Journal of Research in Ecology
An International Scientific Research Journal
The effect of adding citric acid and probiotic, and their mixture to the
ration on some of the productive and physiological traits of broiler chicks
Authors:
Journal of Research in Ecology
Batool Abdul Zahra,
Hassan Al-Shrifii and
Saad Mohsen Aljashamy
Institution:
College of Agriculture,
Al-Qasim Green University,
Iraq.
Corresponding author:
Batool Abdul Zahra
Hassan Al-Shrifii
Web Address:
http://ecologyresearch.info/
documents/EC0635.pdf
Journal of Research
in Ecology
An International
Scientific Research Journal
ISSN No: Print: 2319 –1546; Online: 2319– 1554
Original Research
ABSTRACT:
This study was conducted in the poultry field belonging to Animal Production
Department, College of Agriculture, Al-Qasim green University during the period of
31.1.2018 to 13.3.2018 for the purpose of knowing the effect of adding two different
levels of citric acid and probiotic and their mixture to the ration on some of the
productive and physiological traits of broiler chicks. In this study, a 270 broilers chick with
one day age were used, with an average weight of 43 g from the strain of (Ross 308). The
chicks were randomly distributed in six treatments with 45 birds for each treatment, with
three replicates per treatment and 15 birds for each replicate in the cages with the
dimensions of 1 x 1.5 m. The treatments were as follows:
The first treatment T1 (control, basic ration without adding citric acid and
probiotic). The second treatment T2 (the basic ration with the addition of citric acid at a
concentration of 2 g/kg feed). The third treatment T3 (the basic ration with the addition of
citric acid at a concentration of 2.5 g/kg feed). The forth treatment T 4 (the basic ration
with the addition of probiotic at a concentration of 2 g/kg feed). The fifth treatment T 5
(the basic ration with the addition of the probiotic with a concentration of 2.5 g/kg feed).
The sixth treatment T6 (the basic ration with the addition of citric acid at a concentration
of 1.5 g/kg feed + probiotic at a concentration of 1.5 g / kg feed).
The results of the experiment showed a significant (P<0.01) superiority for birds
of all treatments on the birds of first treatment in the live body weight at the sixth week
of age. A significant (P<0.01) superiority for two treatments (T 3, T5) on two treatments (T1,
T2) was observed in the average increase of total weight, no significant differences were
observed in the average of total feed consumption during the sixth week.
Keywords:
Citric acid, Probiotic, Broiler chicks.
Article Citation:
Batool Abdul Zahra Hassan Al-Shrifii and Saad Mohsen Aljashamy
The effect of adding two levels of citric acid and probiotic, and their mixture to the
ration on some of the productive and physiological traits of broiler chicks
Journal of Research in Ecology (2018) 6(2): 2121-2129
Dates:
Received: 06 Aug 2018 Accepted: 20 Aug 2018 Published: 23 Sep 2018
This article is governed by the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0), which gives permission for unrestricted use, non-commercial, distribution and
reproduction in all medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2121-2129| JRE | 2018 | Vol 6 | No 2
www.ecologyresearch.info

