EFFECT OF LACTIC ACID BACTERIA SERUM (LABS) AS DRINKING

ADDITIVES ON WATER REQUIREMENT OF BROILER

CHICKEN (Gallus domesticus)

JULIETO DV. PRANADA

A research proposal presented to the faculty of the Department of

Agriculture and Aquatic Sciences, Aurora State College
of Technology, Bazal, Ma. Aurora, Aurora in
partial fulfilment of the requirement
for the degree

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE

Animal Science

April 2018
 INTRODUCTION

Broiler poultry farming is a lucrative business. Generally highly meat productive

birds or poultry breeds are called broiler poultry. Broilers are like other common poultry

birds. But this broiler is made in a scientific way for producing more meat in a short time.

Basically, broilers are only for meat production. Scientifically, different trials on growth

promotants have been applied by the pas researchers and other public and private

institutions. Despite the fact that a natural growth promoters is also important to cite on

rather than synthetic one’s that maybe bring a negative effect on poultry meat consumers.

Among, thus, utilization of lactic acid bacteria is given much in this study.

There is several potential health or nutritional benefits possible from some species

of lactic acid bacteria. Among these are: improved nutritional value of food, control of

intestinal infections, improved digestion of lactose, control of some types of cancer and

control of serum cholesterol levels. Some potential benefits may result from growth and

action of the bacteria during the manufacture of cultured foods. Some may result from

growth and action of certain species of the lactic acid bacteria in the intestinal tract

following ingestion of foods containing them. In selecting a culture to produce a specific

benefit it is necessary to consider not only the wide variation among species of the lactic

acid bacteria but also that among strains within a given species. The production of

fermented foods is based on the use of starter cultures, for instance lactic acid bacteria that

initiate rapid acidification of the raw material. Recently, new starter cultures of lactic acid

bacteria with an industrially important functionality are being developed. The latter can
contribute to the microbial safety or offer one or more organoleptic, technological,

nutritional, or health advantages. Examples are lactic acid bacteria that produce

antimicrobial substances, sugar polymers, sweeteners, aromatic compounds, vitamins, or

useful enzymes, or that have probiotic properties. In the developed world, lactic acid

bacteria are usually associated with fermented dairy products and the use of dairy starter

cultures has become a whole industry this century. Add to this that lactic acid bacteria have

been associated with beneficial health effects for many years now. Nowadays, many food

products are promoted as being particularly healthy because of the characteristics of certain

strains of lactic acid bacteria. Unfortunately, not all these strains have been studied

carefully and therefore it might be difficult to substantiate some of the claims. Thus, there

is a clear need for the critical study of the effects on health of strain selection and quality

services.

Lactic Acid Bacteria (LAB) are gram positive, typically non- sporulating rod or

coccus shaped. They lack catalase and strictly fermentative, producing either a mixture of

lactic acid, carbon dioxide, acetic acid and/or ethanol (heterofermentation) or almost

entirely lactic acid (homofermentation) as the major metabolic end-product (Rogosa, 1974;

Collins and Lyne, 1984; Jay, 1986; Kandler and Weiss, 1986; Schillinger and Lucke, 1987;

Priest and Campbell, 1996). Kluyver divided LAB into two groups based on the end

product of glucose metabolism; those that produce lactic acid as the only product of

fermentation are designated homofermentative. The homofermentative pattern is observed

when glucose is metabolized but not necessarily when pentose sugars are metabolized, for

some, homolactics produce acetic acids when utilizing pentose. Also the homofermentative
character of homolactics may be shifted for some strains by altering cultural conditions

such as glucose concentration, pH and nutrient limitation. The homolactics able to extract

twice as much energy from a given quantity of glucose as are the heterolactics. These

lactics that produce equal molar amounts of lactate, carbon dioxide and ethanol from

hexoses are designated heterofermentative. All members of the genera Pediococcus,

Streptococcus, Lactococcus and Vagococcus are homofermenters, along with some of the

lactobacilli, while all Leuconostoc sp., as well as some Lactobacilli are heterofermenters.

The heterolactics are more important than the homolactics in producing flavour and aroma

components such as acetylaldehyde and diacetyl (Sharpe, 1979; Jay, 1986; Schillinger and

Lucke, 1987).
 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

Generally, the study aimed to determine the effect of different levels of Lactic Acid

Bacteria as drinking additives on water requirement of broilers, specifically;

1. To determine the ideal level of lactic acid bacteria as water additives which give the

best performance of broiler on weekly gain in weight.

2. To determine the effect of lactic acid bacteria on carcass weight, gizzards, liver and

heart of broilers.

3. To determine the economic efficiency of lactic acid bacteria.

 SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

One hundred – twenty (120) heads day old Minerva was used in this study. This

research was limited only on supplementing varying levels of lactic acid bacteria and will

last for thirty five (35) days only of experimentation.

TIME AND PLACE OF THE STUDY

This study was conducted at the Extension Project of Aurora State College of

Technology, Bazal Campus, Ma. Aurora, Aurora from December 30, 2017 to February 4,

2018.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to determine the response or the effect of Lactic Acid

Bacteria Serum as drinking additives with varying levels on carcass weight and yield and

growth performance of broiler chicken. Hence, positive result of the study can help farmers

and poultry raisers to increase the production of broiler in our country, especially here in

the Province of Aurora. This study also helps to encourage all farmers here in community

to use organic supplements in raising and producing poultry animals. And lastly, it also

encourage all the health conscious person to took a chicken meat because it is safe to be

eaten because it did not take any antibiotics with chemicals.

 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) have health-promoting attributes, including

antimutagenic and anticarcinogenic activities, hypocholesterolemic properties and

antagonistic actions that can restrain intestinal and food borne pathogens and immune

modulation effects. The LAB have been reported to improve gastrointestinal health.

