Efficacy of dietary supplementary probiotics as substitutes for antibiotic growth promoters during the starter period on growth performances, carcass traits, and immune organs of male layer chicken.

Background and Aim: With the increased concerns about global protein supply, chicken meat, especially from male layer chicken, constitutes an alternative in terms of quality and carcass traits. Probiotics have been proposed for replacing antibiotic growth promoters (AGPs), which have been prohibited as poultry supplement feeds. The present study aimed to determine the efficacy of dietary supplementary probiotics during the starter period on growth performances, carcass traits, and immune organs of male layer chicken. Materials and Methods: In this study, one hundred and eighty 1-day-old male chicks from the strain ISA brown were used. They were divided into six groups according to the feed: 100% basal feed (T0), basal feed+2.5 g AGP/kg feed (T1), basal feed+probiotics 1 mL/kg feed (T2), basal feed+probiotics 3 mL/kg feed (T3), basal feed+probiotics 4 mL/kg feed (T4), and basal feed+probiotics 5 mL/kg feed (T5). Probiotics (Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus plantarum, and Bifidobacterium spp.) were given at a concentration of 1.2×109 colony-forming unit/mL. Virginiamycin was used as AGP. ISA brown layer chicken was treated for 21 days. Growth performances (body weight, feed consumption, and feed conversion ratio [FCR]), carcass traits (weight at slaughter, weight of the carcass, breast muscles, liver, lungs, kidneys, and heart), immune organs (spleen, thymus, and bursa of Fabricius), and non-edible organs (head, legs, and wings) were analyzed. Results: Probiotic supplementation at 4 and 5 mL/kg feed (T4 and T5) during the starter phase improved the body weight, FCR, and feed consumption. The weight at slaughter, weight of the carcass, breast muscles, and liver from the T4 and T5 groups were significantly greater than those in the other treatment groups. In addition, the weight of the heart, lungs, and kidneys was increased in the T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5 groups compared with that measured in the T0 group. Furthermore, there were significant differences regarding the immune organs between the T0 and the other treatment groups. The weight of the head, legs, and wings was also greater in the probiotic and AGP supplementation groups (T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5) than that in the basal feed group (T0). Conclusion: Probiotic (L. acidophilus, L. plantarum, and Bifidobacterium spp.) supplementation at 4 and 5 mL/kg feed during the starter period can be used to improve the growth, carcass traits, and weight of immune organs in male layer chicken.

A scoping review of live wildlife trade in markets worldwide.

Wet markets sell fresh food and are a global phenomenon. They are important for food security in many regions worldwide but have come under scrutiny due to their potential role in the emergence of infectious diseases. The sale of live wildlife has been highlighted as a particular risk, and the World Health Organisation has called for the banning of live, wild-caught mammalian species in markets unless risk assessment and effective regulations are in place. Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a global scoping review of peer-reviewed information about the sale of live, terrestrial wildlife in markets that are likely to sell fresh food, and collated data about the characteristics of such markets, activities involving live wildlife, the species sold, their purpose, and animal, human, and environmental health risks that were identified. Of the 56 peer-reviewed records within scope, only 25% (n = 14) focussed on disease risks; the rest focused on the impact of wildlife sale on conservation. Although there were some global patterns (for example, the types of markets and purpose of sale of wildlife), there was wide diversity and huge epistemic uncertainty in all aspects associated with live, terrestrial wildlife sale in markets such that the feasibility of accurate assessment of the risk of emerging infectious disease associated with live wildlife trade in markets is currently limited. Given the value of both wet markets and wildlife trade and the need to support food affordability and accessibility, conservation, public health, and the social and economic aspects of livelihoods of often vulnerable people, there are major information gaps that need to be addressed to develop evidence-based policy in this environment. This review identifies these gaps and provides a foundation from which information for risk assessments can be collected.