INTRODUCTION
Raising awareness about healthy foods has in-
creased the benefits of natural food products and probi-
otics, which are used to stimulate growth and prevent
some intestinal bacterial infections and are used orally
by mixing them with fodder. The role of these essential
nutrients is to prevent the growth of harmful microbes
within the intestine. It improves the growth and improve
food conversion coefficient and reduce toxins from
harmful bacteria as well as the prevention and treatment
of some intestinal diseases and to give opportunities for
beneficial mycoflora in the digestive system for recov-
ery and growth because of the constant competition
between harmful microbes and beneficial microbes in
the intestine. When the elimination of harmful bacteria
or reduce the numbers revive beneficial bacteria at the
expense of harmful bacteria and form a wall against the
harmful intestinal microbes such as: E. coli, Salmonella
and others (Samarasinghe et al., 2003). Organic acids
added to the diet are a preservative that prevents corrup-
tion, rotting and decomposition, and preserves the com-
ponents of the diet for as long as possible, as they affect
the fungus that may grow on the feed or may be present
in its components, thus preventing or reducing the fun-
gal toxins, which may be added to drinking water to
reduce bacteria and help chlorine to eliminate them
(Mike, 2004). Organic acids are sprayed into the poultry
litter to attack the uric acid-analyzed bacteria, which
reduces the emission of ammonia in the field.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study was conducted in the poultry field
belonging to Livestock Department, College of Agricul-
ture, Al-Qasim Green University. The field experiment
continued from 31.1.2018 until 13.3.2018 for six weeks,
where the study included the addition of two different
levels of citric acid and probiotic and their mixture to
the ration of the experiment birds for the purpose of
determining their effect on some of the productive traits
2122
Zahra et al., 2018
of the broiler chicks through the introduction of initia-
tor's ration with the addition of citric acid and probiotic
to it. The chicks were weighed and distributed randomly
at 18 cages, with six treatments, each treatment included
three replicates, for each replicate 15 bird, and with av-
erage weights relatively homogeneous. The first treat-
ment T1 (control, basic ration without adding citric acid
and probiotic), the second treatment T2 (the basic ration
with the addition of citric acid at a concentration of 2 g/
kg feed), the third treatment T3 (the basic ration with the
addition of citric acid at a concentration of 2.5 g/kg
feed), the fourth treatment T4 (the basic ration with the
addition of probiotic at a concentration of 2 g/kg feed),
the fifth treatment T5 (the basic ration with the addition
of the probiotic with a concentration of 2.5 g/kg feed),
the sixth treatment T6 (the basic ration with the addition
of citric acid at a concentration of 1.5 g/kg feed + probi-
otic at a concentration of 1.5 g/kg feed).
The chicks were breeded on 5 cm thick wood
sawdust litter. The feed and water were provided by the
feeders and the inverted plastic waterers and followed
the continuous lighting system (23 h/day) for the dura-
tion of the experiment by giving a daily dark hour to
accustom the birds to extinguish the light. The chicks
were fed by the initiator's ration from age 1-21 days and
on the final's ration from age 22-42 days as shown in
Table 1. The acid and the probiotic were added to the
ration by mixing them manually with a small amount of
feed and then the quantity was increased with good mix-
ing until the desired homogeneity was achieved between
the feed materials introduced in ration of each treat-
ment. After the mixing was completed, it was filled with
marked bags, each according to its treatment and strong-
ly closing for the purpose of maintaining the effective-
ness of acid and probiotic.
Productive traits
Live body weight
The live body weight of the birds was measured
by the weighing of all chick for each replicate in a sen-
Journal of Research in Ecology (2018) 6(2): 2121-2129
Zahra et al., 2018

Table 1. Percentage of rations components used in the experiment and their calculated chemical composition
S. No Feed materials Initiator ration (%) Growth ration (%)
1 Yellow corn 38.93 43.93
2 Wheat 20.00 20.00
3 Soybeans meal 33.00 26.00
4 Concentrated proteins 5.00 5.00
5 Sunflower oil 2.00 4.00
6 limestone 0.70 0.70
7 Food salt 0.30 0.30
8 Methionine (%) 0.05 0.05
9 Choline (%) 0.02 0.02
10 Total 100% 100%
The calculated chemical analysis*
11 Crude protein (%) 2256. 20
12 Dietary energy (kCal / kg) 2960 3150
13 Methionine (%) 0.61 0.42
14 Choline (%) 1.540 1.400
(1) Soybeans meal used by an Argentina source, the percentage of Crude protein in it of 48% and 2230 kCal / kg as representative
energy
(2) concentrated Proteins used are animal (Al-waffy), from Dutch origin and imported of Al-muafaq company contains 40% raw
protein 5% crude fat, 2% Raw fiber, 6.5% calcium, 4% phosphorus 3.85% alesin, 3.70% methionine, 4% methionine + cystine,
2.3% sodium, 2100 kCal / kg of representative energy, and contains a mixture of vitamins and minerals rare to secure the needs of
birds. The Phytase enzyme 15000 units of enzyme / kg concentrated, 5000 mg / Kg concentrated Choline chloride.