Furthermore, LAB and their fermented products can effectively enhance the integrity of

the gastric mucosa. Many reports suggest that LAB and their fermented products have

protective effects against mucosal injury in the stomach.(Asmahan and Muna, 2009)

The LABS are typically involved in a large number of spontaneous food

fermentations but they are also closely associated with the human environment. Food

fermentations have a great economic value and it has been accepted that these products

contribute in improving human health. The LABS have contributed in the increased volume

of fermented foods worldwide especially in foods containing probiotics or health

promoting bacteria. Bacteriocins produced by LAB are the subject of intense research

because of their antibacterial activity against food borne bacteria. Further studies should

be focused on the mechanisms of action of LAB within the gastro intestinal tract and in the

immune system which stimulate the in vivo immunity effects. Furthermore, genetic

engineering of already identified probiotics and those newly discovered to make them more

efficacious should be pursued.(Asmahan and Muna, 2009)

LAB IN BIOCONTROL AND FERMENTATION

Biological Control of Food Borne Pathogens

Research has focused on the biological approach to the control and eradication of

food borne pathogens. Scientists developed natural antimicrobial products for the

biocontrol of pathogens and have exploited LAB for the competitive exclusion of

pathogens and delivery of vaccines and bioactive compounds (Grasson, 2002)

.LAB in Competitive Exclusion

The gastrointestinal tract of humans and animals contain a complex bacterial

ecosystem. Commensal strains of LAB have a history of use with the intention of

enhancing health in the form of probiotics and controlling human pathogens in farm

animals. Research has demonstrated the capacity of Lactobacillus species to control

arrange of human pathogens including E. coli, Compylobacter jejuni and Clostridium

perfringes (Grasson, 2002).

LAB as Probiotics

In discussing the importance of Lactobacillus species in fermented foods one also

needs to consider their importance as probiotics was later defined as a live microbial feed

supplement, which is beneficial to the host animal through improving its intestinal
microbial balance (Steinkrause, 1995). Lactobacillus sp. has been used as probiotic

organisms. In this case, L. acidophilus has been used because it was thought to be the

dominant lactobacillus in the intestine. However, a wide range of lactobacilli has been used

in probiotic preparations. These include: L. delbreuckii subsp. bulgaricus, L. casei, L.

brevis, L. cellobiosus, L. lactis, L. fermentum, L. plantarum and L. reuteri (Steikrause,

1995; Vinderola et al., 2002). Metchnikoff (1908) described the beneficial effect of lactic

acid bacteria on human health almost a century ago. Although, numerous studies have

substantiated the findings of Metchnikoff, it has been a difficult scientific discipline to

identify and prove the mode of action for probiotics (Mattila-Sandholm et al., 1999;

Pathmakanthan et al., 2000). The pre-existing flora of the digestive tract is complex and

ill-defined which makes it very difficult to determine how probiotics influence the

intestinal ecosystem (Tannock, 1998; Kleessen et al., 2000; Macfarlane et al., 2000). The

presence of microbial flora is necessary for the normal function of the digestive system.

Elimination or severe perturbations of the flora leads to diarrhoea or constipation and the

maintenance of a healthy bacterial flora is therefore desirable (Tannock, 1998;

Pathmakanthan et al., 2000).

In the absence of precise models for the mode of action, a number of practical

criteria for selecting probiotic strains have been formulated (Collins et al., 1998; Salminen

et al., 2000; Klaenhammer and Kullen, 1999; Mattila-Sandholm et al., 1999). The large

increase in the occurrence of allergy in the populations of the industrialized world is still

largely unexplained. One of several hypothesizes is the hygiene hypothesis, which explains

the increase by our modern environment being too aseptic (Martinez and Holt, 1999; Van
den Biggelaar et al., 2000). If this is, indeed, a part of the problem, we will need to design

our future fermented food or the probiotic products to contain safe microorganisms

counteracting this unwanted distortion of the immune system.

LAB as Vaccine Delivery Vehicles

Commensal LAB can be exploited to deliver vaccines and other biological active

material to the gastrointestinal tract. Their use in vaccine delivery is of special value in

stimulating mucosal immunity that is protective at the site of pathogen entry. The

advantages of LAB delivery include: ease of administration; survival in stomach acid;

inherent safety; particulate nature and size for uptake by cells; economic technology in that

the bacterial manufacture the vaccine or therapeutic agent (Grasson, 2002).

LAB as Beneficial Microorganisms

The LAB is important commercially in the processing of meats, alcoholic

beverages and vegetables. The products include sausages, cured hams, wines, beer,

fortified spirits, pickles and sauerkraut (Collins and Lyne, 1976; Sharpe, 1981; Jay, 1986;

Kandler and Weiss, 1986; Hastings and Holzapfel, 1987; Schillinger and Lucke, 1987; Jay,

1992). Although, LAB have beneficial effects in the food industry, they can sometimes be

a nuisance as contaminants by producing off flavours (Kandler and Kunath, 1983; Aguirre

and Collins, 1993; Cai et al., 1998). Lactobacillus and Streptococcus faecum are beneficial
microorganisms, which have been proven to replenish essential microflora and decrease

the incidence of gastrointestinal disorders. Beneficial bacteria, especially lactobacillus sp.

can produce anti- microbial substances, which have been observed to inhibit the growth of

some pathogenic microorganisms. The addition of type O lactic culture may be an

additional safeguard to established good manufacturing practices and Hazard Analysis and

Critical Control Point (HACCP) programs in the control of growth of E. coli 0157:H7 in

minas cheese (Saad et al., 2001; Yost and Nattress, 2002). These beneficial

microorganisms are most effective during periods of disease or stress and following

antibiotic treatment

.Importance of LAB and their Effect on Human Health

Of interest is the role of LAB in the treatment of people suffering with tumours and

immune compromised subjects. The evidence that LAB can stimulate the immune system

is remarkable and fascinating in it and opens many questions about mechanisms and

effective utilization. If this potential is supported in practice, then there are many

components to conventional therapies. This may include cost effectively due to their ease

of products derived from LAB seem to have relatively low toxicity compared to other

treatments (Wood, 1992).

