Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bacillus Probiotic Supplementations Improve Laying Performance, Egg Quality, Hatching of Laying Hens, and Sperm Quality of Roosters

  • Published:
Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The study aims at elucidating the effect of bacilli probiotic preparations on the physiology of laying hens and roosters. Probiotic formulations were prepared as soybean products fermented by Bacillus subtilis KATMIRA1933 and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens B-1895. In this study, groups of male and female chickens were used. These groups received a probiotic preparation based on either B. subtilis KATMIRA1933 or B. amyloliquefaciens B-1895, or of a mixture of strains, from the first day to the age of 39 weeks. These preparations positively affected egg production, quality of sperm production, and quality and hatchery of eggs. Considering the simplicity and cost effectiveness of the soy-based probiotic preparation, these formulations should be considered as advantageous in modern livestock production.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Leeson S (2012) Future considerations in poultry nutrition. Poult Sci 91(6):1281–1285. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2012-02373

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Diarra MS, Malouin F (2014) Antibiotics in Canadian poultry productions and anticipated alternatives. Front Microbiol 17:282. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Stanton TB (2013) A call for antibiotic alternatives research. Trends Microbiol 21(3):111–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2012.11.002

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Allen HK, Levine UY, Looft T, Bandrick M, Casey TA (2013) Treatment, promotion, commotion: antibiotic alternatives in food-producing animals. Trends Microbiol 21(3):114–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2012.11.001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Food and Agriculture Organization and World Health Organization Expert Consultation (2001) Evaluation of health and nutritional properties of powder milk and live lactic acid bacteria. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization, Córdoba

    Google Scholar 

  6. Blajman JE, Zbrun MV, Astesana DM, Berisvil AP, Romero Scharpen A, Fusari ML, Soto LP, Signorini ML, Rosmini MR, Frizzo LS (2015) Probiotics in broilers’ rearing: a strategy for intensive production models. Rev Argent Microbiol 47(4):360–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ram.2015.08.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Angelakis E (2016) Weight gain by gut microbiota manipulation in productive animals. Microb Pathog:162–170

  8. Lei K, Li YL, DY Y, Rajput IR, Li WF (2013) Influence of dietary inclusion of Bacillus licheniformis on laying performance, egg quality, antioxidant enzyme activities, and intestinal barrier function of laying hens. Poult Sci 92(9):2389–2395. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2012-02686

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sutyak KE, Wirawan RE, Aroutcheva AA, Chikindas ML (2008) Isolation of the Bacillus subtilis antimicrobial peptide subtilosin from the dairy product derived Bacillus amyloliquefaciens. J Appl Microbiol 104(4):1067–1074. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2007.03626.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chistyakov V, Melnikov V, Chikindas ML, Khutsishvili M, Chagelishvili A, Bren A, Kostina N, Cavera V, Elisashvili V (2015) Poultry-beneficial solid-state Bacillus amyloliquefaciens B-1895 fermented soybean formulation. Biosci Microbiota Food Health 34(1):25–28. https://doi.org/10.12938/bmfh.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Subcommittee on Poultry Nutrition, National Research Council (1994) Nutrient Requirements of Poultry: Ninth Revised Edition, National Academy Press, Washington D.C.

  12. Burrows WH, Quinn JP (1937) Collection of spermatozoa from the domestic fowl and turkey. Poult Sci 16(1):19–24. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0160019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Pursel VG, Johnson LA, Rampacek GB (1972) Acrosome morphology of boar spermatozoa incubated before cold shock. J Anim Sci 34(2):278–283. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1972.342278x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ommati MM, Zamiri MJ, Akhlaghi A, Atashi H, Jafarzadeh MR, Rezvani MR, Saemi F (2013) Seminal characteristics, sperm fatty acids, and blood biochemical attributes in breeder roosters orally administered with sage (Salvia officinalis) extract. Anim Prod Sci 53(6):548–554. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN12257

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Haugh RR (1937) The Haugh unit for measuring egg quality. U S Egg Poult Mag 43:552–555

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kul S, Seker I (2004) Phenotypic correlations between some external and internal egg quality traits in the Japanese quail (Coturnixcoturnix japonica). Int J Poult Sci 3(5):400–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2012.723197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rath PK, Mishra PK, Mallick BK, Behura NC (2015) Evaluation of different egg quality traits and interpretation of their mode of inheritance in white leghorns. Vet World 8(4):449–452. https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2015.449-452

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Haghighi M, Irani M, Jafari M, Firouzi S, Habibi H (2016) Effect of sex ratio on the production and hatchability of broiler breeder flock. J World Poult Res 6:14–17

    Google Scholar 

  19. Chaucheyras-Durand F, Durand H (2010) Probiotics in animal nutrition and health. Benefic Microbes 1(1):3–9. https://doi.org/10.3920/BM2008.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Smith JM (2014) A review of avian probiotics. J Avian Med Surg 28(2):87–94. https://doi.org/10.1647/2012-031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bai WK, Zhang FJ, He TJ, Su PW, Ying XZ, Zhang LL, Wang T (2016) Dietary probiotic Bacillus subtilis strain fmbj increases antioxidant capacity and oxidative stability of chicken breast meat during storage. PLoS One 11(12):e0167339. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167339