sitive electrical balance and the calculation of the aver-
age of live body weight by dividing on the total number
of chicks per replicate at the end of the week (Al-
Zubaidi, 1986).
Average of weight gain
Average of weekly weight gain (g) = Average of
weight gain (g) at the end of the week - Average of
weight gain at the beginning of the week (g) as indicat-
ed by Al-Zubaidi (1986).
Feed consumption
The amount of feed consumption per week and
per treatment and for all replicates was calculated by the
weight of the remaining feed at the end of the week and
subtracted from the total quantity provided at the begin-
ning of the week and according to the average of total
feed consumption per bird as indicated by (Al-Fayyadh
and Naji, 1989).
Dietary Conversion Efficiency was calculated
on the basis of the formula indicated by (Al-Fayyadh
2014).
Statistical analysis
The data were analyzed using Completely ran-
domized design (CRD) to study the effect of the studied
treatments on different traits, and a significant differ-
ences between the averages were compared using Dun-
can's Multiple Range Test (Duncan, 1955). The Statisti-
cal Analysis System (SAS, 2012) was used in the statis-
tical analysis according to the mathematical model.
Yij = µ + Ti + eij
where Yij: View value ‘j’ in treatments ‘I’; μ: The over-
all average of traits; ti: Effect of treatment ‘i’ (The study
included the effect of 6 treatments); eij: Random experi-
mental error of the experimental unit, which is distribut-
ed naturally at an average of zero and a variance of σ2 e.

Journal of Research in Ecology (2018) 6(2): 2121-2129 2123

 Table 2. The effect of adding citric acid and probiotic to studied treatments in the average of Weekly body weight (g / bird) (Average ±

2124
standard error)
Weeks Average ± standard error for the average of body weight
S. No Treatments
First week Second week Third week Fourth week Fifth week Sixth week
c c d
1 T1 132.67 ± 0.33 350.33 ±21.34 597.33 ± 4.48 1110.33 ± 4.41 1694.00 ±10.29 2517.00 ± 16.80c
2 T2 133.33 ± 0.33 328.67 ± 4.41 636.67 ±9.02ab 1161.33 ± 5.68ab 1746.00 ± 7.81c 2615.33 ± 10.36b
3 T3 136.33 ±0.88 335.67 ± 7.86 648.00 ± 7.21a 1194.00 ± 4.51a 1790.67 ± 5.89ab 2677.33 ± 14.76a
4 T4 137.67 ± 2.18 330.00 ± 3.21 615.00 ± 10.42bc 1130.00 ± 9.02bc 1762.67 ± 7.05bc 2630.67 ± 15.86ab
5 T5 134.33 ± 1.20 333.67 ± 5.48 630.67 ± 4.33ab 1166.33 ± 9.88ab 1807.33 ± 5.21a 2677.00 ± 14.97a
6 T6 135.00 ± 1.00 324.33 ± 2.73 629.33 ± 7.21ab 1153.00 ± 7.00b 1784.00 ± 5.29ab 2644.00 ± 14.73ab
7 Significant level NS NS ** ** ** **

The averages which have different letters at the same column, it is vary significantly between them.
** (P≤0.01), NS: No significant

Table 3. The effect of adding citric acid and probiotic to studied treatments in the average of weekly weight gain (g / bird) (Average ± standard error).

