RU2742867C1 - Feed probiotic additive for birds - Google Patents

Abstract

FIELD: animal feeding.SUBSTANCE: invention relates to feed production, in particular to a probiotic feed additive for birds. The additive contains a bacterium concentrate, which is a mixture containing lactobacilli and propionic acid bacteria, previously sublimated to the state of a lyophilized powder, milk powder, zeolite powder, a substitute for skimmed milk powder and fulvic acid. All components are used in a certain ratio. In this case, the bacterial concentrate is formed by a mixture containing Lactococcus lactis subsp. Lactis, Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus plantarum, Vifidobacterium bifidum, Bifidobacterium longum, Bifidobacterium adolescentis, Propionibacterium shermanii, Propionibacterium freudenrechii, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Saccharomyces unisporus, Torulopsis sphaerica, Torulaspora delbrueskii, Candida kefir, Candida holmii, Candida friedrichii, Kluyveromyces lactis, Kluyveromyces marxianus.EFFECT: increased live weight of the bird.1 cl, 6 tbl, 2 ex

Description

The invention relates to fodder production, in particular to a probiotic feed additive for birds, mainly broilers and ducks [A23K 10/16, A23K 50/75, A23K 20/28].

Known feed additive for animals and birds (RU2347370, published: 2009.02.27), including liquid potassium and sodium humate with a content of silicon dioxide, characterized in that additionally introduced a mineral complex in an amount of at least 0.5% of the total mass, liquid humate potassium and sodium has a pH of 12-13, the total amount of humic acids and fulvic acids is not less than 2.8% and silicon dioxide in an amount of not less than 1.1% of the total mass.

Also known is a humic feed additive from peat (RU2349094, published: 2009.03.20), which includes humic components in the form of humic acids and fulvic acids with alkaline pH, vitamins, amino acids, macro- and microelements, characterized in that it contains humic acids and fulvic acids in mother liquor in an amount of at least 45000 mg / l at pH 8-9. The humic feed additive is declared in the form of a working solution with a pH of 7.3-8.0, it contains ingredients, mg / l: humic acids 10000, fulvic acids - 2750-3200, dry matter - 15100-16100, macroelements: nitrogen - 2095-2326, potassium - 106-144, iron - 60-96, calcium - 80-128, phosphorus - 30-150, trace elements: copper - 0.70-0.99, zinc - 0.40-0.70, manganese - 1, 18-3.80, magnesium - 122-198, amino acids: asparagine - 230-237, threonine - 70-93, serine - 100-124, glutamine - 280-320, proline - 275-320, glycine - 72-93, alanine - 175-206, valine - 110-144, methionine - 61-82, isoleucine - 59-82, leucine - 156-168, tyrosine - 80-103, phenylalanine - 160-180, histidine - 220-258, lysine - 158-186, arginine - 76-83, vitamins: A - 0.106-0.125, E - 0.075-0.095, B1 - 0.010-0.016, B2 - 0.027-0.056, B3 - 0.034-0.045, B5 - 0.0130-0.154, B6 - 0.014-0.018, Bc - 0.0025-0.0042, K3 - 0.0027-0.0038; B12 - 0.00007-0.00009.

The result of known feed additives is the biological activity of the drug.

A technical problem with these two known analogs is the use of an additive consisting of chemicals.

Currently, the main direction of development of the meat industry is the use of ecological feed for animals, feed additives in which are also ecological and have a natural origin.

Recently, emphasis has been placed on the use of additives obtained by bacterial processing of food raw materials, which in the course of such processing are enriched with all the necessary vitamin complexes.

The closest analogue is a feed additive used in the method of feeding broiler chickens and consisting of a bacterial concentrate, which is a mixture of bacteria of Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus lactis subsp. lactis and Propionobacterium freudenreichii subsp. shermanii, pre-freeze-dried to the state of lyophilized powder, lactulose, starch and perlite, at the following ratio: lyophilized bacterial concentrate powder - 10%, starch - 40%, lactulose - 30% and perlite - 20% (RU2604501 C1, publ. 10.12.2016, Bul. 34).

The technical problem of the known feed additive is its insufficiently high efficiency in feeding broiler chickens, namely, insufficiently high productivity and high feed costs per 1 kg of live weight gain. In addition, lactulose has to be used, which significantly increases the cost of the feed additive.

Also, the technical problem of the prototype is the limited shelf life of the feed additive and special requirements for its storage conditions. The additive in dry form is stored for no more than 1 year, with its obligatory storage in the refrigerator.

The problem solved by this invention is to create a highly effective ecological probiotic feed additive, the use of which in the poultry ration will provide high productivity of young poultry and low feed costs per 1 kg of live weight gain, and in addition, will increase the shelf life of the feed additive.

