ก ก ก ก ก ก Effects of Adding Formic acid in Drinking Water on Production Performance, Carcass Quality and Microbial Ecology in Digestive Tract of Broiler 1 2 1 1 ก 1 Pichaya Saeung 1, Yuwares Reangpanit 2, Theerawit Poeikhampha 1, Nuttawut Krutthai 1 and Chaiyapoom Bunchasak 1 ก ก ก ก ก ก ก 1 (ROSS 308) 600 4 ก 6 25 ก ก 4 0 (ก ) 0.01 0.05 0.10% ก ก - ก ก (P<0.01) ก (42 ) ก ก 0.01 0.05% ก ก ก (P>0.05) ก ก 0.10% ก (P<0.01) ก ก 0.05 0.01% ก ก ก (P<0.05) ก ก E. coli (P<0.01) ก ก Lactobacillus spp. กก ก ก ก 0.01 0.05% ก ก ก ก ABSTRACT This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of adding formic acid in drinking water on broiler production performance, carcass quality and microbial ecology in digestive tract of broiler chickens at 42 days of age. Six hundreds of one day old male broiler chicks (ROSS 308) were divided into 4 groups and 6 replications with 25 broilers/each. Total of 4 treatment groups of drinking water were performed; 1) control (without formic acid supplementation), 2) formic acid 0.01%, 3) formic acid 0.05% and 4) formic acid 0.10%. Adding formic acid into drinking water significantly decreased ph of the water. At the end of the experiment (42 days), adding formic acid at 0.01 and 0.05% not affected production performance compared to control group. Conversely, adding formic acid at 0.10% significantly depressed production performance (P<0.01). However, when compared with the control group, drumstick (% of live body weight) significantly increased by adding 0.05 and 0.01% formic acid (P<0.01). In addition, adding formic acid into drinking water induced E.coli counts of water (P<0.01), However, adding formic acid into drinking water slightly increased population of Lactobacillus spp. in digestive tract. This study suggested that adding formic acid in drinking water at 0.01 and 0.05% had no effect on production performance, increased portion of leg meat and tend to promote growth of beneficial bacteria population. Keyword: Formic acid, Production performance, Carcass quality, Microbial, broiler P. Saeung: g5061176@ku.ac.th 1 ก ก ก 10900 Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900. 2 ก ก ก ก 73140 Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University, Kamphaeng Saen Campus, Nakhon-Pathom 73140.
ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก (antibiotic) ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก (, 2547) ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก Campylobacter spp., E. coli, Salmonella spp. Clostridium spp. ก ก ก (Pearson et al., 1993) 10 ก ก ก ก ก ก ก (Philipsen, 2005) ก ก ก - ก ก ก ก ก กก (Giesen, 2005) ก (Denli et al., 2003; Moharrery and Mahzonieh, 2005) ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) E. coli Salmonella spp. ก ก (Giesen, 2005) ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก 1 (ROSS 308) 600 ก ก 4 ก 6 25 ก ก ก ก (Evaporative cooling system) ก ก ก 1 3 ก (nipple) ก ก (1-42 ) ก ก ก
ก - ก ก ก ก ก ( 94%) ก 4 0 (ก ) 0.01 0.05 0.10% ก ก ก ก 2 ก (1-21 ) ก 22% 3,010 ME kcal/kg 1% 0.50% 2 (22-42 ) ก 20% 3,150 ME kcal/kg 0.90% 0.45% ก (Aviagen, 2002) ก ก ก (42 ) ก ก ก 2 ashyxiation CO 2 ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก 2 ก ก - ก ก ก (crop) ก (proventriculus) ก (gizzard) ก (duodenum) ก ก (jejunum) ก (ileum) (cecum) (rectum) ก ก ก ก 1 ก ก E.coli Salmonella spp. (, 2545) Lactobacillus spp. (Biggs et al., 2007) ก กก ก Analysis of variance ก Duncan s new multiple range test ก (SAS, 1988) ก 1. ก ก ก ก ก ก 0.01 0.05% ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก 0.10% ก ก ก ก ก ก กก (P<0.01) ก ก ก 0.10% ก ก Table 1 ก ก ก ก ก - ก ก (P<0.01) ก ก ก 0.10% ก ก ก กก
(P<0.01) Table 2 ก ก ก (acidity) (alkalinity) 3.-.10 (Kare and Rogers, 1976) ก Furest and Kare (1962) ก ก ก ก ก 0.10% ก - ก 2.79 ก ก ก ก ก ก Kirkpatrick and Fleming (2008) ก ก 1.8:1 ก ก 0.10% ก ก ก กก (1.72:1) ก ก ก ก Moharrey (2005) ก ก ก ก Cave (1984) ก ก ก ก ก ก ก Table 1 Effects of adding formic acid to drinking water on production performance of broiler chickens at 42 days of age Items 0% 0.01% 0.05% 0.10% Initial Body Weight (g) 39.93 ± 0.47 39.93 ± 0.30 39.93 ± 0.30 40.00 ± 0.25 Final Body Weight (g) 2629.14 ± 100.45 a 2580.86 ± 48.28 a 2561.81 ± 48.35 a 2434.63 ± 79.65 b Weight gain (g) 2589.21 ± 100.39 a 2540.92 ± 48.44 a 2521.88 ± 48.11 a 2394.63 ± 79.56 b ADG (g) 61.65 ± 2.39 a 60.50 ± 1.15 a 60.04 ± 1.15 a 57.01 ± 1.89 b Feed Intake (g/bird/day) 109.40 ± 2.81 a 106.75 ± 2.74 a 106.43 ± 1.93 a 102.84 ± 2.45 b FCR 1.78 ± 0.04 1.76 ± 0.05 1.77 ± 0.04 1.80 ± 0.06 a,b mean in the same row with different superscripts are highly significant different (P<0.01) *Values represent means ± SD Table 2 Effects of adding formic acid to drinking water on water and acid intake of broiler chickens at 42 days old of age and ph of the water Items 0% 0.01% 0.05% 0.10% Water intake (ml/bird/day) 201.31 ± 2.94 a 201.13 ± 6.21 a 193.03 ± 2.93 b 176.73 ± 7.30 c ph of the water 7.67 ± 0.15 a 3.59 ± 0.04 b 3.01 ± 0.03 c 2.79 ± 0.02 d Water intake/feed intake 1.84 ± 0.04 ab 1.89 ± 0.08 a 1.81 ± 0.03 b 1.72 ± 0.06 c Formic acid intake (%) 0.00 ± 0.00 d 0.02 ± 0.00 c 0.10 ± 0.00 b 0.18 ± 0.01 a a,b,c,d mean in the same row with different superscripts are highly significant different (P<0.01) *Values represent means ± SD
2. ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก 0.10% กก ก ก ก (P<0.05) Table 3 ก ก 0.05% ก ก ก (P<0.05) ก ก ก 0.01% ก ก ก ก 0.01 0.05% ก ก ก (P<0.05) ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก (P>0.05) ก ก ก (2550) ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก Moharrery (2005) ก ก ก ก ก 0.05 0.01 0.10% ก ก ก ก Table 3 Effects of adding formic acid to drinking water on carcass quality at 42 days of age Items 0% 0.01% 0.05% 0.10% Live body weight (g) 2656.17 ± 148.01 a 2607.00 ± 64.28 a 2592.38 ± 128.93 a 2478.63 ± 92.24 b Thigh (g) 308.42 ± 36.08 304.33 ± 