Bağırsak Sağlığını Destekleyici Farklı Katkı Maddelerinin Yumurta İçi Enjeksiyonunun Etlik Piliçlerde Kuluçka Oranı, Yaşam Oranı ve Bağırsak Toplam Aerobik Bakteri Yükü Üzerindeki Etkileri

Öz

Bu çalışma, yumurta içine uygulanan prebiyotik, probiyotik ve postbiyotik enjeksiyonunun etlik piliçlerde kuluçka oranı, yaşama oranı, erken büyüme performansı ve bağırsaktaki toplam aerobik bakteri yükü üzerindeki etkilerini değerlendirmiştir. 32 haftalık bir damızlık sürüsünden elde edilen toplam 300 adet döllenmiş Ross 308 yumurtası tek tek tartılmış, beş eşit gruba (grup başına 60 yumurta) ayrılmış ve standart koşullar altında kuluçkaya yatırılmıştır. Kuluçkanın 17,5. gününde, amniyotik sıvıya ilgili çözeltinin 0,2 mL'si enjekte edilmiştir: negatif kontrol (enjeksiyon yok), pozitif kontrol (steril damıtılmış su), prebiyotik (%0,2 inülin), probiyotik (%0,2 Bacillus clausii) ve postbiyotik (%0,2 Lactiplantibacillus plantarum kaynaklı preparat). Kuluçkadan sonra, civcivler 10 gün boyunca grup başına beş tekrarlı kafeste yetiştirilmiş ve ticari bir başlangıç ​​yemi ve su serbestçe verilmiştir. Kuluçka oranı, yaşama oranı, vücut ağırlığı, vücut ağırlığı artışı, yem tüketimi ve yem dönüşüm oranı kaydedildi ve her gruptan altı civcivin bağırsak içeriği, toplam aerobik bakteri sayısını (log10 cfu/g) belirlemek için kültüre edildi. Kuluçka oranı %90,0 ile %95,0 arasında, yaşama oranı ise %94,4 ile %100,0 arasında değişti ve gruplar arasında anlamlı bir fark bulunmadı (sırasıyla χ² = 1,77, P = 0,779 ve χ² = 6,76, P = 0,149). Kuluçkadan çıkışta ve 10. günde vücut ağırlığı, vücut ağırlığı artışı, yem tüketimi ve yem dönüşüm oranı da gruplar arasında benzerdi (P > 0,05), ancak en yüksek vücut ağırlığı artışı sayısal olarak prebiyotik grubunda kaydedildi. Toplam aerobik bakteri sayılarında anlamlı bir fark yoktu (P = 0,101); En düşük ortalama değer probiyotik grubunda (6,16 log10 cfu/g), en yüksek değer ise prebiyotik grubunda (6,90 log10 cfu/g) elde edildi. Mevcut koşullar altında, bu üç biyotiğin yumurta içine verilmesi, kuluçka sonuçlarını, erken performansı veya bağırsak aerobik yükünü ne olumsuz ne de olumlu yönde etkilediği gözlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biyotikler
• kuluçka oranı
• yumurta içi enjeksiyon
• bağırsak mikrobiyotası
• etlik piliç

Etik Beyan

Hayvanlarla ilgili tüm işlemler, Aydın Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Hayvan Deneyleri Yerel Etik Kurulu tarafından onaylanmıştır (onay no. 64583101/2025/144; tarih 01.09.2025). Deney süresince hayvan refahı, biyolojik güvenlik ve deneysel uygulamalar ulusal ve uluslararası standartlara uygun olarak gerçekleştirilmiştir.

Teşekkür

Yazarlar, deney süreci boyunca verdiği yardımlar için Dr. Onur ÖRTLEK'e teşekkür ederler.

