1. Introduction
After the significant expansion in poultry breeding, the demand for their meat has doubled. Poultry meat is a major source of protein for humans, which helps ensure food security. However, intensive breeding programs and overcrowding have caused birds to be exposed to several stressors, such as bruises, lack of oxygen, pollution from droppings, moisture problems, and disease. This has led to the overuse of antibiotics, which can cause health problems ( 1 ). The European Union has been directed since 2006 to ban antibiotics as growth stimulants ( 2 ).
Researchers and poultry farmers have tended to use unconventional and available natural alternatives that can enhance the vital and physiological functions of poultry and can be added to feed to reduce disease, stimulate growth, and preserve the environment. Among them is Cordyceps sinensis, whose components act as prebiotics.
As for probiotics, they are substances that are used in poultry diets as manufactured products consisting of beneficial microorganisms isolated from the intestinal flora of the gastrointestinal tract of chickens ( 3 ). The addition of probiotics to the diet of newly hatched chicks will contribute to the transfer of these microorganisms. It is beneficial to chicks ( 4 ) as it accelerates the occurrence of microbial balance 14 days after its administration, which contributes to strengthening immune responses ( 5 ).
The primary immune response against a wide range of antigens is using antibodies and immune cells, where the components of the probiotic work to remove dead cells after tissue damage by phagocytosis ( 6 ). Therefore, this will improve the health status and product performance and also raise the rate of body weight of the broiler.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experiment Design
This experiment was conducted on the poultry farm of the Animal Production Department, College of Agriculture, University of Anbar, Ramadi, Iraq from 28/10/2021 to 8/12/2021 (42 days). In total, 210 unsexed one-day-old chicks of the Ross 308 strain were used in the experiment. The chicks weighed 40 g and were randomly divided into seven treatment groups with three replicates per treatment, and each replicate contained 10 chicks.
The treatment groups included the T1, which was considered as a control group without any addition to the diet, T2 and T3 with the addition of C. sinensis extract at a level of 300 and 600 mg/kg feed, respectively, and T4 and T5 with the addition of a probiotic at the level of 3 and 6 g/kg feed, respectively, T6 with the addition of C. sinensis extract at a level of 300 mg/kg feed + the probiotic at a level of 3 g/kg feed, and T7 with the addition of C. sinensis extract at a level of 600 mg/kg feed + the probiotic at a level of 3 g/kg fodder and 6 g/kg feed.
2.2. Diets
Three types of diet were provided during the experiment, including the first diet (starter), the second diet (grower), and the third diet (finisher) provided within the age ranges of 1-11 days, 12-21 days, and from the age of 22 days old until the end of the experiment (42 days), respectively. The diets were formed based on the Ross company guide for the year 2014 and according to the chemical composition of the diets as stated in the N.R.C. (1994) and summarized in table 1.
Item | Starter (1-11 d) | Grower (12-21( | Finisher (22-42 d) |
---|---|---|---|
Corn | 35 | 38 | 44 |
Wheat | 22.55 | 24.15 | 19.14 |
Soybean meal (44% CP) | 33 | 28 | 25 |
Protein concentrate (40% C.P.)* | 5 | 5 | 5 |
Palm oil | 2 | 3 | 5 |
Dicalcium phosphate | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
Limestone | 1.5 | 1.2 | 1.2 |
DL-Methionine | 0.2 | 0.15 | 0.2 |
Lysine | 0.05 | 0 | 0.06 |
Sodium chloride | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
Total | 100% | 100% | 100% |
**Calculated composition, % | |||
ME, kcal/kg | 2967 | 3085 | 3237 |
Protein % | 23.4 | 21.4 | 19.9 |
Lysine % | 1.37 | 1.19 | 1.15 |
methionine %+ cysteine | 1.08 | 0.98 | 0.99 |
Fiber % | 2.8 | 2.8 | 2.6 |
Calcium % | 1.07 | 0.90 | 0.86 |
Non-phytic phosphorus | 0.47 | 0.43 | 0.40 |
lipid | 4.5 | 5.6 | 7.7 |
* Protein concentrate for poultry feed Brocorn-5 special W produced by WAFI B.V. ALBLASSERDAM HOLLAND Crude Protein 40%, Crude Fat 5%, Crude Fiber 2.20%, Moisture 7.13%, Ash 28.32, Calcium 4.50%, Phosphorous 2.65%, Available Phosphorous 4.68%, Lysine 3.85%, Methionine 3.70%, Methionine + Cysteine 4.12 %, tryptophan 0.42%, threonine 1.70%, metabolizable energy 2107, selenium 2.30% and copper 4% | |||
** The chemical composition values were calculated according to N.R.C. (1994) |
2.3. Additive Treatments
Extract of C. sinensis was used as an additive to the diet; it was purchased from the Amazon site and was produced by Samsara Herbs Lindon Utah (U.S.A.) from brown crystalline powder. Moreover, the probiotic (BIO-SAC WS) was purchased from a Portuguese company, Zoopan. It should be mentioned that the probiotic is in the form of a white powder.
2.4. Growth Performance
Live body weight, weight gain, feed consumption rate, and feed conversion factor were measured as reported by Al-Zubaidi ( 7 ), ( 8 ).
2.5. Statistical Analyses
Replicate means served as the experimental unit for statistical analysis. Data were analyzed using the general linear model procedure in SAS software (SAS Institute 2002). Orthogonal comparisons were used to determine the linear and quadratic effects of the increasing levels of the fibroblast-populated collagen matrix. Mean values were compared using Tukey’s test when probability values were significant (P<0.05).
3. Results and Discussion
Live body weight is one of the most important economic characteristics that broiler breeders aim to improve, as it expresses the amount of the production yield of his project. table 2 tabulates the effects of the addition of C. sinensis extract and the probiotic to the diet on the average live body weight of broilers. The results showed no significant differences among the different treatments in terms of the average live body weight during the first three weeks of the experiment. However, T2, T4, and T6 treatments had a significant superiority in terms of the average live body weight (P≤0.05) in the fourth week, compared to T1, T5, and T7 treatments, while they did not differ significantly from T3 treatment. Moreover, in the fifth week of the experiment, all treatments were significantly (P≤0.05) superior to T1 and T2 treatments. In the sixth week of the experiment, a significant superiority (P≤0.05) was observed in T6 and T7 treatments, compared to T1, T2, T4, and T5 treatments, with 2348.6 and 2332.3 g, respectively; however, it did not differ significantly from T3 treatment with 2316.6 g.
Week | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TREATMENTS | T1 | 116.97±3.93 | 312.10±11.31 | 627.53±17.20 | 1014.13±13.54b | 1433.33±23.92b | 2155.67±18.77b |
T2 | 115.03±0.90 | 319.10±10.00 | 633.97±5.56 | 1039.57±21.39a | 1617.67±53.64a | 2279.33±81.07b | |
T3 | 110.77±2.94 | 309.97±6.50 | 625.20±11.43 | 1035.90±43.96ab | 1620.00±28.04a | 2316.67±37.26ab | |
T4 | 116.37±1.84 | 317.83±0.93 | 634.77±22.01 | 1046.03±10.71a | 1580.67±20.83a | 2287.00±42.78b | |
T5 | 113.43±2.10 | 314.50±7.04 | 622.37±26.78 | 1028.97±26.83b | 1576.00±12.29a | 2279.00±50.52b | |
T6 | 112.10±4.72 | 308.80±5.14 | 601.30±8.03 | 1070.40±37.39a | 1622.67±69.18a | 2348.67±54.96a | |
T7 | 112.50±5.60 | 306.80±11.64 | 606.27±19.27 | 1019.07±9.14b | 1602.33±44.95a | 2332.33±50.52a | |
Sg | NS | NS | NS | * | * | * | |
The values represent the mean ± standard error | |||||||
NS: not significant at the level of significance (P≤0.05) | |||||||
*: There is a significant difference between the experimental treatments | |||||||
a, b, and c: the different letters within the same row indicate the presence of significant differences between the treatments at the level of significance (P≤0.05) | |||||||
Experimental treatments: T1 control (without addition), T2 (Cordyceps level 300 mg/kg feed), T3 (Cordyceps level 600 mg/kg feed), T4 (probiotic level 3g/kg feed), T5 (probiotic level 6g/kg feed), T6 (Cordyceps 300 mg + probiotic 3 g / kg feed), T7 (Cordyceps 600 mg + probiotic 6 g / kg feed) |
The superiority of T6 and T7 treatments may be attributable to the role of C. sinensis in conjunction with the probiotic. The fungus provides indigestible nutrients, such as polysaccharides, and thereby facilitates the fermentation processes that occur in the intestines and plays a covalent role in boosting immunity and intestinal health ( 9 ). Moreover, it may be due to the role of the probiotic in enhancing thymus function ( 10 ).