The technical result of the claimed invention is the creation of an ecological probiotic feed additive for poultry, which, in comparison with the prototype, provides low feed costs per 1 kg of live weight gain and has a longer shelf life, with reduced requirements for storage conditions.

The technical result is achieved by the fact that the declared probiotic feed additive for birds, consisting of a bacterial concentrate, which is a mixture of lactobacilli and propionic acid bacteria, pre-sublimated to the state of lyophilized powder, and fillers, characterized in that the feed additive contains dry milk whey as fillers , zeolite powder, skimmed milk powder substitute and fulvic acid, with the following ratio of components, wt%:

lyophilized bacterial concentrate powder 0,4 dry milk whey 10.0 zeolite powder 20.0 fulvic acid 2.0 skimmed milk powder substitute rest;

where the bacterial concentrate is formed by a mixture in which the types of bacteria are present:

- Lactococcus lactis subsp. Lactis in the amount of 5x10 ⁸ CFU / g;

- taken in equal shares of Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp.bulgaricus, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus plantarum with a total amount of 1x10 ⁹ CFU / g;

- taken in equal shares of Bifidobacterium bifidum, Bifidobacterium longum, Bifidobacterium adolescentis with a total amount of 2x10 ⁷ CFU / g;

- taken in equal proportions Propionibacterium shermanii, Propionibacterium freudenrechii - a total of 5x10 ⁸ CFU / g;

- a mixture of yeast fungi Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Saccharomyces unisporus, Torulopsis sphaerica, Torulaspora delbrueskii, Candida kefir, Candida holmii, Candida friedrichii, Kluyveromyces lactis, Kluyveromyces / marxianus, ⁹ g in total, taken in equal proportions.

Implementation of the invention

Theoretical background of the invention

In studies [Khamagaeva I.S. Biotechnology of starter cultures of propionic acid bacteria.-Ulan-Ude: Publishing house of VSGTU, 2006.− 172 p.] - [1]; [Vorobieva L.I. Propionic acid bacteria. - M .: Publishing house of Moscow State University, 1995. - 288 p.] - [2] of the classical propionic acid bacteria Propionibacterium freudenreichii and Propionibacterium shermanii it was shown that they form a trophic chain with lactic acid bacteria, pre-fermenting carbohydrates (including lactose) with the formation of lactic acid, which, in the form of lactates, propionic acid bacteria use as sources of carbon and energy.

According to [1, 2], the primary natural habitat of propionic bacteria, such as Propionibacterium freudenreichii and Propionibacterium shermanii, is the rumen of herbivores, where they ferment lactate formed by other representatives of the rumen microflora. In addition to lactate, these bacteria can ferment other sugars. Propionic acid bacteria are salt-tolerant. When the lactate medium contains 4% NaCl, normal growth and fermentation occurs.

Propionic acid bacteria synthesize significant amounts of fatty acids, lipids and phospholipids, the composition of which is a taxonomic feature. Some P. shermanii strains also synthesize C12, C21, C22, C23 fatty acids. The lipids of propionic acid bacteria, apparently, not only enter the structural elements of cells, but also play the role of protective components against the action of some antibiotics. Propionic acid bacteria synthesize polyphosphates in significant quantities. Propionic acid bacteria use lactate best in the presence of yeast extract. Lactate as a carbon source provides a higher growth rate of propionic acid bacteria than lactose.

These well-known research results [1, 2] showed that when 0.5% yeast extract is added to milk or whey, the production of acids by propionic acid bacteria increases 2.5-4.5 times, and when 1% sodium lactate is added, this the process is 1.6-4.6 times.

Also, studies [1, 2] show that the need for propionic acid bacteria in a set of vitamins is much lower than that of lactic acid bacteria. In studies [Delwiche E.A. Mechanim of propionic acid formation by Propionibacterium pentosaceum // J. Bact. - 1958. - Vol. 56. - P. 811-820.]; [Delwiche E.A., Carson S.F. A citris acid cycle in Propionibacterium pentosaceum // J. Bact. - 1968. - Vol. 65.- No. 3. - P. 318 –321] it is shown that they need only pantothenic acid and biotin, some of them require thiamine. Riboflavin stimulates growth, but there is no obligate need for it, bacteria synthesize vitamins B12 and B2 on their own. The growth of all propionic acid bacteria is stimulated by tween 80. Nisin has a strong inhibitory effect.

As a carbon source for synthesis, glucose is most favorable, but bacteria also grow well on lactose and lactate. Certain species curdle milk, do not liquefy gelatin, form diacetyl and acetoin.

