63
3.10 Digestibility study……………………………………………………………………..64
3.11 Data analysis………………………………………………………………………….65
3.12 Experimental model……………………………………………..………………65
3.13 Experiment 2: Effect of four levels of Biotronic® SE on feed utilization by
broiler chickens..……………………………….……………………………….65
3.14 Experimental treatments………..………………………………………………65
3.15 Intestinal microbiota study……………………………………………,,…………67
3.15.1 Culture and isolation of Salmonella, Escherichia coli and
Staphylococcus……………………………………………………………………………..68
3.15.2 Gram reaction………………………………………………………..………….68
3.15.3 Microbact analysis kit (12E)…………………….…………………………………69
3.16 Drug residue test………………………………..……………………………………..70
3.16.1 Sample preparation………………………………………………………………….70
3.16.2 Antibiotic residue detection.. ……………………………………………………70
3.17 Data collection………………………………………………………………………..71
3.18 Statistical analysis……………………..……………………………………………..71
3.17 Experiment 3: Effect of single and combined inclusion levels Mycofix®
and Biotronic® SEin diets of broiler chickens on performance.……………..71
3.18 Experimental treatments………………………………..…………………………..71
3.19 Data collection………………………………………………………………………….72
xi
3.20 Quantitative Assessememt of Gut Morphology…………………………………72
CHAPTER FOUR…………………………………………………………………………75
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION…………………….………………………………76
4.1 Feed Ingredient survey for Aflatoxin B1………………………………………….76
4.2 Fungi Isolation and Identification………………………………………………..78
4.3 Experiment 1 Effect of varying inclusion levels of Mycofix® on broiler
chickens…………………………………………………………………………..81
4.3.1 Growth performance of broiler starter chicks fed diets containing varying
levels of Mycofix®………………………………………………………………81
4.3.2 Growth performance of broiler finisher chickens fed diets containing varying
levels of Mycofix®……………………………………………………………..85
4.3.3 Carcass characteristics of broiler finisher chickens fed diets supplemented with
varying levels Mycofix® ………………………………………..………………89
4.3.4 Haematological parameters of broiler finisher chickens fed diets containing
varying levels of Mycofix®………………………………………,………………90
4.3.5 Serum biochemical indices of broiler finisher chickens fed diets containing
varying levels of Mycofix®………………………………………………………93
.3.6 Apparent nutrient digestibility and ash content of broiler finisher chickens fed
diets containing varying levels of Mycofix®……..……………………………….95
4.4 Experiment 2: Effect of varying inclusion levels of Biotronic® SE in diets of
broiler chickens …………..………………………………………………..……98
4.4.1Growth performance of broiler starter chicks fed diets containing varying inclusion
levels of Biotronic® SE…………………………………..…………………….98
4.4.2 Growth performance of broiler finisher chickens fed varying levels of
Biotronic SE diets………………………………………………………..…….102
4.4.3 Carcass characteristics of of broiler finisher chickens fed diets containing
varying levels of Biotronic® SE…………………………………………….…105
4.4.4 Haematological parameters of broiler finisher chickens fed diets containing
varying levels Biotronic® SE……………………………………………….…107
4.4.5 Serum indices of broiler finisher chickens fed diets containing varying levels of
Biotronic® SE…………………………………………………………………110
4.4.6 Apparent nutrient digestibility and ash content of broiler finisher chickens fed
xii
diets containing varying levels Biotronic® SE…………………………………..113
4.4.7 Drug residue detection in meat of broiler finisher chickens fed diets containing
varying levels Biotronic® SE……………………………………………….115
4.4.8 Effect of varying levels of Biotronic® SE diets on ileal and ceacal bacteria of
broiler starter chicks…………………………………………………………117
4.5 Experiment 3: Effect of single and combined inclusion levels of Mycofix® and
Biotronic® SE in diets of broiler chickens on performance……………..…..121
4.5.1 Growth performance of broiler starter chicks fed diets containing varying levels
of single and combined Mycofix® and Biotronic®……………………………..121
4.5.2 Growth performance of broiler finisher chickens fed diets containing single
and combined levels of Mycofix® and Biotronic® SE………………….………123
4.5.3 Carcass characteristics of broiler finisher chickens fed diets containing single
and combined levels of Mycofix® and Biotronic® SE…….…………………….126
4.5.4 Haematological parameters of broiler finisher chickens fed diets containing
single and combined levels of Mycofix® and Biotronic® SE…..………………..127
4.5.5 Serum indices of broiler finisher chickens fed diets
containing single and combined levels of Mycofix® and Biotronic®…………………130
4.5.6 Kidney function test of broiler finisher chickens fed diets
containing single and combined levels of Mycofix® and Biotronic SE ®…..…..132
4.5.7 Apparent nutrient digestibility and ash content of broiler finisher chickens fed