These results were in line with those of a study performed by Han, Qu ( 11 ), which showed that the increase in body weight rate came from the use of C. sinensis. This fungus acts as a precursor as it is effective in the process of competitive exclusion which increases the number of beneficial bacteria at the expense of harmful bacteria in the intestines of chickens. It works (the polysaccharides) as the C. sinensis blocks the receptor sites on the surface of harmful bacteria, preventing them from sticking to the receptors of the cells lining the digestive canal, and thereby reflecting positively on improving the growth of broilers.
Results of the present study were also consistent with those of a study conducted by Zeng, Li ( 10 ), who noticed that adding the probiotic (1010) to the broiler diet led to a significant improvement (P≤0.05) in their average body weights. However, these results differed from those of a study carried out by Willis, Wall ( 12 ), who added C. sinensis at levels of 5% and 10% to the diet. They found that the reason for the decrease in the average body weight is due to the physical and chemical composition of the mushrooms, the concentration of the mushrooms, or the level used in the experiment.
Table 3 shows the effect of the addition of C. sinensis extract and the probiotic to the diet on the rate of weekly weight gain of broilers. The results showed that there were no significant differences among the different treatments of the experiment during the first three weeks. However, significant differences appeared among the treatments in the fourth week of the experiment; accordingly, T6 treatment significantly (P≤0.05) outperformed the other treatments, and in the fifth week, all treatments were significantly (P≤0.05) superior to the control T1 treatment. Moreover, in the sixth week, significant superiority (P≤0.05) appeared in each of the T1, T4, T5, T6, and T7 treatments, compared to T2 and T3 treatments.
Week | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 0-6 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TREATMENTS | T1 | 76.97±3.93 | 195.13±9.23 | 315.43±8.22 | 386.60±30.18b | 419.20±15.15b | 722.33±42.22a | 2115.67±18.77b |
T2 | 75.03±0.90 | 204.07±9.11 | 314.87±10.12 | 405.60±23.76b | 578.10±45.70a | 661.67±27.91b | 2239.33±81.07ab | |
T3 | 70.77±2.94 | 199.20±3.60 | 315.23±7.89 | 410.70±39.35b | 584.10±36.96a | 696.67±12.60b | 2276.67±37.26a | |
T4 | 76.37±1.84 | 201.47±1.32 | 316.93±22.42 | 411.27±12.02b | 534.63±31.53a | 706.33±27.71a | 2247.00±42.78a | |
T5 | 73.43±2.10 | 201.07±7.41 | 307.87±21.46 | 406.60±50.50b | 547.03±24.94a | 703.00±60.80a | 2239.00±50.52ab | |
T6 | 72.10±4.72 | 196.70±0.46 | 292.50±6.00 | 469.10±29.96a | 552.27±41.74a | 726.00±73.51a | 2308.67±54.96a | |
T7 | 72.50±5.60 | 194.30±6.06 | 299.47±7.77 | 412.80±17.91b | 583.27±42.16a | 730.00±52.54a | 2292.33±50.52a | |
Sg | NS | NS | NS | * | * | * | * | |
The values represent the mean ± standard error | ||||||||
NS: not significant at the level of significance (P≤0.05) | ||||||||
*: There is a significant difference between the experimental treatments | ||||||||
a, b, and c: the different letters within the same row indicate the presence of significant differences between the treatments at the level of significance (P≤0.05) | ||||||||
Experimental treatments: T1 control (without addition), T2 (Cordyceps level 300 mg/kg feed), T3 (Cordyceps level 600 mg/kg feed), T4 (probiotic level 3g/kg feed), T5 (probiotic level 6g/kg feed), T6 (Cordyceps 300 mg + probiotic 3 g / kg feed), T7 (Cordyceps 600 mg + probiotic 6 g / kg feed) |