Lactic Acid Bacteria and Other Effects on the Immune System

The LAB is present in the intestine of most animals. The beneficial role played by

this microorganism in humans and animals, including the effect on the immune system has

been extensively reported (Perdigon et al., 2001). The LAB are present in many foods and

are frequently used as probiotics to improve some biological functions in the host. Through

different mechanisms they send signals to active immune cells. Thus the knowledge of the

normal intestinal microflora, the contribution of LAB and their role in the numerous

functions in the digestive tract as well as the functioning of the mucosal immune system.

In the selection of LAB by their immune stimulatory capacity, it helps to know not only

the effect which they have on the mucosal immune system, but the specific use to which

these oral vaccine vectors are being put (Perdigon et al., 2001)

LAB as Starter Culture

Lactic Acid Bacteria (LAB) are the most important bacteria used in food

fermentations. Apart from general demands for starter cultures from the view of safety,

technological effectiveness and economics, numerous specific aspects have to be

considered when selecting strains for the different food fermentations. Therefore, selection

criteria for LAB depend on the type and the desired characteristics of the final product, the

desired metabolic activities, the characteristics of the raw materials and the applied

technology. A starter culture can be defined as a microbial preparation of large numbers of

cells of at least one microorganism to be added to a raw material to produce a fermented

food by accelerating and steering its fermentation process. The group of Lactic Acid

Bacteria (LAB) occupies a central role in these processes and has a long and safe history

of application and consumption in the production of fermented foods and beverages

(Caplice and Fitzgerald, 1999; Ray, 1992; Wood, 1997; Wood and Holzapfel, 1995) (Table

1). They cause rapid acidification of the raw material through the production of organic

acids, mainly lactic acid. Also, their production of acetic acid, ethanol, aroma compounds,

bacteriocins, exopolysaccharides and several enzymes is of importance. In this way they

enhance shelf life and microbial safety, improve texture and contribute to the pleasant

sensory profile of the end product.

Table 1: Fermented foods and beverages and their associated lactic acid bacteria
Symbol Lactic Acid Bacteria
B Bifidobacterium
C Carnobacterium
L Lactococcus
Lb Lactobacillus
Leuc Leuconostoc
O Oenococcus
P Pediococcus
S Streptococcus
T Tetragenococcus
W Weisella

The earliest production of fermented foods was based on spontaneous fermentation

due to the development of the microflora naturally present in the raw material. The quality

of the end product was dependent on the microbial load and spectrum of the raw material.

Spontaneous fermentation was optimized through back-slopping, i.e., inoculation of the

raw material with a small quantity of a previously performed successful fermentation.

Hence, back-slopping results in dominance of the best adapted strains. It represents a way,

be it unconsciously, of using a selected starter culture to shorten the fermentation process

and to reduce the risk of fermentation failure. Back-slopping is still in use, for instance in

the production of sauerkraut and sourdough and particularly for products for which the

microbial ecology and the precise role of successions in microbial population are not well

known (Harris, 1998). Today, the production of fermented foods and beverages through

spontaneous fermentation and back-slopping represents a cheap and reliable preservation

method in less developed countries, whereas in Western countries the large-scale

production of fermented foods has become an important branch of the food industry.

Moreover, the Western consumer appreciates traditionally fermented products for their

outstanding gastronomic qualities. The direct addition of selected starter cultures to raw

materials has been a breakthrough in the processing of fermented foods, resulting in a high

degree of control over the fermentation process and standardization of the end product.

Strains with the proper physiological and metabolic features were isolated from natural

habitats or from successfully fermented products (Oberman and Libudzisz, 1998).

However, some disadvantages have to be considered. In general, the initial selection of

commercial starter cultures did not occur in a rational way, but was based on rapid

acidification and phage resistance. These starters are not very flexible with regard to the

desired properties and functionality of the end product. Originally, industrial starter

cultures were maintained by daily propagation. Later, they became available as frozen

concentrates and dried or lyophilized preparations, produced on an industrial scale, some

of them allowing direct vat inoculation (Sandine, 1996).

 Because the original starter cultures were mixtures of several undefined microbes,

the daily propagation probably led to shifts of the ecosystem resulting in the disappearance

of certain strains. Moreover, some important metabolic traits in LAB are plasmid-encoded

and there is a risk that they are lost during propagation. It is further likely that loss of

genetic material occurred due to adaptation to the food matrix. The biodiversity of

commercial starters has therefore become limited. This often leads to a loss of the

uniqueness of the original product and the loss of the characteristics that have made the

product popular (Caplice and Fitzgerald, 1999). In contrast, the fermentation of traditional

fermented foods is frequently caused by natural, wild-type LAB that originate from the raw

material, the process apparatus, or the environment and that initiate the fermentation

process in the absence of an added commercial starter (Bocker et al., 1995; Weerkamp et

al., 1996). Moreover, many traditional products obtain their flavour intensity from the Non-