Diets containing single and combined levels of Mycofix® and Biotronic®
SE………………………………………………………………………………….134
4.5.8 Villi morphometrics of sections of jejunum of broiler finisher chickens fed single
and combined levels of Mycofix® and Biotronic® SE diets……………………136
CHAPTER FIVE……………………………………………………..………………139
5.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS………….……139
5.1 Summary…………………………….……………………………………….…..139
5.2 Conclusion………………………..……………………………………………….141
5.3 Recommendations……………………………………………………………..…142
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………….……..143
APPENDICES……………………………………………………………..……..….173
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Feed represents the greatest single expenditure associated with poultry production. Nutritional
research in poultry has therefore centered on issues related to identifying barriers to effective
digestion, utilization of nutrients, and on approaches for improving feed utilization
(Ravindran, 2010). The quality of feed ingredients is very important as this will determine the
quality of the feed and the end-products.Hence a more precise evaluation of the quality of
dietary raw materials is needed (Kersten et al., 2005). Feed materials may be contaminated at
any time during growing, harvesting, processing, storage and distribution of the feed. Feeds
may contain diverse microflora that are acquired from multiple environmental sources,
including dust, soil, water, and insects (Maciorowski et al., 2006).
Mycotoxins are a historical problem in poultry, first recognised in the 1960s as the cause of
‘turkey X disease’ in England which resulted in the death of 100,000 turkey poults and many
ducks, chickens and pheasants (Siska, 2013). Mycotoxins are toxins formed during fungi
growth, myco means mould and toxin represents poison (Annongu, 2012). Mycotoxins are
highly toxic secondary metabolic products of mould on almost all agricultural commodities
worldwide. They occur under natural conditions in feed. Several studies proved that economic
losses occur at all levels of food and production, including crop and animal production,
processing and distribution (Robens and Cardwell, 2003; Wu, 2007; Bryden, 2012).
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 25% of the world‟s crop harvests
are contaminated with mycotoxins (FAO, 2012). There are currently more than 400
mycotoxins known. There are six major classes of mycotoxins that frequently occur namely,
aflatoxins, trichothecenes, fumonisins, zearalenone, ochratoxin and ergot alkaloids (CAST
2003). They are formed by different kinds of fungi and each fungi species can produce more
2
than one type of mycotoxin. Surveys of mycotoxin levels in poultry feeds often reveal the
presence of a number of different toxins; most samples in a recent survey contained at least 10
contaminants. Contamination of feeds with mycotoxins is a worldwide problem, in poultry
particularly those produced by the genera, Fusarium, Aspergillus and Penicillium (Siska,
2013).
Mycotoxin binders or adsorbents are substances that bind to mycotoxins and prevent them
from being absorbed through the gut and into the blood circulation (Jacela et al., 2010). The
addition of mycotoxin binders to poultry diets has been considered the most promising dietary
approach to reduce the effects of mycotoxins (Galvano et al., 2001). The theory is that the
binder decontaminates mycotoxins in the feed by binding them strongly enough to prevent
toxic interactions when the animal consumes the feed and to prevent mycotoxin absorption
across the digestive tract.
Nutritional researchers have therefore implored the use of toxin binders as an approach to
salvaging feed contamination with mycotoxins and protecting animals from disease problems
and losses in performance. Another approach by researchers is the use of dietary
supplementation with acidifiers, which are organic acids used to reduce bacterial growth. It
helps to reduce colonization of pathogens on the intestinal wall, thus preventing damage to the
epithelial cells. Acidifiers enhance increase in body weight and feed conversion ratio in
broiler chicken (Skinner et al., 1991).
The Mycofix® product line from BIOMIN is a range of specially developed feed additives
that protect animal health by deactivating mycotoxins found in contaminated feed. Its modular
system consists of three strategies: Adsorption – Elimination of toxins, Biotransformation –
Elimination of toxicity and Bioprotection – Elimination of toxic effects. Mycofix is one of
3
the new promising mycotoxins adsorbent that was successfully used to alleviate the negative
effects of T-2 toxins in broilers (Aziz, 2005; Omar, 2010).
