The anticoccidial effects of probiotics and prebiotics on the live coccidia vaccine and the subsequent influence on poultry performance post-challenge with mixed Eimeria species

Live vaccines containing Eimeria oocysts are commercially available to protect against avian coccidiosis. Additionally, probiotics (PRO) and prebiotics (PRE) improve the poultry productivity and health and can be used as anticoccidial substitutes. However, the impact of PRO and PRE on reproductive potential, lesion score, intestinal health, and immunization outcomes of the live coccidia vaccines has not received adequate attention. Five groups of unsexed 1-day-old broiler chicks were used as follows: negative control (NC); challenged control (CC); vaccinated and challenged (VC); vaccinated, PRO-treated, and challenged (V-PRO); and vaccinated, PRE-treated, and challenged (V-PRE). At 21 d post-vaccination (pv), the vaccine increased the count of cecal anaerobes (P ≤ 0.05) and coliforms (P > 0.05) as well as harmed body weight gain (WG) (P ≤ 0.05), cecal lactic acid bacteria (P ≤ 0.05), and plasma carotenoid level (P > 0.05). None of the additives decreased oocyst shedding after vaccination, although they lowered the middle intestine and cecal lesion scores (P > 0.05). Compared to VC (2.68 ± 0.12) and V-PRE (2.66 ± 0.05), the V-PRO group showed an improved carotenoid level pv (2.96 ± 0.05) (P ≤ 0.05). V-PRE exhibited higher WG (822.95 ± 18.25) (P > 0.05) and FI (1153.01 ± 10.02) (P ≤ 0.05) than VC (781.86 ± 25.16 and 1109.85 ± 33.68) and V-PRO pv (787.61 ± 19.92 and 1077.43 ± 15.99). Following the homologous coccidia challenge, coccidia-vaccinated broilers adminstered the PRO or PRE continued to exhibit protection levels comparable to those received the vaccine alone. During 2 weeks post-challenge, VC, V-PRO and V-PRE improved bird performance and reduced oocyst shedding and lesion scores compared to CC. Ultimately, PRO and PRE treatments did not significantly reverse the reduction in growth performance in broiler chickens vaccinated against coccidia during the 1st three weeks of age.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Poultry Science
Published
2024-08-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.104283
Citations
8
Primary Topic
Coccidia and coccidiosis research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.73

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The anticoccidial effects of probiotics and prebiotics on the live coccidia vaccine and the subsequent influence on poultry performance post-challenge with mixed Eimeria species

Samar S. Elblehi, Ghadeer Mohsen Albadrani, Mohamed M. Abdel‐Daim, Muath Q. Al‐Ghadi et al.
8 citations
Poultry Science
Coccidia and coccidiosis research
2.73
article

The anticoccidial effects of probiotics and prebiotics on the live coccidia vaccine and the subsequent influence on poultry performance post-challenge with mixed Eimeria species

Samar S. Elblehi, Ghadeer Mohsen Albadrani, Mohamed M. Abdel‐Daim, Muath Q. Al‐Ghadi, Nagwa I. El‐Kasrawy, Nahed A. El‐Shall, Karima El‐Naggar
article en
8 citations

Abstract

Live vaccines containing Eimeria oocysts are commercially available to protect against avian coccidiosis. Additionally, probiotics (PRO) and prebiotics (PRE) improve the poultry productivity and health and can be used as anticoccidial substitutes. However, the impact of PRO and PRE on reproductive potential, lesion score, intestinal health, and immunization outcomes of the live coccidia vaccines has not received adequate attention. Five groups of unsexed 1-day-old broiler chicks were used as follows: negative control (NC); challenged control (CC); vaccinated and challenged (VC); vaccinated, PRO-treated, and challenged (V-PRO); and vaccinated, PRE-treated, and challenged (V-PRE). At 21 d post-vaccination (pv), the vaccine increased the count of cecal anaerobes (P ≤ 0.05) and coliforms (P > 0.05) as well as harmed body weight gain (WG) (P ≤ 0.05), cecal lactic acid bacteria (P ≤ 0.05), and plasma carotenoid level (P > 0.05). None of the additives decreased oocyst shedding after vaccination, although they lowered the middle intestine and cecal lesion scores (P > 0.05). Compared to VC (2.68 ± 0.12) and V-PRE (2.66 ± 0.05), the V-PRO group showed an improved carotenoid level pv (2.96 ± 0.05) (P ≤ 0.05). V-PRE exhibited higher WG (822.95 ± 18.25) (P > 0.05) and FI (1153.01 ± 10.02) (P ≤ 0.05) than VC (781.86 ± 25.16 and 1109.85 ± 33.68) and V-PRO pv (787.61 ± 19.92 and 1077.43 ± 15.99). Following the homologous coccidia challenge, coccidia-vaccinated broilers adminstered the PRO or PRE continued to exhibit protection levels comparable to those received the vaccine alone. During 2 weeks post-challenge, VC, V-PRO and V-PRE improved bird performance and reduced oocyst shedding and lesion scores compared to CC. Ultimately, PRO and PRE treatments did not significantly reverse the reduction in growth performance in broiler chickens vaccinated against coccidia during the 1st three weeks of age.

Poultry ScienceVol. 103(12)
Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University (SA), Suez Canal University (EG), Damanhour University (EG), King Saud University (SA), Alexandria University (EG)
King Saud University, Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Coccidia and coccidiosis research
2.73
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.