Starter Lactic Acid Bacteria (NSLAB), which are not part of the normal starter flora but

develop in the product, particularly during maturation, as a secondary flora (Beresford et

al., 2001). Pure cultures isolated from complex ecosystems of traditionally fermented foods

exhibit a diversity of metabolic activities that diverge strongly from the ones of comparable

strains used as industrial bulk starters (Klijn et al., 1995). These include differences in

growth rate and competitive growth behavior in mixed cultures, adaptation to a particular

substrate or raw material, antimicrobial properties and flavour, aroma and quality

attributes. Wild

strains need to withstand the competition of other microorganisms to survive in their hostile

natural environment, so that they often produce antimicrobials such as bacteriocins (Ayad

et al., 2002).
 In addition, they are more dependenton their own biosynthetic capacity than

industrial strains and harbour more amino acid converting enzymes that play a key role in

flavour formation. Such findings underline the importance of the Designation of Protected

Origin (DPO) of many of these products, which is crucial from an economical point of

view since they contribute to the survival of small-scale fermentation plants in a world of

ongoing globalization. A recent trend exists in the isolation of wild-type strains from

traditional products to be used as starter cultures in food fermentation (Beukes et al., 2001;

De Vuyst et al., 2002; Hebert et al., 2000). Many indigenous cereal fermentations involve

the combine action of bacteria and yeast. L. fermentum and L. amylovorus have been

suggested to be the predominating microorganisms during fermentation of sorghum dough

in Sudanese Kisra (Asmahan and Muna, 2009), also the use of Lactobacillus starter in

sorghum flour fermentation decreased the traditional fermentation time from 19 to 6 h, the

thing that might contribute, in no small way, in encouraging the production and

development of more sorghum based products. Using yeast during Lactobacillus

fermentation of sorghum has, furtherly, shortened the fermentation time to 4 h. The pH was

decreased to 3.7 (Asmahan, 2007). Indigenous fermented food represents a unique source

for future application in food technology. Little or no scientific information on lactic acid

bacteria in certain indigenous, fermented sorghum products in Africa, Kisra is a prime

example of such a product.

Applications of LAB in Sows

Although there are relatively few studies about the application of LAB in sows, it

is very important to conduct research in this field. In a recent study, the effects of L.

johnsonii XS4 (control group received basal diet and experiment group received the same

diet supplemented with L. johnsonii XS4, from 90th day of pregnancy to the weaning day

at 25th day of lactation) on reproductive performance, gut environment, and blood

biochemical and immunological indexes of sows were investigated. The results showed

that administration of L. johnsonii XS4 in diets towards the end of pregnancy and during

lactation had positive effects on the performance of sows, increasing litter weight at birth,

20-day litter weight, the number of piglets at weaning and weaning litter weight, along

with a significant increase in serum IgG levels and a decrease in alanine aminotransferase

concentrations (Wang J. et al, 2014) Lactina, a mixture of Streptococcus thermophiles, E.

faecium, L. bulgaricus, L. acidophilus, L. helveticus and L. plantarum, supplemented both

to sow and piglet diets, increased complement activity in piglets at 5 days of age compared

with a control group, while the addition of Lactina to sows only or to piglets only did not

produce any significant effects (Gudev D. et al,2008). Another probiotic mixture of B.

licheniformis and B. subtilis (normal feed plus the probiotic mixture vs. untreated control

group) was shown to improve sow feed intake and decrease sow weight loss during the

sucking period (Alexopoulos C. et al,2004).

 According to Jkeda et al., 2013, LABS culture maybe kept or last until six (6)

months if this will be refrigerated and three (3) weeks if not refrigerated respectively. The

table showed the concentration of LABS ain water volume in a gallon basis.

Table 2.Concentration of LABS in water volume in gallon basis

Water Volume (gal) Amount of LABS (ml)
½ gallon 2 ml
1 gallon 4 ml
5 gallons 19 ml
10 gallons 38 ml
25 gallons 95 ml
Sustainable Agriculture, August 2013. (CTAHR) University of Hawaii
 METHODOLOGY

Materials

The different materials used in the study was one hundred-twenty (120) heads of

day old Minerva, water drinkers, feeding trough, old sacks, newspapers, incandescent

bulbs, vitamins, three (3) litres of 1st rice wash, plastic pail, manila paper, string, ten (10)

litres of fresh milk and water jug.

Production of Lactic Acid Bacteria Serum

Place 3 litres of 1st rice wash in a plastic container or pail and cover it with cloth.

Store in a dry cool place and ferment for seven (7) days. After seven (7) days of

fermentation, the rice bran will float and the liquid turn sour. Then remove one (1) litre of

the clear middle portion with a siphon. In 5-7 days the carbohydrates, protein and fats will

float leaving a yellow liquid which is the whey (serum). This contains the lactic acid

bacteria. Finally, siphon the yellow liquid.

Housing Preparation

The housing of the Aurora State College of Technology’s Extension Project was

utilized in this study. The poultry house was prepared, cleaned, and disinfected prior to the

arrival of the chicks. The cages of the chicks will be repaired and electrical wiring was

installed to ensure proper distribution of electricity. Putting up sacks and other covering
material were placed on the sidings of the house to provide protection against strong winds,

heavy rains, and other environmental factor.

Cleaning and Disinfection

The poultry house were cleaned and disinfected by chlorine dilution prior to the

arrival of the chicks to ensure safety from any poultry diseases. This was the common

practice used to eradicate microorganism and parasites present in the area.

Selection and Procurement of Stocks

One hundred-twenty (120) heads of day old Minerva was used in the study. Chicks

of uniform in size, healthy, with bright eyes, floppy feathers, and have active movement re

the criteria that will be used in selecting stocks. The chicks were purchased from a reliable

agricultural supply in the locality.