Biotronic® SE is a powerful combination of synergistically acting organic acid and their salts
combined on a Sequential Release Medium (SRM). Besides decreasing pH, the selected acids
penetrate the cell wall of gram – negative bacteria. The use of Biotronic® SE is indicated for
the control of gram – negative bacteria including E. coli and Salmonella in other to promote
animal growth in pig and poultry. This highly effective synergism ensures its full economic
benefit (Poultry Site, 2014).
1.1 Justification for the Study
One subject receiving much attention from researchers at present is that of mycotoxicity. It is
an issue which has important implications for the global feed industry, bird performance and
potential with negative consequences for the food chain (Stephen, 2008). Nigeria does not
have standard regulationsand control on mycotoxins in poultry feed, consequently the risk of
mycotoxins exists in the Nigerian poultry sector since the common feed ingredients, such as
maize and groundnut cake, are known to contain high levels of mycotoxins (Kpodo and
Bankole, 2008). Fungi are major spoilage agents of foods and feedstuffs. The proliferation of
various fungi species in agricultural products leads to reduction in yield and quality with
significant economic losses (Adejumo and Adejoro, 2014).
The poultry industry witnessed a tremendous growth with the best application of nutritional
technologies. Today, animal feed production has been paid attention; however, feed safety is
a concern for achieving productivity. Mycotoxin contamination of feed is a recurring
problem, however the effective control is a challenge because the mycotoxins contamination
occurs through various feed raw materials, which are used in poultry feed. Nevertheless the
4
contamination of mycotoxins can come from the dust and leftover feed in the feeding
channel; hence a rational approach has to be adopted for effective control of feed mycotoxins
(Bhat, 2011).
On the other hand, gut health is currently gaining much more attention in literature especially
in poultry and has been applied to coordinate the working efficiency of the gut (Laudadio et
al., 2012). The gut is the most extensive exposed surface and is constantly exposed to a wide
variety of potentially beneficial, non-infectious as well as harmful infectious pathogens
(Lievin-Le Moal and Servin, 2006). This has necessitated the need to tackle the microbial
population in the gut of the chicks as early as they are hatched in favour of the beneficial
microorganism in the host. This is achievable by the use of acidifiers which plays the role of
lowering the pH of the gut, thereby inhibiting the proliferation of pathogenic micro-organisms
hence, reducing their adverse effect on the host animal.
The use of a toxin binder to mitigate the effect of mycotoxins present in feed and an acidifier
to improve the gut health as a way of improving performance was considered in the study
1.2 Objectives of the Study
The objectives of the study were to;
1. determine fungi species and Aflatoxin B1 contamination in some common feed
ingredients used in poultry finished feed.
2. know the optimum inclusion levels of Mycofix® and Biotronic® SE singly and in
combination on growth performance, haematological parameters, serum biochemical
indices and carcass characteristics, gut morphology and nutrient digestibility of broiler
chickens.
5
3. evaluate the effects of various inclusion levels of Biotronic® SE on intestinal
microbioata and drug residue in the meat of broiler chickens.
1.3 Research Hypotheses
Null Hypothesis (Ho): Some common feed ingredients used in poultry finished feed are not
contaminated with fungi species and Aflatoxin B1.
Null Hypothesis (Ho): Inclusion of Mycofix® and Biotronic® SE as a toxin binder and
organic acid respectively in the diets of broiler chickens do not enhance growth performance,
apparaent nutrient digestibility, haematological profile, serum biochemical indices and carcass
characteristics.
Null hypothesis (Ho): Inclusion of different levels of Biotronic® SE in the diets of broiler
chickens does not enhance growth performance, apparent nutrient digestibility,
haematological profile, biochemical indices, carcass ch aracteristics and growth of beneficial
intestinal biodata.
Null hypotheses (Ho): Inclusion of single and different levels of Biotronic® SE, Mycofix® in
the diets of broiler chickens does not enhance growth performance, apparent nutrient
digestibility, haematological profile, liver function test, kidney function test, carcass
characteristics and intestinal gut morphology of broiler chickens.
6
IF YOU CAN'T FIND YOUR TOPIC, CLICK HERE TO HIRE A WRITER»