Effects of In Ovo Injection of Different Gut Health-Promoting Additives on Hatchability, Liveability and Intestinal Total Aerobic Bacterial Load in Broiler Chickens

Öz

This study evaluated the effects of the in ovo injection of a prebiotic, a probiotic and a postbiotic on hatchability, livability, early growth performance and intestinal total aerobic bacterial load in broiler chickens. A total of 300 fertile Ross 308 eggs obtained from a 32-week-old breeder flock were individually weighed, allocated to five equal groups (n = 60 eggs per group) and incubated under standard conditions. At 17.5 days of incubation, 0.2 mL of the corresponding solution was injected into the amniotic fluid: negative control (no injection), positive control (sterile distilled water), prebiotic (0.2% inulin), probiotic (0.2% Bacillus clausii) and postbiotic (0.2% Lactiplantibacillus plantarum-derived preparation). After hatching, the chicks were reared for 10 days in five replicate pens per group and were offered a commercial starter diet and water ad libitum. Hatchability, livability, body weight, body weight gain, feed intake and feed conversion ratio were recorded, and the intestinal contents of six chicks per group were cultured to determine total aerobic bacterial counts (log10 cfu/g). Hatchability ranged from 90.0% to 95.0% and livability from 94.4% to 100.0%, with no difference among groups (χ² = 1.77, P = 0.779 and χ² = 6.76, P = 0.149, respectively). Body weight at hatch and at 10 days, body weight gain, feed intake and feed conversion ratio were also similar among groups (P > 0.05), although the highest body weight gain was numerically recorded in the prebiotic group. Total aerobic bacterial counts did not differ significantly (P = 0.101); the lowest mean was obtained in the probiotic group (6.16 log10 cfu/g) and the highest in the prebiotic group (6.90 log10 cfu/g). Under the present conditions, the in ovo delivery of these three biotics neither impaired nor improved hatching results, early performance or intestinal aerobic load.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biotics
• broiler chicken
• hatchability
• in ovo injection
• intestinal microbiota

Etik Beyan

All procedures involving animals were approved by the Animal Experiments Local Ethics Committee of Aydın Adnan Menderes University (approval no. 64583101/2025/144; date 01.09.2025). Animal welfare, biosecurity and experimental practice complied with national and international standards throughout the trial.

Teşekkür

The authors thank Dr. Onur ÖRTLEK for his assistance during the experimental period.

Kaynakça

1. Abd El-Ghany, W.A., Fouad, H., Quesnell, R., & Sakai, L. (2022). The effect of a postbiotic produced by stabilized non- viable Lactobacilli on the health, growth performance, immunity, and gut status of colisepticaemic broiler chickens. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 54(5), 286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-022-03300-w
2. Abdel-Moneim, A.M.E., Elbaz, A.M., Khidr, R.E., & Badri, F.B. (2020). Effect of in ovo inoculation of Bifidobacterium spp. on growth performance, thyroid activity, ileum histomorphometry, and microbial enumeration of broilers. Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins, 12(3), 873-882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-019-09613-x
3. Abdulqader, A.F., Aygun, A., Maman, A.H., & Olgun, O. (2018). The effect of in ovo injection of Lactobacillus rhamnosus on hatching traits and growth parameters of quails. Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences, 32(2), 174-178. https://doi.org/10.15316/SJAFS.2018.82
4. Aguilar-Toalá, J.E., Garcia-Varela, R., Garcia, H.S., Mata-Haro, V., González-Córdova, A.F., Vallejo-Cordoba, B., & Hernández- Mendoza, A. (2018). Postbiotics: An evolving term within the functional foods field. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 75, 105-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2018.03.009
5. Arreguin-Nava, M.A., Graham, B.D., Adhikari, B., Agnello, M., Selby, C.M., Hernandez-Velasco, X., . . . Tellez-Isaias, G. (2019). Evaluation of in ovo Bacillus spp. based probiotic administration on horizontal transmission of virulent Escherichia coli in neonatal broiler chickens. Poultry Science, 98(12), 6483-6491. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pez544
6. Asaadi, S., Daneshyar, M., & Alijoo, Y.A. (2021). The effects of in ovo injection of synbiotic on hatchability, chick quality, blood indices and performance of newly hatched chicks of Japanese quail. Iranian Journal of Animal Science Research, 13(3), 389-404. https://doi.org/10.22067/ijasr.v13i3.81538
7. Aviagen. (2022). Ross 308 broiler: Performance objectives. Aviagen Group. https://aviagen.com/assets/Tech_Center/Ross_Broiler/ RossxRoss308-BroilerPerformanceObjectives2022-EN.pdf (accessed 28 September 2026)
8. Beck, C.N., McDaniel, C.D., Wamsley, K.G., & Kiess, A.S. (2019). The potential for inoculating Lactobacillus animalis and Enterococcus faecium alone or in combination using commercial in ovo technology without negatively impacting hatch and post-hatch performance. Poultry Science, 98(12), 7050-7062. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pez441