Brooding of Chicks

Brooding was a process of giving supplemental heat to the chicks from first day up

to 14th day to help maintain their body temperature. This was the most critical period in the

life cycle of the chicks in order to sustain the heat requirement during brooding and

growing management were provided to all broilers through a watt required per head for a

period of two weeks.

Waste Disposal and Health Sanitation

To prevent the occurrence of external parasites and outbreak of diseases in the

poultry area, all materials like dirty newspapers were properly disposed in a proper area to

avoid accumulation of unpleasant odour and excess ammonia.

Feeding of Birds

The time duration of feeding was as follows: Chick booster (1-14 days), broiler

starter (15-25 days) and grower (26-35 days). Ad libitum feeding was practice following

the gradual method even shifting into a new feeds.

Provision of Water with Lactic Acid Bacteria Serum

One (1) litre of water with varying levels of LABS was given ad libitum all
throughout the study.

Table 3. Different Levels of Treatment

Treatment 1 (Control) Pure concentrated water
Treatment2 1 litre of water and 30 ml of LABS
Treatment 3 1 litre of water and 40 ml of LABS
Treatment 4 1 litre of water and 50 ml of LABS
Experimental Design

One hundred-twenty (120) heads of day-old Minerva chicks was randomly

distributed into four (4) treatments, replicated three (3) times with 10 heads per replication.

The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used in this study using Complete Randomized

Design (CRD) in single factor experiment.

 DATA GATHERED

1. Average Initial Weight (AIW)

The average weight was taken on the 15th day after brooding before it was

distributed to different treatment per replicate. The initial weight was determined through

the total weight of all chicks divided by the total number of all chicks.

A.I.W = total weight of all chicks

Total number of chicks

2. Average Weekly Weight Gain (AWWG)

The weight was measured weekly to determine the increase of weight in every chick

while administering different levels of lactic acid bacteria. The weight of the chicks after

brooding stage was initial weight before giving the treatment. Weekly weight gain was on

3rd week of age and 4th week of age respectively.

A.W.W.G = Present weight - previous weight

Total number of chicks
3. Average Final Body Weight (AFBW)

Average final body weight was assessed on the 35th day of the broiler chicken using
the formula:

A.B.W = Average Final Body Weight - Average Initial Weight

Total Number of Birds

4. Average Feed Consumption (AFC)

Average feed consumption was determined using the formula:

A.F.C = Total feeds consumed

Total number of bird

5. Dressing Percentage

Dressing percentage was determined using the formula:

DP = Dressed Weight x 100

Live Weight
6. Return on Investment (ROI)

The return on investment was computed with the total net income over the total

expenses x 100 and over all the cost and return analysis was computed using the following

formula:

Net Income = Total Revenue – Total Cost

Return on Investment (ROI) = Total Net Income x 100

Total Operating Cost
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter summarizes the collected data and the statistical treatments and

mechanism of analysis. Explain the object of experiment, questioner objective point out

salient results and present result. By table of summarized.

Table 5. Average Weekly Weight Gain (1st Weighing)

Replicate Treatment Treatment
Treatment
1 2 3 Total Mean

4 760 772 715 2,247 749

2 682 762 726 2,170 723

3 727 662 731 2,120 707

1 634 718 717 2,069 690

Grand Total 8,600

Grand Mean 717.17

The table shows the result of the average weekly weight gain of broilers on their

1st weighing. Treatment 4 got the highest treatment mean which is 749 g, followed by

treatment 2 got 723 g, then treatment 3 that has 707 g. And lastly, treatment 1 which is

the control got the lowest weight with a mean of 690 g.

Table 5a. Analysis of Variance of Weekly Weight Gain (1st Weighing)
Source of Degree of Sum of Mean Computed Tabular F
Variation Freedom Square Square F b 5% 1%
Treatment 3 5,753.667 1,917.889 1.21 4.070 7.590

Error 8 12,666.00 1,583.250

Total 11 18,419.667

a
cv = 5.55%
b
ns = not significant

Analysis of Variance in Table 5a presents that has no significant effect differences

for all measurements of water intake with LABS.

Table 6. Average Weekly Weight Gain (2nd Weighing)

Replicate Treatment Treatment
Treatment
1 2 3 Total Mean

1 531 503 579 1,613 538

2 526 514 519 1,559 520

4 425 409 640 1,514 505

3 523 477 415 1,415 472

Grand Total 6,101

Grand Mean 508.42

Table 6a. Analysis of Weekly Weight Gain (2nd Weighing)
Source of Degree of Sum of Mean Computed Tabular F
Variation Freedom Square Square Fb 5% 1%
Treatment 3 7,740.250 2,580.083 0.49 4.070 7.590

Error 8 42,182.667 5,272.833

Total 11 49,922.917

a
cv = 14.38%
b
ns = not significant

Base on Table 6, treatment 1 (pure water) has the highest weight with a mean of

538 g, followed by treatment 2 with 520 g, then treatment 4 got a mean of 505 g and

finally treatment 3 got the lowest mean with a mean of 472. It also showed in Table 6a

that it has no significant effect on weekly weight gain same as the first weighing.

Table 7. Average Weight of Heart

Replicate Treatment Treatment
Treatment
1 2 3 Total Mean

1 11 11.75 11.72 34.47 11.49

4 10.96 11.03 12 33.99 11.033

2 10.75 11.03 11.02 33.07 11.02

3 10.65 10.22 11.58 32.45 10.82

Grand Total 133.98

Grand Mean 11.17

Table 7a. Analysis of Weight of Heart
Source of Degree of Sum of Mean Computed Tabular F
Variation Freedom Square Square Fb 5% 1%
Treatment 3 0.917 0.306 1.19 4.070 7.590

Error 8 2.053 0.257

Total 11 2.971

a
cv = 4.55%
b
ns = not significant

Table 7a shows that it has no significant differences for all measurements on

average weight of heart.

