Actualization of productive and reproductive qualities of Hubbard F-15 cross of chickens against the background of the use of immunostimulating preparations PS-7 and Prevention-N-C

Relevance. In modern conditions of industrial poultry farming, technological methods in many respects do not correspond to the biological needs of the bird's body. A high concentration of poultry in limited areas, year-round stay in enclosed spaces in cages leads to negative consequences. Under the influence of unfavorable factors, nonspecific resistance and immunobiological reactivity of the organism decrease. Therefore, at present, the issues of implementing the reproductive qualities and productivity of poultry through the directed impact of biologically active substances are of particular relevance.
Methods. The methodology of the work was to study the effectiveness of the use of immunostimulating drugs PS-7 and Prevention-N-C for actualization of the productive and reproductive qualities of hens of the parent flock of the Hubbard F-15 cross. The objects of research were hens of the parent flock of broilers of the French cross Hubbard F-15. In the scientific and economic experiment, according to the principle of analogue groups, three groups of birds were formed with 150 heads each: one control and two experimental groups. Chickens of the 1st experimental group at the age of 21–23 weeks were fed with water three times with an interval of 7 days the biopreparation PS-7 at a dose of 0.1 ml/kg of body weight, chickens of the 2^nd experimental group — Prevention-N-C at the same dose and timing.
Results. It was found that the use of tested preparations based on the polysaccharide complex of Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells and benzimedazole contributed to an earlier peak of egg production (by 2.0 and 3.0 weeks), increased egg yield on the initial laying hen (by 5.1 and 6.6%) and the average laying hen (by 2.8 and 2.0%), gross egg production (by 1,365 and 1,770 eggs) and livability (by 2.0 and 4.0%). The use of the tested preparations contributed to the improvement of the morphological parameters of eggs and, as a result, the withdrawal of chickens by 0.8 and 2.0%.

1. Semenov VG, Boronin VV, Kosyaev NI et al. Influence of the probiotic preparation Immunoflor on the physiological status of a young chicken of a productive herd of egg cross. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2021; 935 (1): 012043. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/935/1/012043

2. Kuzmina NN, Petrov OYu, Semenov VG et al.The effect of an antioxidant on the hematological profile of birds. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2021; 935 (1): 012015. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/935/1/012015

3. Kure CF, Axelsson L, Carlehög M et al. The effects of a pilot-scale steam decontamination system on the hygiene and sensory quality of chicken carcasses. Food Control. 2020; 109: 106948. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.106948

4. Bial M, Barbe F, Chevaux E et al. Effects of novel probiotic strains of Bacillus pumilus and Bacillus subtilis on production, gut health, and immunity of broiler chickens raised under suboptimal conditions. Poultry Science. 2021; 100 (3): 100871. doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2020.11.048

5. Mandal A, Mandal R K, Yang Y et al. In vitro characterization of chicken gut bacterial isolates for probiotic potentials. Poultry Science. 2021; 100 (2): p.1083-1092. doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2020.11.025

6. Hajiaghapour M and Rezaeipour V Comparison of two herbal essential oils, probiotic, and mannan-oligosaccharides on egg production, hatchability, serum metabolites, intestinal morphology, and microbiota activity of quail breeders. Livestock Science. 2018; 210: p.93-98. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2018.02.007

7. Xie Z, Zhao Q, Wang H et al. Effects of antibacterial peptide combinations on growth performance, intestinal health, and immune function of broiler chickens. Poultry Science. 2020; 99 (12): p.6481-6492 doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2020.08.068

8. Ramlucken U, Lalloo R, Roets Y et al. Advantages of Bacillusbased probiotics in poultry production. Livestock Science. 2020; 241: 104215. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2020.104215

9. Abd El-Hack M E, El-Saadony M T, Salem M H et al. Alternatives to antibiotics for organic poultry production: types, modes of action and impacts on bird’s health and production. Poultry Science. 2022; 101 (4): 101696. doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2022.101696

10. Islam M and Yang Chul-Ju Efficacy of mealworm and super mealworm larvae probiotics as an alternative to antibiotics challenged orally with Salmonella and E. coli infection in broiler chicks. Poultry Science. 2017; 96 (1): p.27-34. doi: 10.3382/ps/pew220

11. Xiang Q, Wang C, Zhang H et al. Effects of different probiotics on laying performance, egg quality, oxidative status, and gut health in laying hens. Animals. 2019; 9 (12): 1110. doi: 10.3390/ani9121110

12. Kulikov LV Workshop on poultry farming. RUDN University Publishing House. 2002: 249 p.( In Russian)