42.79 313.58 ± 37.11 317.50 ± 16.68 Drumstick (g) 249.83 ± 23.05 bc 262.42 ± 26.74 ab 268.83 ± 22.41 a 243.58 ± 11.98 c Wing (g) 202.04 ± 15.05 197.79 ± 8.93 205.50 ± 21.83 191.42 ± 7.29 Breast (g) 512.13 ± 41.53 a 510.83 ± 47.02 a 489.17 ± 54.54 ab 463.88 ± 32.58 b Dressing (% live body weight) 79.47 ± 1.19 79.33 ± 1.46 80.47 ± 2.93 80.19 ± 1.57 Thigh (% live body weight) 11.65 ± 1.57 11.68 ± 1.63 12.11 ± 1.37 12.82 ± 0.61 Drumstick (% live body weight) 9.40 ± 0.58 b 10.06 ± 0.95 a 10.37 ± 0.73 a 9.83 ± 0.41 ab Wing (% live body weight) 7.61 ± 0.41 7.59 ± 0.24 7.92 ± 0.61 7.73 ± 0.34 Breast (% live body weight) 19.28 ± 1.12 19.60 ± 1.79 18.85 ± 1.61 18.72 ± 1.27 a,b,c mean in the same row with different superscripts are significantly different (P<0.05) *Values represent means ± SD 3. ก - ก - (Table 4) ก ก 0.10% ก - ก ก ก ก (P<0.05) ก ก ก ก - ก ก ก ก (P>0.05)
ก ก (Izat et al., 1990) buffer capacity (Prohaszka and Boron, 1980) ก ก - ก ก ก ก (2550) ก ก ก ก ก - ก Thomson and Hinton (1997) ก ก ก ก - Table 4 Effects of adding formic acid to drinking water on ph in digestive tract at 42 days of age Items 0% 0.01% 0.05% 0.10% Crop 4.60 ± 0.52 a 4.64 ± 0.42 a 4.36 ± 0.66 ab 4.06 ± 0.31 b Proventriculus 3.80 ± 0.61 4.11 ± 0.37 3.81 ± 0.59 3.67 ± 0.80 Gizzard 3.86 ± 0.39 3.77 ± 0.44 3.62 ± 0.58 3.34 ± 0.88 Duodenum 5.67 ± 0.36 5.39 ± 0.70 5.68 ± 0.29 5.56 ± 0.39 Jejunum 5.58 ± 0.40 5.76 ± 0.29 5.78 ± 0.29 5.76 ± 0.38 Ileum 5.58 ± 0.72 6.38 ± 0.77 6.00 ± 0.87 5.90 ± 0.79 Cacum 6.68 ± 0.41 6.49 ± 0.30 6.57 ± 0.31 6.49 ± 0.29 Rectum 6.23 ± 0.61 6.00 ± 0.49 5.63 ± 0.64 6.08 ± 0.42 a,b Mean in the same row with different superscripts are significantly different (P<0.05) *Values represent means ± SD 4. ก ก E. coli ก ก (P<0.01) ก E. coli Salmonella spp. Lactobacillus spp. ก ก (P>0.05) ก ก ก Salmonella spp. Lactobacillus spp. ก (Table 5) (2545) E. coli ก 0.78 log 10 CFU ก ก ก E. coli ก 5.15 log 10 CFU ก ก E. coli ก (, 2548) ก - ก 6.0 8.0 ก E. coli (Tan, 2006) ก ก - ก ก 7.67 ก ก E. coli ก Farrell (2004) ก - ก 4.0 5.0 E. coli ก ก ก E. coli ก ก กก ก ก - ก
ก ก ก - (Varel and Pond, 1985) ก ก ก ก Table 5 Effect of adding formic acid to drinking water on E.coli, Salmonella spp. and Lactobacillus in cecum at 42 days of age and E.coli in water Items 0% 0.01% 0.05% 0.10% E.coli in water (log 10 CFU/g) 5.15 ± 0.15 a 2.43 ± 0.60 b 0.00 ± 0.00 c 0.00 ± 0.00 c E. coli (log 10 CFU/g) 6.22 ± 0.62 5.87 ± 0.79 5.78 ± 0.87 6.35 ± 0.53 Salmonella spp. (log 10 MPN/g) 2.82 ± 0.34 2.75 ± 0.47 2.75 ± 0.33 2.59 ± 0.66 Lactobacillus spp.(log 10 CFU/g) 5.68 ± 0.60 5.86 ± 0.71 5.93 ± 0.42 5.97 ± 0.53 a,b,c Mean in the same row with different superscripts are highly significant different (p<0.01) *Values represent means ± SD ก ก ก ก 0.01 ก ก ก ก ก 0.01 ก ก E.coli Salmonella spp. Lactobacillus spp. ก ก 0.01 ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก ก กก ก ก ก ก ก. 2545. ก ก : ก ก,. 57-77.,, ก, ก, ก ก, ก. ก ก ก ก 4. ก, ก.