Table 8. Average Weight of Liver

Replicate Treatment Treatment
Treatment
1 2 3 Total Mean

4 44.13 43.59 45.06 132.78 44.26 a

3 41.94 41.27 44.35 127.56 42.52 ab

2 41.94 41.51 42.56 125.64 41.88 b

1 40.40 41.65 40.96 122.01 41.00 b

Grand Total 508.99

Grand Mean 42.42

Table 8a. Analysis of Weight of Liver
Source of Degree of Sum of Mean Computed Tabular F
Variation Freedom Square Square Fb 5% 1%
Treatment 3 16.720 5.573 5.79 4.070 7.590

Error 8 7.695 0.962

Total 11 24.415

a
cv = 2.31%
b
s = significant

It showed in Table 8 that treatment 4 has the highest weight in liver with a mean

of 44. 26 g secondly is treatment 3 with a mean of 42. 52 g, then treatment 2 with 41. 88

g and the lowest mean got by treatment 1 with a mean of 41. 00. It also showed that it has

a significant effect for all measurements in the average weight of liver.

Table 9.Average Weight of Gizzard

Replicate Treatment Treatment
Treatment
1 2 3 Total Mean

4 41.82 41.57 42.01 12.04 41.68 a

2 40.53 39.81 41.74 122.08 40.69 b

1 40.19 40.10 40.91 121.2 40.4 b

3 39.40 40.25 39.76 119.41 39.80 b

Grand Total 488.09

Grand Mean 40.67

Table 9a. Analysis of Weight of Gizzard
Source of Degree of Sum of Mean Computed Tabular F
Variation Freedom Square Square Fb 5% 1%
Treatment 3 6.304 2.101 6.10 4.070 7.590

Error 8 2.758 0.345

Total 11 9.062

a
cv = 1.44%
b
s = significant

Table 9 shows that it has a significant difference for all measurements on average

weight of gizzard.

Table 10. Average Final Body Weight

Replicate Treatment Treatment
Treatment
1 2 3 Total Mean

2 99.07 108.4 103.73 311.2 103.73

4 106 86.4 111.2 303.2 101.20

1 96.67 92 104.4 293.07 97.69

3 95.73 104.4 89.87 294 96.69

Grand Total 1,201.47

Grand Mean 100.12

Table 10a. Analysis of Final Body Weight
Source of Degree of Sum of Mean Computed Tabular F
Variation Freedom Square Square Fb 5% 1%
Treatment 3 95.097 31.699 0.44 4.070 7.590

Error 8 570.922 71.365

Total 11 666.018

a
cv = 8.46%
b
ns = not significant

Table 10 shows the average final body weight of broilers. The highest weight is

103. 73 kg in treatment 2, treatment 4 has a mean of 101. 20 kg, then treatment 1 with

97.69 kg and treatment 3 got the lowest mean with 96.69 kg.

Table 11. Average Dressing Percentage of Broilers

Replicate Treatment Treatment
Treatment
1 2 3 Total Mean

3 85.31 87.19 89.12 261.18 87.21

1 84.60 88.65 83.93 253.86 85.73

4 83.54 86.92 83.40 253.86 84.62

2 82.09 77.13 84.42 243.64 81.21

Grand Total 1,016.03

Grand Mean 84.69

Table 11a. Analysis of Dressing Percentage of Broilers
Source of Degree of Sum of Mean Computed Tabular F
Variation Freedom Square Square Fb 5% 1%
Treatment 3 58.501 19.500 2.79 4.070 7.590

Error 8 55.971 6.996

Total 11 114.473

a
cv = 3.12%
b
ns = not significant

The table shows the dressing percentage of broilers. Treatment 3 has the highest

mean with 87.21 kg, followed by treatment 1 with a mean of 85.73 kg, then treatment 4

with 84.62 kg, and 81.21 kg.

Table12.Average Feed Consumption

Replicate Treatment Treatment
Treatment
1 2 3 Total Mean

3 2.25 2.25 2.25 6.75 2.25

4 2.15 2.15 2.15 6.45 2.15

2 2.02 2.02 2.02 6.6 2.02

1 2.05 2.05 2.05 6.15 2.05

Grand Total 24.85

Grand Mean 2.07

Table 12a. Analysis of Average Feed Consumption
Source of Degree of Sum of Mean Computed Tabular F
Variation Freedom Square Square Fb 5% 1%
Treatment 3 0.081 0.027 32.41 4.70 7.590

Error 8 0.007 0.001

Total 11 0.088

a
cv = 1.36%
b
hs = highly significant

Table 12 shows the average feed consumption. The different treatments showed

that it has high significant difference among mean. However, treatment 3 was recorded to

give the highest consumption with the mean 2. 25 kg followed by treatment 4 which was

2.15 kg, while the lowest consumed are the treatment 2 and 1 which was 2.02 kg and 2.05

kg.

Cost and Return Analysis

In this study, there were four treatments with different expenses: Treatment 4 with

P4, 670.00, Treatment 3 with P4, 761.00, Treatment 2 with P4, 638.00 and Treatment 1

with P4, 560.00

Treatment 3 (40 ml of LABS/L of water) got the highest percentage return on

investment (ROI) with 11. 60% among the four (4) treatments, with Php. 540. 00 net

income; Treatment 4 (50 ml of LABS/L of water) got 10. 35% return on investment (ROI)
with Php. 473 net income; Treatment 2 (30 ml of LABS/L of water got 10. 05 % of return

on investment (ROI) with Php. 470.00 net income.