9. Bednarczyk, M., Urbanowski, M., Gulewicz, P., Kasperczyk, K., Maiorano, G., & Szwaczkowski, T. (2011). Field and in vitro study on prebiotic effect of raffinose family oligosaccharides in chickens. Bulletin of the Veterinary Institute in Pulawy, 55(4), 465-469.
10. Bednarczyk, M., Stadnicka, K., Kozłowska, I., Abiuso, C., Tavaniello, S., Dankowiakowska, A., . . . Maiorano, G. (2016). Influence of different prebiotics and mode of their administration on broiler chicken performance. Animal, 10(8), 1271-1279. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731116000173
11. Bogucka, J., Dankowiakowska, A., Elminowska-Wenda, G., Sobolewska, A., Szczerba, A., & Bednarczyk, M. (2016). Effects of prebiotics and synbiotics delivered in ovo on broiler small intestine histomorphology during the first days after hatching. Folia
12. Biologica, 64(3), 131-143. https://doi.org/10.3409/fb64_3.131 Bogusławska-Tryk, M., Ziółkowska, E., Sławińska, A., Siwek, M., & Bogucka, J. (2021). Modulation of intestinal histology by probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics delivered in ovo in distinct chicken genotypes. Animals, 11(11), 3293. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11113293
13. Castañeda, C.D., Dittoe, D.K., Wamsley, K.G., McDaniel, C.D., Blanch, A., Sandvang, D., & Kiess, A.S. (2020). İn ovo inoculation of an Enterococcus faecium based product to enhance broiler hatchability, live performance and intestinal morphology. Poultry Science, 99(11), 6163-6172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2020.08.002
14. Cengiz, Ö., Köksal, B.H., Tatlı, O., Sevim, Ö., Ahsan, U., Üner, A.G., & Önol, A.G. (2015). Effect of dietary probiotic and high stocking density on the performance, carcass yield, gut microflora, and stress indicators of broilers. Poultry Science, 94(10), 2395-2403. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pev194
15. Das, R., Mishra, P., & Jha, R. (2021). İn ovo feeding as a tool for improving performance and gut health of poultry: A review. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8, 754246. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.754246
16. Decuypere, E., & Bruggeman, V. (2007). The endocrine interface of environmental and egg factors affecting chick quality. Poultry Science, 86(5), 1037-1042. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/86.5.1037
17. Fuller, R. (1989). Probiotics in man and animals. Journal of Applied Bacteriology, 66(5), 365-378. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.1989.tb05105.x
18. Gibson, G.R., & Roberfroid, M.B. (1995). Dietary modulation of the human colonic microbiota: Introducing the concept of prebiotics. The Journal of Nutrition, 125(6), 1401-1412. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/125.6.1401
19. Humam, A.M., Loh, T.C., Foo, H.L., Samsudin, A.A., Mustapha, N.M., Zulkifli, I., . . . Izuddin, W.I. (2019). Effects of feeding different postbiotics produced by Lactobacillus plantarum on growth performance, carcass yield, intestinal morphology, gut microbiota composition, immune status, and growth gene expression in broilers under heat stress. Animals, 9(9), 644. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9090644
20. Kadam, M.M., Barekatain, M.R., Bhanja, S.K., & Iji, P.A. (2013). Prospects of in ovo feeding and nutrient supplementation for poultry: The science and commercial applications - A review. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 93(15), 3654-3661. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6301
21. Kareem, K.Y., Loh, T.C., Foo, H.L., Akit, H., & Samsudin, A.A. (2016). Effects of dietary postbiotic and inulin on growth performance, IGF1 and GHR mRNA expression, faecal microbiota and volatile fatty acids in broilers. BMC Veterinary Research, 12, 163. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-016-0790-9
22. Li, T., Castañeda, C.D., Miotto, J., McDaniel, C., Kiess, A.S., & Zhang, L. (2021). Effects of in ovo probiotic administration on the incidence of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli in broilers and an evaluation on its virulence and antimicrobial resistance properties. Poultry Science, 100(3), 100903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2020.11.072
23. Lourens, A., Van den Brand, H., Meijerhof, R., & Kemp, B. (2006). Effect of eggshell temperature during incubation on embryo development, hatchability, and posthatch development. Poultry Science, 85(4), 695-703. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/84.6.914