Regarding the cumulative weight gain rate for the weeks of the experiment (0-6 weeks), the results showed that there were significant differences among the experimental treatments. Accordingly, T3, T4, T6, and T7 treatments significantly outperformed (P≤0.05) the control T1 treatment, while they did not differ significantly from T2 and T5 treatments. These results were in line with those of the research performed by An, Lee ( 13 ), ( 14 ), which indicated that C. sinensis extract leads to a significant increase in the rate of weight gain, in comparison to the control treatment. Moreover, the improvement of growth performance and moral superiority in the rate of weight gain is attributed to Cordycepin, ergosterol, and polysaccharides, the active substances in C. sinensis that play a vital role in improving the gut environment by raising the level of immunity, antioxidants, and antimicrobial activities. They also promote the growth of beneficial bacteria in the digestive system of broilers ( 15 ). The results also agreed with those of a study performed by Biswas, Dev ( 16 ) which indicated that the use of the probiotic contributes to a significant increase in the rate of weight gain for broilers, compared to the control treatment, by increasing the number of beneficial bacteria in the gut ( 17 ).
These results differed from those of a study performed by Gao, Wang ( 17 ), which indicated that the probiotic might not increase the rate of weight gain of broilers, in comparison with a synergistic mixture that includes probiotics with alternative nutritional supplements to antibiotics.
The characteristic of feed consumption is one of the important product characteristics and a significant economic indicator in calculating the production cost of the project. This is especially important since nutrition constitutes more than two-thirds of the total cost of broilers. During the weeks of the experiment, the results summarized in table 4 show that there were no statistically significant differences among the groups in the first four weeks of the experiment, while in the fifth week, the results showed a significant improvement (P≤0.05) in the T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, and T7 treatments, compared to the T1 control treatment. However, in the sixth week, the result of the T1 control treatment underwent a significant improvement (P≤0.05), compared to the T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, and T7 treatments, which underwent a significant decrease (P≤0.05).
Week | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TREATMENTS | T1 | 91.67±3.33 | 224.67±3.18 | 363.17±7.99 | 593.33±3.33 | 780.73±37.16b | 1258.13±4.04a | 3311.70±33.17 |
T2 | 96.67±4.41 | 218.67±4.98 | 379.00±14.57 | 595.00±5.00 | 942.93±24.51a | 1064.47±25.22b | 3296.73±38.23 | |
T3 | 96.67±6.01 | 221.17±7.10 | 374.00±7.00 | 595.00±2.89 | 916.90±11.60a | 1147.20±16.54b | 3350.93±26.09 | |
T4 | 98.33±1.67 | 224.00±3.21 | 372.33±13.28 | 590.00±7.64 | 939.83±31.24a | 1113.93±30.42b | 3338.43±54.29 | |
T5 | 93.33±6.01 | 221.67±2.60 | 375.33±12.35 | 596.67±3.33 | 936.50±4.12a | 1095.20±42.12b | 3318.70±35.28 | |
T6 | 93.33±1.67 | 223.17±2.74 | 354.83±42.20 | 585.00±5.00 | 921.80±37.19a | 1145.47±21.97b | 3323.60±16.87 | |
T7 | 96.67±6.01 | 225.50±2.60 | 384.00±12.22 | 596.67±3.33 | 934.70±42.30a | 1082.53±59.85b | 3320.07±91.41 | |
Sg | NS | NS | NS | NS | * | * | N.S. | |
The values represent the mean ± standard error | ||||||||
NS: not significant at the level of significance (P≤0.05) | ||||||||
*: There is a significant difference between the experimental treatments | ||||||||
a, b, and c: the different letters within the same row indicate the presence of significant differences between the treatments at the level of significance (P≤0.05) | ||||||||
Experimental treatments: T1 control (without addition), T2 (Cordyceps level 300 mg/kg feed), T3 (Cordyceps level 600 mg/kg feed), T4 (probiotic level 3g/kg feed), T5 (probiotic level 6g/kg feed), T6 (Cordyceps 300 mg + probiotic 3 g / kg feed), T7 (Cordyceps 600 mg + probiotic 6 g / kg feed) |
The results of the cumulative feed consumption rate for the experimental weeks (0-6 weeks) showed no significant differences (P≤0.05) among the T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, and T7 treatments.
The results of the statistical analysis were in line with those of a study performed by An, Lee ( 13 ), who found no significant difference (P≤0.05) in the feed consumption rate for Ross 308 broilers after the addition of 0.5% of C. sinensis with probiotic to their diet.
Results of this study differed from those of a study carried out by Biswas, Dev ( 16 ), which indicated that the treatment containing the probiotic at a level of 108 CFU/g feed improved the performance of feed intake for the birds in the first three weeks of rearing, compared to the control treatment.
The character of the feed conversion factor is one of the most important economic indicators of the efficiency and ability of birds to convert feed into live weight, as it depends on the amount of the consumed feed and the weight gain rate. Table 5 summarizes the effect of the addition of C. sinensis extract and the probiotic on the food conversion factor of broilers during the weeks of the experiment.
Week | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 0-6 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TREATMENTS | T1 | 1.20±0.10 | 1.16±0.04 | 1.15±0.01b | 1.56±0.14a | 1.86±0.03a | 1.76±0.10a | 1.56±0.03a |
T2 | 1.29±0.08 | 1.07±0.05 | 1.21±0.08ab | 1.47±0.08a | 1.66±0.15ab | 1.61±0.03ab | 1.48±0.05ab | |
T3 | 1.36±0.04 | 1.11±0.04 | 1.19±0.03b | 1.48±0.16a | 1.58±0.10b | 1.65±0.03ab | 1.47±0.02ab | |
T4 | 1.29±0.02 | 1.11±0.02 | 1.20±0.13b | 1.44±0.03a | 1.76±0.04a | 1.58±0.04ab | 1.48±0.01ab | |
T5 | 1.27±0.05 | 1.11±0.03 | 1.23±0.12a | 1.51±0.18a | 1.72±0.08a | 1.57±0.07ab | 1.48±0.02ab | |
T6 | 1.31±0.07 | 1.14±0.01 | 1.22±0.16a | 1.26±0.08b | 1.68±0.07ab | 1.60±0.12ab | 1.44±0.04b | |
T7 | 1.34±0.08 | 1.16±0.05 | 1.29±0.07a | 1.45±0.07a | 1.63±0.18ab | 1.49±0.03b | 1.45±0.05b | |
Sg | NS | NS | * | * | * | * | * | |
The values represent the mean ± standard error | ||||||||
NS: not significant at the level of significance (P≤0.05) | ||||||||
*: There is a significant difference between the experimental treatments | ||||||||
a, b, and c: the different letters within the same row indicate the presence of significant differences between the treatments at the level of significance (P≤0.05) | ||||||||
Experimental treatments: T1 control (without addition), T2 (Cordyceps level 300 mg/kg feed), T3 (Cordyceps level 600 mg/kg feed), T4 (probiotic level 3g/kg feed), T5 (probiotic level 6g/kg feed), T6 (Cordyceps 300 mg + probiotic 3 g / kg feed), T7 (Cordyceps 600 mg + probiotic 6 g / kg feed) |
The results showed no significant differences in the first and second weeks of the experiment. In the third week, the results indicated a significant deterioration (P≤0.05) in T5, T6, and T7 treatments, compared to T1, T3, and T4 treatments, and it did not differ significantly from the T2 treatment. As for the fourth week, the results had a significant deterioration (P≤0.05) in all treatments, compared to the T6 treatment.
Regarding the fifth week, the results showed a significant deterioration (P≤0.05) in T1, T4, and T5 treatments, compared to the T3 treatment, and it did not differ significantly from T2, T6, and T7 treatments. In the sixth week, the results showed a significant improvement (P≤0.05) for the T7 treatment, compared to the T1 control treatment as it did not differ significantly from T2, T3, T4, T5, and T6 treatments. However, in the cumulative average of the experimental weeks (0-6 weeks), the results showed a significant improvement (P≤0.05) in T6 and T7 treatments, compared to the other experimental treatments. Results of the T1 control group did not differ significantly from those of the T2, T3, T4, and T5 treatments, which is the best result in terms of this trait.
The improvement in feed consumption and the efficiency of food conversion may be attributed to the joint and individual roles of C. sinensis and the probiotic. The fungus, which acts as a prebiotic, includes polysaccharides that are among the most important nutrients for beneficial bacteria in the intestine. Therefore, it provides a healthy environment for the intestine and has a positive effect on the digestion of birds; hence, it may be responsible for the observed results. As for the probiotic, it is a beneficial bacteria that was added to the ration, which increased its numbers and reduced the harmfulness of pathogenic bacteria, which led to an increase in the level of bird health ( 11 , 18 ).
The results of the statistical analysis that are summarized in table 5 and include the efficiency of feed conversion are in line with what was found by Han, Qu ( 11 ). They noticed a significant improvement (P≤0.05) in the feed conversion efficiency of Ross 308 broilers when C. sinensis were added at levels of 1 and 2 g/kg feed. Furthermore, these results were consistent with those of a study conducted by Hsieh, Lin ( 18 ) who found a significant improvement (P≤0.05) when adding 1% of C. sinensis to the diet of Ross 308 broiler broilers as it enhances the feed conversion efficiency in the herd. Besides, these results agreed with those of a study performed by Nopparatmaitree, Plaimast ( 19 ) who noticed a significant improvement (P≤0.05) when adding probiotic 2 kg/ton of feed to the diet of Ross 308 broilers, as it enhanced the feed conversion efficiency of the experimental birds.
There was a significant improvement in the productive performance of each body weight, feed consumption rate, and feed conversion factor when adding C. sinensis extract and the probiotic to the broiler diet. Treatment T7, which included the addition of 600 mg/kg feed of C. sinensis extract and 6 g/kg probiotic feed led to the best productive performance of broilers during the rearing period.
Authors' Contribution
Study concept and design: S. K. S.
Acquisition of data: H. H. N.
Analysis and interpretation of data: S. K. S.
Drafting of the manuscript: S. K. S.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: S. K. S.
Statistical analysis: H. H. N.
Administrative, technical, and material support: H. H. N.
Ethics
This study was approved by the ethics committee of the Ministry of Agriculture, Republic of Iraq, Baghdad, Iraq.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
References
- Derakhshan Z, Mokhtari M, Babaei F, Malek Ahmadi R, Ehrampoush MH, Faramarzian M. Removal methods of antibiotic compounds from aqueous environments–a review. J Environ Health Sustain Dev. 2016; 1(1):43-62.
- Gambi L, Crippa C, Lucchi A, De Cesare A, Parisi A, Manfreda G, et al. Research note: The resistome of commensal Escherichia coli isolated from broiler carcasses "produced without the use of antibiotics"(a). Poult Sci. 2022; 101(4):101770.
- Awad WA, Ghareeb K, Abdel-Raheem S, Bohm J. Effects of dietary inclusion of probiotic and synbiotic on growth performance, organ weights, and intestinal histomorphology of broiler chickens. Poult Sci. 2009; 88(1):49-56.