However, Treatment 1 (control) got the lowest return on investment (ROI) among

all treatments with 7.08% with a net income of Php. 343.00.

 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

This study was conducted at the Extension Project at Aurora State College of

Technology, Bazal Campus, Maria Aurora, Aurora from December 31, 2017 to February

04, 2018 to find out and determine the effect of Lactic Acid Bacteria (LABS) as additives

on water requirement of broilers. The different treatment was tested with assigned levels.

Treatment 1 (control), Treatment 2 (30 ml of Labs mixed with a litre of water, Treatment

3 (40 ml LABS/L of water), and Treatment 4 (50 ml of LABS/L of water). This study was

analysed using Complete Randomized Design (CRD), Treatment 3 (40 ml LABS/L of

water), and Treatment 4 (50 ml of LABS/L of water). This study was analysed using

Complete Randomized Design (CRD), Treatment 3 (40 ml LABS/L of water), and

Treatment 4 (50 ml of LABS/L of water). This study was analysed using Complete

Randomized Design (CRD) single factor experiment with three replications; Analysis of

Variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the significant effect among treatment.
Conclusion

Data gathered shows that broilers had significant effect on the carcass yield and has

a highly significant on average feed consumption. Further, the study shows the effect of

LABS on broilers. LABS are known as an alternative antibiotic which is safer to use as a

vitamins for animals. And it also has a beneficial microorganism which can decrease the

incidence of gastrointestinal disorders and it can also produce anti-microbial substances,

which have been observed to inhibit the growth of some pathogenic microorganisms in

human body.

Recommendations

The researcher recommended using Lactic Acid Bacteria Serum (LABS) as an

alternative vitamin to be given to broilers to further enhance their immune system. But not

just in broilers, it can be also use in different animals.

 REFERENCES

Aguirre, M. and M.D. Collins, 1993. Lactic acid bacteria and human clinical infection. J.
Applied Bacteriol., 75: 95-107.

Asmahan, A.A. and M.M. Muna, 2009. Use of starter cultures of lactic acid bacteria and
yeasts in the preparation of kisra, a Sudanese fermented food. Pak. J. Nutr.,
8: 1349-1353.

Asmahan, A.A., 2007. Starter development for the fermentation of sorghum flour. Master
Thesis, Sudan Academy of Sciences

Ayad, E.H.E., A. Verheul, J.T.M. Wouters and G. Smit, 2002. Antimicrobial-producing

wild Lactococci isolated from artisanal and non-dairy origins. Int. Dairy J.,
12: 145-150.

Beresford, T.P., N.A. Fitzsimons, N.L. Brennan and T.M. Cogan, 2001. Recent advances
in cheese microbiology. Int. Dairy J., 11: 259-274.

Beukes, E.M., B.H. Bester and J.F. Mostert, 2001. The microbiology of South African
traditional fermented milks. Int. J. Food Microbiol., 63: 189-197.

Bocker, G., P. Stolz and W.P. Hammes, 1995. Neue erkenntnisse zum okosystem sauerteig
und zur physiologie der sauerteigtypischen stamme Lactobacillus
sanfrancisco und Lactobacillus pontis. Getreide Mehl. Und Brot., 49: 370-
374.

Cai, Y., Y. Benno, A. Takeda, T. Yoshida, T. Itays and T. Nakase, 1998. Characterization
of Leuconostoc species isolated from vacuum-packed ham. J. Gen. Applied
Microbiol., 44: 153-159.

Caplice, E. and G.F. Fitzgerald, 1999. Food fermentations: Role of microorganisms in food
production and preservation. Int. J. Food Microbiol., 50: 131-149.

Collins, C.H. and P.M. Lyne, 1976. Microbiological Methods. 4th Edn., Butterworth and
Co., London, pp: 401-433.

Collins, C.H. and P.M. Lyne, 1984. Microbiological Methods. 5th Edn., Butterworths,
London, ISBN: 9780408709576, pp: 448.

Collins, J.K., G. Thornton and G.D. Sullivan, 1998. Selection of probiotic strains for
human applications. Int. Dairy J., 8: 487-490.
De Vuyst, L., V. Schrijvers, S. Paramithiotis, B. Hoste and M. Vancanneyt et al., 2002.
The biodiversity of lactic acid bacteria in Greek traditional wheat
sourdoughs is reflected in both composition and metabolite formation.
Applied Environ. Microbiol., 68: 6059-6069.

Grasson, M., 2002. Institute of food research. http://www.ifr.ac.uk/.

Harris, L.J., 1998. The Microbiology of Vegetable Fermentations. In: Microbiology of

Fermented Foods, Wood, B.J.B. (Ed.). Blackie Academic and Professional,
London, pp: 45-72.

Hastings, J.W. and W.H. Holzapfel, 1987. Conventional taxonomy of Lactobacilli

surviving radurization of meat. J. Applied Bacteriol., 62: 209-216.

Hebert, E.M., R.R. Raya, P. Tailliez and G.S. de Giori, 2000. Characterization of natural
isolates of Lactobacillus strains to be used as starter cultures in dairy
fermentation. Int. J. Food Microbiol., 59: 19-27.

Jay, J.M., 1992. Modern Food Microbiology. 4th Edn., Chapman and Hall Inc., New York,
USA., ISBN: 0442007337.

Jay, M.J., 1986. Modern Food Microbiology. 3rd Edn., Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New
York, USA.

Kandler, C. and N. Weiss, 1986. The Genus Lactobacillus. In: Bergey's Manual of
Systematic Bacteriology, Sneath, P.H.A., N.S. Mair, M.E. Sharpe and J.G.
Holt (Eds.). Academic Press, London, pp: 1209.