Propionic bacteria can synthesize all amino acids by assimilating nitrogen (NH4) 2SO4. The biosynthesis of proteins by propionic bacteria is accompanied by the creation of a pool of 15 amino acids: cystine, histidine, arginine, aspartate, glutamic acid, glycine, serine, threonine, b-alanine, tyrosine, valine, methionine, proline, phenylalanine and leucine. It is known that bacteria contain peptidases, with the participation of which they provide themselves with essential amino acids and carry out transamination reactions, can grow on any of the 20 amino acids introduced into the medium as the only source of nitrogen.

According to [1, 2], the propionic bacteria Propionibacterium freudenreichii and Propionibacterium shermanii as sources of antibiomutagens or desmutagens can be used for pretreatment of food and feed in order to neutralize mutagenic (carcinogenic) substances, as well as probiotics. It was shown that the desmutagenic effect of the culture liquid was manifested when bacteria were grown on a medium with lactose and lactate.

Thus, propionic acid bacteria are among the most useful microorganisms. They are capable of synthesizing practically important substances: most amino acids, a significant amount of fatty acids, lipids and phospholipids, polyphosphates, enzymes and vitamins.

In [1, 2], it was shown that a distinctive feature of the metabolism of Propionibacterium freudenreichii and Propionibacterium shermanii is the close conjugation of energy processes and constructive metabolism. Propionic acid fermentation as the main energetic process effectively provides a constructive metabolism of classical propionic acid bacteria. At the same time, P. freudenreichii, in contrast to lactic acid bacteria, is able to synthesize all metabolites necessary to maintain their homeostasis in minimal media (containing cobalt ions) both anaerobically and in the presence of air. At the same time, it accumulates in cells or releases compounds into the environment, among which there are many useful for humans and animals, including nutraceuticals.

Also, according to [1, 2], propionic acid bacteria are used in baking. They, along with lactic acid bacteria and yeast, are introduced into some starter cultures for dough in order to form, in addition to lactic and acetic acids, propionic acids during fermentation.

All of the above indicated that when mixing yeast extract, the production of acids by propionic acid bacteria increases, and when lactose is added, this process is even more activated.

Moreover, these properties are characteristic of all strains of propionic acid bacteria, which is also indicated in [1, 2].

Therefore, in the present invention, this fact was taken into account when selecting the optimal ratios for a new feed additive, where the use of certain strains does not matter, since they all have the properties that are used in the invention.

In this application, the applicant uses properties generally known for all strains, expressed by a single general concept that does not have different private forms of implementation. Therefore, substantiating the validity of the degree of generalization of all strains used by the applicant, an extensive list of research results is indicated [1, 2], from which the possibility of those properties of bacterial species that are generally known for all strains of each species is confirmed.

Practical implementation of the invention

It was experimentally found that, unlike the prototype, it is advisable to use a mixture of bacteria of the following species:

- Lactococcus lactis subsp. Lactis in the amount of 5x10 ⁸ CFU / g;

- taken in equal shares of Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp.bulgaricus, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus plantarum with a total amount of 1x10 ⁹ CFU / g;

- taken in equal shares of Bifidobacterium bifidum, Bifidobacterium longum, Bifidobacterium adolescentis with a total amount of 2x10 ⁷ CFU / g;

- taken in equal proportions Propionibacterium shermanii, Propionibacterium freudenrechii - a total of 5x10 ⁸ CFU / g;

- a mixture of yeast fungi Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Saccharomyces unisporus, Torulopsis sphaerica, Torulaspora delbrueskii, Candida kefir, Candida holmii, Candida friedrichii, Kluyveromyces lactis, Kluyveromyces / marxianus, ⁹ g in total, taken in equal proportions.

As a filler were used: dry milk whey 100.0 g / kg, mineral sorbent based on zeolite (tripoli) 200 g / kg, 20 ml / kg of fulvic acid, substitute for skimmed milk powder - the rest is up to 1 kg.

The concentration of living bacteria at the end of the shelf life is at least 2x10 ⁹ CFU / g.

In appearance it is a dry porous mass - powder from white to cream color.

The meaning of such selection of bacterial concentrate is that a certain type of bacteria is always present in the mixture in the required volume, which is determined by the total number of microbial cells at the end of the shelf life of at least 2x10 ⁹ CFU / g, divided by the number of all species used. In other words, the sufficiency of the presence of all types of the specified bacteria and fungi, taken in the specified amount, allows in any case to use their positive properties, which are generally known.

The claimed mixture of yeast fungi of the specified set is also well known and it is found in kefir and kurung, the positive properties of this set of yeast fungi are well known.

An innovative solution was the fact that in order to feed the specified aggregate mixture of bacterial concentrate, it is necessary to add milk powder, zeolite powder and a substitute for skimmed milk powder, as well as fulvic acid.

It was the complex selection of bacterial concentrate as stated and the indicated ingredients of the nutritional mixture for it provided the following effect from the results of their interaction:

A) Mixing of lactic acid bacteria and yeasts provided the formation of the feed additive itself in full analogy with the prototype.