24. Maiorano, G., Sobolewska, A., Cianciullo, D., Walasik, K., Elminowska- Wenda, G., Slawinska, A., . . . Bednarczyk, M. (2012). Influence of in ovo prebiotic and synbiotic administration on meat quality of broiler chickens. Poultry Science, 91(11), 2963-2969. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2012-02208
25. Majidi-Mosleh, A., Sadeghi, A.A., Mousavi, S.N., Chamani, M., & Zarei, A. (2017). Effects of in ovo infusion of probiotic strains on performance parameters, jejunal bacterial population and mucin gene expression in broiler chicken. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Avícola, 19(1), 97-102. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9061-2016-0288
26. Miles, A.A., & Misra, S.S. (1938). The estimation of the bactericidal power of the blood. The Journal of Hygiene, 38(6), 732-749. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002217240001158X
27. Ohta, Y., Kidd, M.T., & Ishibashi, T. (2001). Embryo growth and amino acid concentration profiles of broiler breeder eggs, embryos, and chicks after in ovo administration of amino acids. Poultry Science, 80(10), 1430-1436. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/80.10.1430
28. Patterson, J.A., & Burkholder, K.M. (2003). Application of prebiotics and probiotics in poultry production. Poultry Science, 82(4), 627- 631. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/82.4.627
29. Pruszynska-Oszmalek, E., Kołodziejski, P., Stadnicka, K., Sassek, M., Chalupka, D., Kuston, B., & Bednarczyk, M. (2015). İn ovo injection of prebiotics and synbiotics affects the digestive potency of the pancreas in growing chickens. Poultry Science, 94(8), 1909-1916. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pev162
30. Salminen, S., Collado, M.C., Endo, A., Hill, C., Lebeer, S., Quigley, E.M.M., . . . Vinderola, G. (2021). The International Scientific Association of Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of postbiotics. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 18(9), 649-667. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41575-021-00440-6
31. Samanya, M., & Yamauchi, K. (2002). Histological alterations of intestinal villi in chickens fed dried Bacillus subtilis var. natto. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology, 133(1), 95-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1095-6433(02)00121-6 anders, M.E., Merenstein, D.J., Reid, G., Gibson, G.R., &
32. Rastall, R.A. (2019). Probiotics and prebiotics in intestinal health and disease: From biology to the clinic. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 16(10), 605-616. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41575-019-0173-3
33. Setyaningrum, S., Yunianto, V.D., Sunarti, D., & Mahfudz, L.D. (2019). The effect of synbiotic (inulin extracted from gembili tuber and Lactobacillus plantarum) on growth performance, intestinal ecology and haematological indices of broiler chicken. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 31(11), 177. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd31/11/srise31177.html (accessed 28 September 2026)
34. Sözcü, A., & Curabay, B. (2014). Kuluçkada yumurta içi (in ovo) besleme uygulamaları. Hayvansal Üretim, 55(1), 46-50. https://doi.org/10.29185/hayuretim.363912
35. Tako, E., Ferket, P.R., & Uni, Z. (2004). Effects of in ovo feeding of carbohydrates and β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate on the development of chicken intestine. Poultry Science, 83(12), 2023- 2028. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/83.12.2023
36. Tsilingiri, K., & Rescigno, M. (2013). Postbiotics: What else? Beneficial Microbes, 4(1), 101-107. https://doi.org/10.3920/BM2012.0046 Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TÜİK). (2022). Kümes hayvancılığı üretimi, Ocak 2022. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Kategori/GetKategori?p=Tarim-111 (accessed 28 September 2026)
37. Uni, Z., & Ferket, P.R. (2004). Methods for early nutrition and their potential. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 60(1), 101-111. https://doi.org/10.1079/WPS20038
38. Vieira, S.L. (2007). Chicken embryo utilization of egg micronutrients. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science, 9(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-635X2007000100001
39. Zhong, Y., Wang, S., Di, H., Deng, Z., Liu, J., & Wang, H. (2022). Gut health benefit and application of postbiotics in animal production. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, 13, 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-022-00688-1