Kandler, O. and P. Kunath, 1983. Lactobacillus kefir sp. Nov. a component of the
microflora of kefir. Systematic Applied Microbiol., 4: 286-288.

Klaenhammer, T.R. and M.J. Kullen, 1999. Selection and design of probiotics. Int. J. Food
Microbiol., 50: 45-57.

Kleessen, B., E. Bezirtzoglou and J. Matto, 2000. Culture- based knowledge on

biodiversity, development and stability of human gastrointestinal
microflora. Microbial. Ecol. Health Dis., 12: 53-63.

Klijn, N., A.H. Weerkamp and W.M. de Vos, 1995. Detection and characterization of
lactose-utilizing Lactococcus spp. in natural ecosystems. Applied Environ.
Microbiol., 61: 788-792.

Macfarlane, S., M.J. Hopkins and G.T. Macfarlane, 2000. Bacterial growth and metabolism
on surfaces in the large intestine. Microbial. Ecol. Health Dis., 12: 64-72.
Martinez, F.D. and P.G. Holt, 1999. Role of microbial burden in a etiology of allergy and
asthma. Lancet, 354: 1215-1220.

Mattila-Sandholm, T., J. Matto and M. Saarela, 1999. Lactic acid bacteria with health
claims-interactions and interference with gastrointestinal flora. Int. Dairy J.,
91: 25-35.

Metchnikoff, E., 1908. The Prolongation of Life. Putnam and Sons, New York.

Oberman, H. and Z. Libudzisz, 1998. Fermented Milks. In: Microbiology of Fermented

Foods, Wood, B.J.B. (Ed.). Blackie Academic and Professional, London,
ISBN: 0751402168, pp: 308-350.

Pathmakanthan, S., S. Meance and C.A. Edwards, 2000. Probiotics: a review of human
studies to date and methodological approaches. Microbial. Ecol. Health
Dis., 12: 10-30.

Perdigon, G., R. Fuller and R. Raya, 2001. Lactic acid bacteria and their effect on the
immune system. Curr. Issues Intestinal. Microbiol., 2: 27-42.

Priest, F.G. and I. Campbell, 1996. Brewing Microbiology. 2nd Edn., International Center
for Brewing and Distilling, Chapman and Hall, UK., pp: 134-156.

Ray, B., 1992. The Need for Food Bio Preservation. In: Food Bio Preservatives of
Microbial Origin, Ray, B. and M. Daeschel (Eds.). CRC Press, Boca Raton,
Florida, pp: 1-23.

Rogosa, M., 1974. Gram Positive Asporogenous, Rod-shaped Bacteria. In: Bergey's
Manual of Determinative Bacteriology, Buchanan, R.E. and N.E. Gibbons
(Eds.). 8th Edn., Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, pp: 576-593.

Saad, S.M., C. Vanzin, M.N. Oliveira and B.D. Franco, 2001. Influence of lactic acid
bacteria on survival of Escherichia coli inoculated Minas cheese during
storage at 8.5 degrees C. J. Food Protec., 64: 115-150.

Salminen, S., A.C. Ouwehand and E. Isolauri, 2000. Clinical applications of probiotic
bacteria. Int. Dairy J., 8: 563-572.

Sandine, W.E., 1996. Commercial Production of Dairy Starter Cultures. In: Dairy Starter
Cultures, Cogan, T.M. and J.P. Accolas (Eds.). Wiley-VCH, New York, pp:
191-206.
Schillinger, U. and F.K. Lucke, 1987. Identification of lactobacilli from meat and meat
product. Food Microbiol., 4: 199-208.

Sharpe, M.E., 1979. Lactic acid bacteria in the dairy industry. J. Soc. Dairy Technol., 32:
9-17.

Sharpe, M.E., 1981. The Genus Lactobacillus. In: The Prokaryotes a Handbook on
Habitats, Isolation and Identification of Bacteria, Star, M.P., H. Stolp, A.
Balows and H. Schlgel (Eds.). Springer, New York, pp: 1653- 1679.

Steinkrause, K.H., 1995. Handbook of Indigenous Fermented Foods. Marcel Dekker, New
York, pp: 76.

Tannock, G.W., 1998. Studies of the intestinal microflora: a prerequisite for the
development of probiotics. Int. Dairy J., 8: 527-533.

Van den Biggelaar, A.H.J., R. van Ree, L.C. Rodrigues, B. Lell, A.M. Deelder, P.G.
Kremsner and M. Yasdanbakhsh, 2000. Decreased atopy in children
infected with Schistosoma haematobium: A role for parasite-induced
interleukin-10. Lancet, 356: 1723-1727.

Vinderola, C.G., P. Mocchiutti and J.A. Reinheimer, 2002. Interactions among lactic acid
starter and probiotic bacteria used for fermented dairy products. J. Dairy
Sci., 85: 721-729.

Weerkamp, A.H., N. Klijn, R. Neeter and G. Smit, 1996. Properties of mesophilic lactic
acid bacteria from raw milk and naturally fermented raw products. Neth.
Milk Dairy J., 50: 319-322.

Wood, B.J., 1992. The Lactic Acid Bacteria in Health and Disease. Elsevier Applied
Science, London.

Wood, B.J.B. and W.H. Holzapfel, 1995. The Genera of Lactic Acid Bacteria. Vol. 2,
Blackie Academic and Professional, Glasgow.

Wood, B.J.B., 1997. Microbiology of Fermented Foods. Blackie Academic and

Professional, London.

Yost, C.K. and F.M. Nattress, 2002. Molecular typing technique to characterize the
development of lactic acid bacteria community on vacuum-packed beef. Int.
J. Food Microbiol., 72: 97-105.