Weeks Average ± standard error for the average of weight gain

S. Treatments First week Second week Third week Fourth week Fifth week Sixth week Total
No
1 T1 89.67 ± 0.33b 199.67 ±1.45 280.00 ± 3.00c 513.00 ± 4.73 583.67 ±5.88b 823.00 ± 5.13b 2489.00 ± 16.80b
2 T2 90.33 ± 0.33ab 210.33 ± 2.67 30.800 ±2.54ab 524.67 ± 2.85 584.67 ± 4.91b 869.33 ± 11.25ab 2587.00 ± 10.26b
3 T3 93.33 ±0.88a 214.33 ± 3.88 312.33 ± 0.66a 546.00 ± 6.59 596.67 ± 6.52b 886.67 ± 1120a 2649.33 ± 14.76a
4 T4 91.67 ± 1.25ab 210.33 ± 1.45 285.00 ± 8.57bc 514.00 ± 13.13 632.67 ± 7.17a 868.00 ± 13.23ab 2603.67 ± 16.57
5 T5 91.33 ± 1.10ab 214.33 ± 2.72 297.00 ± 4.72abc 535.67 ± 7.85 641.00 ± 9.01a 869.67 ± 18.85ab 2649.00 ± 14.98a
6 T6 92.00 ± 1.00ab 204.33 ± 2.62 305.00 ± 5.07abc 523.67 ± 6.29 631.00 ± 1.73a 860.00 ± 18.52ab 2616.00 ± 14.73ab
7 Significant * NS * NS ** * **
level
The averages which have different letters at the same column, it is vary significantly between them.
*( P≤0.05), ** (P≤0.01), NS: No significant

Journal of Research in Ecology (2018) 6(2): 2121-2129

Zahra et al., 2018
Zahra et al., 2018
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Average body weight of birds
Table 2 shows that there were no significant
difference between the birds of the different treatments
during the first and second weeks, while in the third
week, the superiority of the treatment birds (T3) (648.00
g) significantly (P<0.01) was observed on the treatment
birds (T1) (597.33 g) and on the treatment birds of (T 4)
(615.00 g) while the birds of this treatment did not dif-
fer significantly with the birds of the rest of the treat-
ments. In the fourth week, the significant superiority
(P<0.01) of T3 birds on T1 and T4 birds in addition to
the T6 treatments birds did not show any significant
differences between the birds of the other treatments.
The average weights of the body were 1110.33,
1161.33, 1194.00, 1130.00, 1166.00 and 1153.00 g for
treatments T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6, respectively. The
data during the fifth week indicated the significant
(P<0.01) superiority of the birds treatment (T 5) (1807.33
g) on the birds of transactions (T1, T2 and T4) (1694.00,
1746.00 and 1762.67 g), respectively.
In the sixth week, the birds of all the treatments
were significant (P<0.01) excelled on the birds of treat-
ment (T1). No significant (P<0.01) difference was ob-
served between the birds of the other treatments and the
averages of body weights were 2517.00, 2615.33,
2677.33, 2630.67, 2677.00 and 2644.00 g for the treat-
ments T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6, respectively. The adding
of citric acid and probiotic to broiler chick rations has
led to a significant improvement in the average body
weight. The adding of organic acids may lead to re-
duced pH of the alimentary canal. The increase in acidi-
ty increases the beneficial bacteria which activate in the
acid media and reduce the number of pathogenic bacte-
ria that activate in the basal media. This is due to the
increase of the surface area of the intestinal villi, thus
increasing the absorption of digested nutrients and thus
increasing weight (Jahanian, 2011). Al-Fayyadh (2014)
who pointed to the work of the enhancers on the activity
Journal of Research in Ecology (2018) 6(2): 2121-2129
of beneficial bacteria, which leads to an increase in the
length of the villi that affect digestion and absorption,
and this is reflected in the increase in body weight of
birds.
Weight gain
Table 3 shows the averages of weight gain dur-
ing the weeks of the experiment, while there were no
significant differences between the birds of this treat-
ment and other treatments. In the second week, no sig-
nificant differences were observed between the birds of
all treatments. The results showed that there were sig-
nificant differences between the birds of the different
treatments in the average of weight gain during the
fourth week. The results indicated that the treatments
birds of T4, T5 and T6 were excelled on the treatments
birds of T1, T2 and T3 during the fifth week of the exper-
iment. The averages of weight gain were 583.67,
584.67, 596.67, 632.67, 641.00 and 631.00 g for the
treatments T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6, respectively. In the
sixth week, the birds treatment (T3) (886.67 g) was
significantly excelled on the birds treatment (T1)
(823.00 g). No significant differences were observed
between this treatment and the rest of the birds treat-
ments.
As for the average of total weight gain, the re-
sults showed that T3 and T5 were significantly excelled
(P<0.01) on T2 and T1. There were no significant differ-
ences between T4 and T6 treatment. The averages of
total weight gain were 2489.00, 2587.00, 2649.33,
2603.67, 2649.00 and 2616.00 g for the treatments T 1,
T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6, respectively. The adding of organ-
ic acids to the poultry ration led to a significant differ-
ence in the average of weight gain of broiler chicks in
the treatment groups compared to the control group free
of the addition may be due to the positive effect of or-
ganic acids on the beneficial bacteria found inside the
intestines. Karumi (2014) mentioned when added the
probiotic with different feeding systems, resulted in a
significant improvement in the rate of increase in weight
2125
 Table 4. The effect of adding citric acid and probiotic to studied treatments in the average of weekly feed consumption (g / bird) (Average ± stand-

2126
ard error)

Average ± standard error for the average of feed consumption

Weeks
S. No
Treatments First week Second week Third week Fourth week Fifth week Sixth week Total feed
consumption
1 T1 112.22 ± 0.63b 288.84 ±2.08 446.12 ± 4.93ab 880.63 ± 8.07 1083.58 ±11.13b 1807.93 ± 17.79 4619.33 ± 25.46
b a b
2 T2 111.85 ± 0.62 301.48 ± 7.05 476.41 ±8.60 886.63 ± 3.55 1075.78 ± 9.07 1831.33 ± 22.60 4684.49 ± 10.56
a a b a
3 T3 117.30 ±1.89 303.67 ± 9.60 481.00 ± 2.73 917.47 ± 9.97 1092.07 ± 16.78 1829.69 ± 23.89 4741.21 ± 28.89
4 T4 114.28 ± 2.28ab 302.89 ± 3.30 430.99 ±10.15b 859.92 ± 12.79 1151.21 ± 11.70a 1790.70 ± 19.99 4660.01 ± 17.64
5 T5 113.22 ± 0.57ab 305.80 ± 7.22 461.38 ± 8.92ab 887.52 ± 10.00 1149 ± 14.45a 1752.01 ± 24.23 4669.13 ± 34.19
ab a a
6 T6 114.07 ± 1.11 293.55 ± 5.59 475.89 ± 9.75 685.65 ± 10.84 1148.42 ± 7.06 1812.22 ± 23.67 4711.82 ± 31.34
7 Significant * NS * NS ** NS NS
level
The averages which have different letters at the same column, it is vary significantly between them.
*( P≤0.05), ** (P≤0.01), NS: No significant

Table 5. The effect of adding citric acid and probiotic to studied treatments in the dietary conversion coefficient (g / bird) (Average ± standard error)
Average ± standard error for the average of weight gain
S. No Weeks
First week Second week Third week Fourth week Fifth week Sixth week Average
Treatments
1 T1 1.250 ± 0.005b 1.446 ±0.008a 1.593 ± 0.008a 1.716 ± 0.006a 1.856 ±0.006a 2.196 ± 0.006 1.850 ± 0.008a

2 T2 1.240 ± 0.006 1.433 ± 0.006ab 1.546 ±0.006b 1.690 ± 0.011ab 1.830 ± 0.005ab 2.196 ± 0.006 1.850 ± 0.008a

3 T3 1.256 ±0.008a 1.416 ± 0.003b 1.540 ±0.005b 1.680 ± 0.015ac 1.830 ± 0.010ab 2.063 ± 0.012 1.783 ± 0.003bc
4 T4 1.246 ± 0.003 1.440 ± 0.006a 1.546 ± 0.008b 1.680 ± 0.001bc 1820 ± 0.010bc 2.063 ± 0.013 1.783 ± 0.003bc
5 T5 1.240 ± 0.011 1.426 ± 0.003ab 1.553 ± 0.008b 1.656 ± 0.003c 1.793 ± 0.012c 2.346 ± 0.310 1.760 ± 0.020c

6 T6 1.240 ± 0.010 1.436 ± 0.008ab 1.560 ±0.006b 1.656 ± 0.006c 1.820 ± 0.010bc 2.106 ± 0.014 1.796 ± 0.008b
7 Significant NS * ** ** ** NS **
level
The averages which have different letters at the same column, it is vary significantly between them.
*( P≤0.05), ** (P≤0.01), NS: No significant.

