Preparation of Enteric Coated chicken Feed Containing Probiotics and Evaluation of its Effectiveness

Probiotics are live microorganisms that, when given in sufficient amounts, offer a number of health benefits to the host, such as a decrease in lactose intolerance, a decreased risk of colon cancer, a reduction in inflammatory bowel disease, antimutagenic and anticarcinogenic properties, and a reduction in blood pressure, cholesterol, and allergies. Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are the most prevalent, extensively dispersed, and predominate residents of the human epithelium surface among the probiotic microbiota that have been examined. Over the years, probiotic usage in poultry has progressively expanded because to increased demand for poultry devoid of antibiotics. An excellent first step in addressing the alleged antibiotic resistance issue was the 2006 European Union-wide prohibition on the use of antibiotic growth promoters (AGP) in farm animals. However, finding a different method to raise healthy animals has become essential due to the growing public health concern about antibiotic resistance. Addressing the issue three different formulations were prepared by spray coating technique using thiacoata, at varying concentration of polymer eudragit L100 and plasticizer castor oil for prevention of gastric injury to the probiotic keeping the concentration of probiotic (lactobacillus subtilus) constant. Powder milk was also added in the formulations for the provision of energy source to the probiotics The prepared formulations were later subjected to the invitro evaluation for the determination of the integrity of the gastric coating using simulated media containing 0.1N Hcl. Various samples collected at different intervals 15min,30min, 45min,1 hr. 1.5 hr. and 2 hrs. were evaluated for the amount of released probiotic from the coated polymer and the concentration of the polymers was determined using UV spectroscopy. The formulation F1 containing eudragit L100 along with castor oil as plasticizer showed best concentration at sampling time of two hrs. which indicates the best gastroprotection as the starvation increase the gastric emptying time ranging up to 1 hr. while the fed chicken shows relatively longer transit time ranging from 2 hrs. to four hours. Later on, the feed granules constituting F1 formulation were prepared and 1 week old chicken (14 each in all the study groups) were fed at frequency of 19 grams per day with the said feed. The weight gain was determined for the period of 21 days and compared with the group having same parameter but fed with the conventional feed negative control, the group with probiotic which was not enteric protected. The results showed significant increase in the weight of the chicken group fed with granules containing the coated probiotics in comparison of the group with probiotics that was not enteric protected. The mean weight gain values for the enteric coated probiotic were μ: 17.35 with σ: 4.51 and variance σ2 20.37 while for the group without enteric coated probiotic the values were μ:13.21, σ: 3.36 and σ2: 11.31. These results indicate that by protecting the probiotics from the harsh gastric environment the effectivity and efficacy of these probiotics can be enhanced.