ก. 2550. ก ก ก ก ก ก., ก.. 2545. กก. ก ก ก,. ก. 2548.,. 29-47.,, ก, ก, ก ก, ก. ก ก ก ก 4. ก, ก.. 2547. ก. ก ก, ก. 321-327. Aviagen. 2002. Ross 308 broiler performance objective. Ross broiler management manual. Available Source: http://www.aviagen.com/broiler308po/broilerpo308/css/broilerpo308.html, October 26, 2006. Biggs, P., C.M. Parsons and G.C. Fahey. 2007. The effects of several oligosaccharides on growth performance, nutrient digestibilities and cecal microbial populations in young chicks. Poult. Sci. 86: 2327-2336. Cave, N.A.G. 1984. Effect of dietary propionic and lactic acid on feed intake by chicks. Poult. Sci. 63: 131-134. Denli, M., F. Okan and K. Celik. 2003. Effect of Dietary Probiotic, Organic Acid and Antibiotic Supplementation to Diets on Broiler Performance and Carcass Yield. Pak. J. Nutr. 2: 89-91. Farrell, C. 2004. Controlling E. coli in the weaned pig, pp. 137-140. In J.M. Murphy, T.M. Kane, C.F.M. de Lange, eds. London Swine Conference. London, Ontario. Furest, W.F. and M.R. Kare. 1962. The influence of ph on fluid tolerance and perfornec. Poult. Sci. 41: 71-77. Giesen, A. 2005. The value of organic acids in drinking water. World poultry. 21(12): 15-17. Izat, A.L., N.M. Tidwell, R.A. Thomas, M.A. Reiber, M.H. Adams, M. Colberg, and P.W. Waldroup. 1990. Effects of a buffered propionic acid in diets on the performance of broiler chickens and on the microflora of the intestine and carcass. Poult. Sci. 96: 818-826. Kare, M.R. and J.G. Rogers, Jr. 1976. The special senses. In: P.D. Sturkie ed. Avian Physiology. 3 rd ed. Springer-Verlag, New York. Kirkpatrik, K. and E. Fleming. 2008. Water quality. ROSS Tech 08/47. Avigen, Scotland, UK.
Moharrery, A. 2005. Effect of malic acid on growth performance, carcass characteristic and feed efficiency in the broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 10:781-786. and M. Mahzonieh. 2005. Effect of malic acid on visceral characteristics and coliform counts in small Intestine in the broiler and layer chickens. Inter. J. Poult. Sci. 4: 761-764. Pearson, A.D., M. Greenwood, T.D. Healing, D. Rollins, M. Shahamat, J. Donaldson and R.R Colwell. 1993. Colonization of broiler chickens by water borne Campylobacter jejuni. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 59: 987-996. Philipsen, P.L.J. 2005. Acidifying the drinking water. International Pig Topics. 21(1): 23-25. Prohaszka, Z., and F. Baron. 1980. The predisposing role of high dietary protein supplies in enteropathogenic E. coli infections of weaned pigs. Zentralbl. Veterinaermed. Reihe B. 27: 222 (Abstract). SAS. 1988. SAS User s Guide: Statistics. SAS Institute. United State: Inc, Nortth. Carolina. Tan, H. M. 2006. Acidifiers: synergy of acids make for better efficacy. Asi. Poult. Mag. 7(7): 30-33. Thompson, J.L. and M. Hinton. 1997. Antibacterial activity of formic and propionic acids in the diet of hens on salmonellas in the crops. British Poult. Sci. 38: 59-65. Varel, V.H. and W.G. Pond. 1985. Enumeration and activity of cellulolytic bacteria from gestating swine fed various levels of dietary fiber. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 48: 858 (Abstract)