Journal of Research in Ecology (2018) 6(2): 2121-2129

Zahra et al., 2018
Zahra et al., 2018
compared to the control group, where the probiotic en-
hances nutrient degradation into small, easily absorba-
ble units that increase absorption of nutrient materials in
the alimentary canal (Al-Tememi et al., 2008).
Weekly feed consumption
Table 4 shows the effect of the adding of citric
and probiotic to broiler chicks ration in averages of feed
consumption. Where observed a significant decrease
(P<0.05) in the average feed consumption of birds treat-
ments T2 and T1 compared with other treatments in the
first week of birds age. There was no significant differ-
ence among the birds treatments T3, T4, T5 and T6. The
results did not indicate any significant differences be-
tween the birds of different treatments in the feed con-
sumption during the second week. The results for the
third week showed that T2, T3 and T6 were excelled on
T4 birds treatment, while no significant differences were
found between T1, T2, T3, T5 and T6. The averages of
feed consumption for the birds were 446.12, 476.41,
481.00, 461.38 and 475.89 g, respectively. There were
no significant differences between the different bird
treatments during the fourth week. In the fifth week, the
treatments T4, T5 and T6 has significantly (P<0.01) ex-
celled on T1, T2 and T3 treatments.
This, in turn, did not differ significantly be-
tween them. No significant differences were observed
between the birds of the different treatments in feed
consumption during the sixth week and total feed con-
sumption. The addition of organic acids and probiotic
has improved feed consumption during 1, 3 and 5 week
through the development of the alimentary canal and an
increase in the length and width of the villi, which im-
proved the absorption of different nutrient materials that
affected the average of weight gain. In addition, organic
acids have assisted to reduce the pH in the intestinal
where it inhibits the work of bacterial pathogenic
through control of their locations in the villains by the
beneficial bacteria, which increase their numbers due to
the availability of acidic environment suitable for
Journal of Research in Ecology (2018) 6(2): 2121-2129
growth and thus benefit greatly from the amount of food
consumption by the birds. The increase in the villi
length increases nutrient elements absorption (Adil et
al., 2010). These results agree with Chowdhury et al.,
(2009), where they found an increase in the average of
feed consumption.
Dietary conversion coefficient
Table 5 indicates that there is no significant dif-
ference between the birds of different treatments in the
dietary conversion coefficient during the first
week. While significant improvement in dietary con-
version coefficient was observed between treatment
birds (T3) which differed significantly (P<0.05) from
treatment birds (T1, T2), while they did not differ signif-
icantly from the remaining treatments during the second
week. In the third week the dietary conversion coeffi-
cient was improved in all treatments except T 1, and the
averages of dietary conversion coefficient were 1.593,
1.546, 1.540, 1.546, 1.553 and 1.560 g for treatments
T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6, respectively.
The results showed a significant (P<0.01) im-
provement of the dietary conversion coefficient between
birds treatments T5 (1.656 g) and T6 (1.656 g) compared
with T1 (1.716 g) and T2 (1.690 g). While these treat-
ments did not differ significantly from the birds treat-
ments of T3 and T4 during the fourth week. In the fifth
week, the T5 has significantly (P<0.01) excelled on T1,
T2 and T3, but did not differ significantly from the birds
treatments of T5 and T6. The dietary conversion coeffi-
cient 1.856, 1.840, 1.830,1.820, 1.793 and 1.820 g for
treatments T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6, respectively. There
were no significant differences between the birds of
different treatments during the sixth week. The average
of dietary conversion coefficient during the experiment
period from the first week to the sixth week showed a
significant improvement (P<0.01) for treatment birds of
T5 compared with control treatment and treatments of T 2
and T6, but did not differ significantly from T3 and T4
treatments. The averages of dietary conversion coeffi-
2127