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Prazdnova EV, Chistyakov VA, Churilov MN, Mazanko MS, Bren AB, Volski A, Chikindas ML (2015) DNA-protection and antioxidant properties of fermentates from Bacillus amyloliquefaciens B-1895 and Bacillus subtilis KATMIRA1933. Lett Appl Microbiol 61(6):549–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/lam.12491

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Syngai GG, Gopi R, Bharali R, Dey S, Lakshmanan GM, Ahmed G (2016) Probiotics—the versatile functional food ingredients. J Food Sci Technol 53(2):921–933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-015-2011-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hong HA, Duc H, Cutting SM (2005) The use of bacterial spore formers as probiotics. FEMS Microbiol Rev 29(4):813–835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.femsre.2004.12.001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cartman ST, La Ragione RM, Woodward MJ (2008) Bacillus subtilis spores germinate in the chicken gastrointestinal tract. Appl Environ Microbiol 74(16):5254–5258. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00580-08

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Cutting SM (2011) Bacillus probiotics. Food Microbiol 28(2):214–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2010.03.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Barbosa TM, Serra CR, La Ragione RM, Woodward MJ, Henriques AO (2005) Screening for Bacillus isolates in the broiler gastrointestinal tract. Appl Environ Microbiol 71(2):968–978. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.2.968-978.2005

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Tam NK, Uyen NQ, Hong HA, Duc le H, Hoa TT, Serra CR, Henriques AO, Cutting SM (2006) The intestinal life cycle of Bacillus subtilis and close relatives. J Bacteriol 188(7):2692–2700. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.188.7.2692-2700.2006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. de Boer AS, Diderichsen B (1991) On the safety of Bacillus subtilis and B. amyloliquefaciens: a review. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 36(1):1–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kim DH, Austin B (2006) Innate immune responses in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss, Walbaum) induced by probiotics. Fish Shellfish Immunol 21(5):513–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2006.02.007

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ushakova NA, Brodskiĭ ES, Kozlova AA, Nifatov AV (2009) Anaerobic solid-phase fermentation of plant substrates by Bacillus subtilis. Prikl Biokhim Mikrobiol 45(1):70–77

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Park JW, Jeong JS, Lee SI, Kim IH (2016) Effect of dietary supplementation with a probiotic (Enterococcus faecium) on production performance, excreta microflora, ammonia emission, and nutrient utilization in ISA brown laying hens. Poult Sci 95(12):2829–2835. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pew241

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kurtoglu V, Kurtoglu F, Seker E, Coskun B, Balevi T, Polat ES (2004) Effect of probiotic supplementation on laying hen diets on yield performance and serum and egg yolk cholesterol. Food Addit Contam 21(9):817–823. https://doi.org/10.1080/02652030310001639530

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Li L, Xu CL, Ji C, Ma Q, Hao K, Jin ZY, Li K (2006) Effects of a dried Bacillus subtilis culture on egg quality. Poult Sci 85(2):364–368

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Yalçin S, Cakin K, Eltan O, Dagasan L (2010) Effects of dietary yeast autolysate (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) on performance, egg traits, egg cholesterol content, egg yolk fatty acid composition and humoral immune response of laying hens. J Sci Food Agric 90(10):1695–1701. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.4004

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Jia R, Ma Q, Fan Y, Ji C, Zhang J, Liu T, Zhao L (2016) The toxic effects of combined aflatoxins and zearalenone in naturally contaminated diets on laying performance, egg quality and mycotoxins residues in eggs of layers and the protective effect of Bacillus subtilis biodegradation product. Food Chem Toxicol 90:142–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2016.02.010

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was supported by the grant from the Russian Science Foundation RSF No.16-16-04032.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Southern Federal University, Prospect Stachki, 194/1, Rostov-on-Don, Russia

    Maria S. Mazanko, Evgeniya V. Prazdnova, Maxim S. Makarenko, Alexander V. Usatov, Anzhelika B. Bren, Vladimir A. Chistyakov & Michael L. Chikindas

  2. Povolzhsky Research Institute of Meat and Dairy Industry Production and Processing, Volgograd, Russia

    Ivan F. Gorlov, Zoya B. Komarova, Natalia I. Mosolova, Denis N. Pilipenko, Olga E. Krotova & Aleksandr N. Struk

  3. Federal Budget Institute of Science “Central Research Institute of Epidemiology”, Moscow, Russia

    Alexey V. Tutelyan

  4. Microbial Biology Graduate Program, Rutgers State University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA

    Angela Lin

  5. School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, Rutgers State University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA

    Michael L. Chikindas

  6. Center for Digestive Health, New Jersey Institute for Food, Nutrition and Health, New Brunswick, NJ, USA

    Michael L. Chikindas

Authors
  1. Maria S. Mazanko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ivan F. Gorlov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Evgeniya V. Prazdnova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maxim S. Makarenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alexander V. Usatov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Anzhelika B. Bren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Vladimir A. Chistyakov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Alexey V. Tutelyan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Zoya B. Komarova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Natalia I. Mosolova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Denis N. Pilipenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Olga E. Krotova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Aleksandr N. Struk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Angela Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Michael L. Chikindas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael L. Chikindas.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mazanko, M.S., Gorlov, I.F., Prazdnova, E.V. et al. Bacillus Probiotic Supplementations Improve Laying Performance, Egg Quality, Hatching of Laying Hens, and Sperm Quality of Roosters. Probiotics & Antimicro. Prot. 10, 367–373 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-017-9369-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-017-9369-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation