الفهرس 
The micro flora and its roleOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 70 |  |  |
| | | from | 70 | | |
Abstract
The aim of this thesis was to study the effect of probiotics, prebiotics and their combination on the productive and health parameters in chickens.
Two hundred-one day old balady chicks were allotted in to five groups, up to 7 weeksof age.
G1: chicks were not fed with probiotic nor fed with prebiotic
represent control non treated group.
G2: chicks were fed on prebiotic (Alphamune).
G3: chicks were fed on probiotic 1 (Nutro-tox).
G4: chicks were fed on probiotic 2(Veta-diacure).
G5: chicks were fed on a mixture of probiotic 1 and prebiotic (a mixture of Nutro-tox + Alphamune).
All groups were experimentally infected orally with S.Enteritedis at age of 30 daysto test the effect of different treatments on the rate of S.Enteritedis re-isolation from different organs.
The main results can be summarized as following:
1.There was a significant increase in the relative weight in intestine 4.977% for a mixture of probiotics 1+prebiotic, 4.209% for probiotic 2, 4.131% for probiotic 1, 4.059% for prebiotic and 3.569% for control non treated group.
For liver 3.457% for a mixture of probiotics 1+prebiotic, 3.2% for probiotic 1, 3.1111% for probiotic2, 3.073% for prebiotic and 2.861% for control non treated group.
For bursa 0.751% for a mixture of probiotics 1+prebiotic, 0.714% for probiotic 2, 0.686% for probiotic1, 0.664% for prebiotic and 0.602% for control non treated group.
For spleen 0.371% for a mixture of probiotics 1+prebiotic, 0.338% for probiotic 2, 0.323% for probiotic1, 0.247% for prebiotic and 0.220% for control non treated group.
For thymus 0.682% for a mixture of probiotics 1+prebiotic, 0.628 % for probiotic 2, 0.615% for probiotic1, 0.498% for prebiotic and 0.451% for control non treated group.
2.HI titers for NDV were log 2 5.25 for a mixture of probiotics 1+prebiotic, log 2 5 for probiotic 1, log 2 4.25 for probiotic2, log 2 3.5 for prebiotic and log 2 2.75 for control non treated group.
HI titers for AIV were log 2 5.75 for a mixture of probiotics 1+prebiotic, log 2 5.5 for probiotic 1, log 2 5 for probiotic2, log 2 3.25 for prebiotic and log 2 2.75 for control non treated group.
3. All treatments cause scanty growth on 10th day PI, while infected non treated group cause scanty growth on 3th PI. Luxuriant growth was obtained in the 15th days PI infected treated group, while in infected non treated group occur in 10th days PI.
4. All treatments cause retardation of re-isolation of S.Enteritedis from the infected bird’s internal organs (liver, gall bladder, spleen, heart blood and cecum) till 10th days post infection. S.Enteritedis not recovered from gall bladder and spleen of the birds feed on probiotic1+prebiotic at 15th days PI, however, S.Enteritedis re-isolation from spleen of birds fed on probiotic 1 at 15th days PI. While S.Enteritedis was recovered from ceca of group 2 (birds fed on prebiotic) at 5th days PI.
While, the control non treated group start the re-isolation from liver and cecum in the 3rd days PI, and from gall bladder in the 5th days PI, and from spleen and heart blood in 10th days PI.
5. There was a significant decrease in the feed conversion ratio 2.188 for a mixture of probiotic1+prebiotic, 2.793 for probiotic 2, 2.859 for probiotic 1, 2.986 for prebiotic , 3.386 for control non treated group.
6. There was a significant increase in the body weight 335.4 for a mixture of probiotic1+prebiotic, 300 for probiotic 2, 290.2 for probiotic 1, 246.9 for prebiotic , 222.5 for control non treated group.