cient were 1.850, 1.850, 1.783, 1.783, 1.760 and 1.796 g
for treatments T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6, respectively.
The adding of organic acids and probiotic to rations of
broiler chicks has led to the creation of an environment
conducive to the proliferation of beneficial bacteria
within the alimentary canal, which stimulates the release
of digestive enzymes from the lining of the alimentary
canal and pancreatic enzymes that increasing the diges-
tion of nutrient materials, especially protein (Ghazalah
et al., 2011).
CONCLUSION
Significant changes were recorded in different
treatments. Parameters such as body weight, weekly
feed consumption and dietary conversion coefficient
had significant changes during the course of the study.
REFERENCES
Adil S, Banday T, Bhat GA and Saleim Mir M. 2010.
Effect of dietary supplementation of organic acids on
performance, intestinal histomorphology and seru bio-
chemistry of broiler chicken. Veterinary Medicine Inter-
national, 2010: 479-485.
Al-Ani MIH. 2008. Effect of addition of zinc pastrycin,
citric acid or fumaric acid to the ration in the production
performance of Broiler Chicks. Master Thesis, Veteri-
nary Health Department, College of Veterinary Medi-
cine, University of Baghdad.
Al-Fayyadh AH. 2014. Effect of adding multi-strain
probiotic with some antioxidant to the diet on produc-
tive performance and immune response of broiler chicks
under south Iraq summer conditions. Thi-Qar University
Journal for Agricultural Researches, 3(1): 142-111.
Al-Fayyadh AH and Naji SA. 1989. Poultry Products
Technology, First Edition. Baghdad.
Al-Tememi ATD, Abdul-abass MH, Alyassin AAK.
2008. Effect of using locally probiotic and zinc-
2128
Zahra et al., 2018
bacitracin as growth promoters on broiler performance.
Journal of Iraqi Poultry Science, 3(1): 8-24.
Al-Zubaidi SSA. 1986. Poultry management. Basra
University Press, Basra.
Chowdhury R, Islam KM, Khan MJ, Karim MR,
Hague MN, Khatun M and Pesti GM. 2009. Effect of
citric acid, avilamycin and their combination on the
performance tibia ash and immune status of broiler.
Poultry Science, 88(8): 1616-1622.
Duncan BD. 1955. Multiple range and multiple F test.
Biometrics, 11: 1-42.
Ghazalah AA, Atta AM, Elkloub K, Moustafa MEL
and Shata RFH. 2011. Effect of dietary supplementa-
tion of organic acids on performance, nutrients digesti-
bility and health of broiler chicks. International Journal
of Poultry Science, 10(3): 176-184.
Jahanian R. 2011. Effect of varying level of Butyric
acid glycerides on performance immune responses and
jejune epithelium morphology of broiler chicks. 18th
European Symposium on Poultry Nutrition. Izmir, Tur-
key. 213-215 p.
Karumi AS. 2014. Evaluation of using different system
of feeding with addition Iraqi probiotic on broiler per-
formance. Kufa Journal for Agricultural Science, 5(1):
125-136.
Mike R. 2004. Preserving baled hay with organic acids
by crops (and soils agent -fond du lac county. Focus on
Forage is a forage crop information resource of the Uni-
versity of Wisconsind.
[NRC] National Research Council. 1994. Nutrient
th
Requirement of poultry. 9 ed., National Academy
press, Washington D.C., U.S.A.
Samarasinghe KC, Wenk KFST, Silva and Gunasek-
era JMDM. 2003. Turmeric (Curcuma longa) Root
Journal of Research in Ecology (2018) 6(2): 2121-2129
Zahra et al., 2018
Powder and Mannanoligosaccharides as alternatives to
antibiotics in broiler chicken diets. Asian-Australian
Journal of Animal Sciences, 16(10): 1495-1500.

SAS. 2010. SAS/STAT Users Guider for Personal Com-

puters Release 901 SAS. Institute Inc. Cary and N.C
USA.

Submit your articles online at ecologyresearch.info

Advantages
 Easy online submission
 Complete Peer review
 Affordable Charges
 Quick processing
 Extensive indexing
 You retain your copyright

submit@ecologyresearch.info
www.ecologyresearch.info/Submit.php.

Journal of Research in Ecology (2018) 6(2): 2121-2129 2129