The usage of enzymc, probiotic and antihiotic in laying hen rations

Abstract

This stucly was edrricd out LO cleternıine the cfleets of the usage of enzyıııe. prohiotie or anııhioıiL ~ı1üne or iıı LomhınaliOLJ ın the raUons ,)n live weight. feed consıımption. egg procluetion. feed effieieney ~ınd cgg qualiıy or I~ıving Iıen' !\ ı"I~ı1 Ol' iSı) Isa Brown layer, aged 2S weeks \Vere ıısed in this experınıent. They were dıvıded iLJto 7 groLJps (i Cl'nırol 'lIlel (ı ıreaııııenı groLJP'1 e,ıciı contaııııng 27 hens. Eaeh group was divided into 3 .subgroups containing l) hens. Diels hasc'd on wlıc'al ~1I1dh~ırlcy \ıCIl' ~1I"'~\Ilged.Experimenıal dieıs were ,upplcmenıed with enzyme. probiolie ancl antihıotıc ~ı1one or in eoıııhindıııın. Cirında/ym'\1 Cil' 5(HHI (lıeıııicellulase, pel\lOSdna,e, p-glueandse (SIlOO uniı/g). pectinase, proted,e, anıylase) at ıhe levels of 11.5 kg/ııın 'I' en/vıııe. 13locell (S(/(.clwrtll17IC1'S u'rev/sıal'. 2.5 X lO'! CFU/g) dt O.7S kg/ton as probiotie and Sıafae 20 (2c h vırginıaıııycıııı ~ii i kg/ıon d' dıııihıoıic (20 ppm virginiamycin) were USl'd. The cxperinıental period lasted 21l weeb. At ıhe enel of ıhe ,tııclv, tlıere were no S!aıi'licdly differenees anıong ıhe groups ın live weight. feed e1lieieney. cgg yolk index. egg white inclex ,ınci egg ILıııglı llIlıh Egg prodLJLlion \vas signirieanıly inereased (p~1I11lhIOIIL+prohıoıie dnd enzyme+prnbiotie lo ıhe rdtioııs. Egg \Veight WdS signifiedntly ınıprovee! (por enıyıııe. antibıoıie+probioııe ancl enzynıe+probiotie to the raııons. As a resıılt. the suppleıııentaıion of prohıoıı" ",iılı eıı/yınc or ~lIl1lhıolıC LO the ralions based on wheat and barley inıproved cgg produetion and egg, weıght wiıhollt d,!Yer.sc c'llel'l ıııı Iced elTıeiency and sonıe egg (jııaliıy eharaeteristies.)>