- Chen X, Zhang Y, Ma W, Zhu Y, Wu X, Wang Z. Effects of Cordyceps militaris polysaccharide on egg production, egg quality and Caecal microbiota of layer hens. Worlds Poult Sci J. 2020; 10(1):41-51.
- Jia L, Zhang X, Li X, Schilling W, David Peebles E, Kiess AS, et al. Bacitracin, Bacillus subtilis, and Eimeria spp. challenge exacerbates woody breast incidence and severity in broilers. Poult Sci. 2022; 101(1):101512.
- Shehata AA, Yalcin S, Latorre JD, Basiouni S, Attia YA, Abd El-Wahab A, et al. Probiotics, Prebiotics, and Phytogenic Substances for Optimizing Gut Health in Poultry. Microorganisms. 2022; 10(2)
- Al-Zubaidi SSA. Poultry Management. College of Agriculture, University of Basra; 1986.
- Al-Fayad HA-A, Nagy SA-H. Poultry Management. 1st ed. College of Agriculture, University of Basra. 1986.
- Deng B, Wang ZP, Tao WJ, Li WF, Wang C, Wang MQ, et al. Effects of polysaccharides from mycelia of Cordyceps sinensis on growth performance, immunity and antioxidant indicators of the white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei. 2015; 21(2):173-9.
- Zeng X, Li Q, Yang C, Yu Y, Fu Z, Wang H, et al. Effects of Clostridium butyricum- and Bacillus spp.-Based Potential Probiotics on the Growth Performance, Intestinal Morphology, Immune Responses, and Caecal Microbiota in Broilers. Antibiotics (Basel).. 2021; 10(6)
- Han JC, Qu HX, Wang JG, Yan YF, Zhang JL, Yang L, et al. Effects of fermentation products of Cordyceps militaris on growth performance and bone mineralization of broiler chicks. J Appl Anim Res. 2015; 43(2):236-41.
- Willis W, Wall D, Isikhuemhen O, Jackson J, Ibrahim S, Hurley S, et al. Effect of level and type of mushroom on performance, blood parameters and natural coccidiosis infection in floor-reared broilers. Open Mycol J. 2013; 7(1)
- An JW, Lee JH, Oh HJ, Kim YJ, Chang SY, Go YB, et al. Effect of Cordyceps militaris with probiotics supplement on growth performance, meat quality characteristics, storage characteristics and cordycepin content of the breast meat in broilers. Korean J Agric Sci. 2021; 48(3):423-32.
- Boontiam W, Wachirapakorn C, Wattanachai S. Growth performance and hematological changes in growing pigs treated with Cordyceps militaris spent mushroom substrate. Vet World. 2019; 13(4):768-73.
- Chen J, Guo Y, Lu Y, He Z, Zhu Y, Liu S, et al. Effects of Acremonium terricola Culture on the Growth, Slaughter Yield, Immune Organ, Serum Biochemical Indexes, and Antioxidant Indexes of Geese. Animals (Basel).. 2022; 12(9)
- Biswas A, Dev K, Tyagi PK, Mandal A. The effect of multi-strain probiotics as feed additives on performance, immunity, expression of nutrient transporter genes and gut morphometry in broiler chickens. Anim Biosci. 2022; 35(1):64-74.
- Gao J, Wang R, Liu J, Wang W, Chen Y, Cai W. Effects of novel microecologics combined with traditional Chinese medicine and probiotics on growth performance and health of broilers. Poult Sci. 2022; 101(2):101412.
- Hsieh YC, Lin WC, Chuang WY, Chen MH, Chang SC, Lee TT. Effects of mushroom waster medium and stalk residues on the growth performance and oxidative status in broilers. Anim Biosci. 2021; 34(2):265-75.
- Nopparatmaitree M, Plaimast H, Soisuwan K. Dietary of probiotics and organic acids supplementation on productive performances, intestinal morphology, carcass characteristics, and meat quality of broiler chickens. Technology. 2022; 18(2):695-708.