B) Mixing propionic acid bacteria with lactic acid bacteria ensured the start of fermentation with the formation of lactic acid, which, in the form of lactates, propionic acid bacteria were then used as sources of carbon and energy.

C) On the available energy sources (B), including skimmed cow's milk and dry milk whey, in the presence of yeast extract, propionic acid bacteria provided:

B.1) synthesis of a significant amount of fatty acids, lipids and phospholipids, polyphosphates;

B.2) synthesis of amino acids: cystine, histidine, arginine, aspartate, glutamic acid, glycine, serine, threonine, b-alanine, tyrosine, valine, methionine, proline, phenylalanine and leucine;

C.3) cleaning the feed mixture by neutralizing mutagenic (carcinogenic) substances.

D) The mixing of lactic acid bacteria and bifidobacteria in the cultured milk medium produced from milk and whey provided the expected and well-known effect characteristic of their interaction:

D.1) inhibition of the growth of potentially harmful microorganisms as a result of the production of antimicrobial substances; competition with them for adhesion receptors and nutrients; activation of immune-competent cells and stimulation of immunity;

D.2) stimulating the growth of representatives of the indigenous microflora as a result of the production of vitamins and other growth-stimulating factors; normalization of pH, eH-potential; neutralizing toxins;

D.3) restoration and optimization of the functioning of the biofilm lining the mucous membrane of the digestive tract;

D.4) a change in microbial metabolism leading to an increase or decrease in the synthesis and activity of bacterial enzymes and, as a consequence, the production of the corresponding metabolites (for example, VFA, glutamine, arginine, vitamins, peptidoglycans, etc.), which have the ability to locally or after penetration into the blood and other biological fluids of the macroorganism, directly interfere with the metabolic activity of the cells of the corresponding organs and tissues;

D.5) other mechanisms (direct effects of natural probiotics (lactic acid and bifidobacteria) after their absorption from the digestive tract on enzymatic and other cellular reactions of hormonal, nervous, excretory, immune and other organs and tissues).

The combination of the specified complex effect (A, B, C, D) of the experimentally selected mixture, according to the claimed invention, made it possible to obtain a feed additive, which, unlike the prototype, was saturated with most amino acids, a significant amount of fatty acids, lipids and phospholipids, polyphosphates, enzymes and vitamins. At the same time, harmful microorganisms and carcinogens were neutralized in the feed additive, the additive had better digestibility.

The experimentally obtained feed additive provided, in comparison with the prototype, low feed costs per 1 kg of live weight gain.

Fulvic acid added to the feed additive not only contains a large amount of vitamins, amino acids, minerals, but is also an enzyme for catalysis of the fermentation reaction in a feed additive that improves bacterial cell division, as well as an antioxidant that neutralizes free radicals, increases resistance to viruses and bacteria, reduces acidity.

Fulvic acid allows you to protect the feed additive from the aggressive effects of the external environment, viruses, foreign bacteria, which increases its shelf life and reduces the requirements for storage conditions.

Fulvic acid reacts with minerals and breaks them down into ionic particles to form fulvates, the smallest possible forms of minerals. It is in this form that the minerals are easily absorbed by the body of animals, which has a positive effect on the growth of their mass. The low molecular weight ensures that fulvic acid is permeable through the cell membrane and is a conduit for vitamins and minerals in the body of animals.

This positive effect of fulvic acid on the increase in animal weight and increase the shelf life of the declared feed additive was revealed empirically.

The fulvic acid product is not cheap, therefore, more important in the selection of the required concentration in the fulvic acid mixture was the value of its minimum volume, which would give a positive effect, and beyond which the growth of a positive effect was no longer observed.

Experiments have shown that the feed additive was most effectively saturated with vitamins and had a long shelf life, when 20 ml of fulvic acid per 1 kg of feed additive was added to the ready-made powder by spraying it. The feed additive in dry form was stored at a temperature of 22-24 ° C in standard cages on a wood-chip bed, with a relative humidity of 40-60%, under natural light conditions.

The experimental results are shown in Table 1, where the total number of microbial cells 100% is a value of 2x10 ⁹ CFU / g.

Table 1

Fraction of fulvic acid in ml per 100 mg of feed additive shelf life (100% - 2 years) 0.5 78 one 84 1.5 89 2 one hundred 2.5 99 3 99 3.5 99 four 99 4.5 98 five 97 5.5 98 6 97

It can be seen from these data that the effect of 20 ml of fulvic acid when added to the filler from dry milk whey, a mineral sorbent based on zeolite (tripoli) and a substitute for skimmed milk powder, provides a longer shelf life, with reduced requirements for storage conditions for a dry mixture, since the dry mixture can be stored for up to 2 years at a temperature of 22-24 ° C in typical cages on a wood-chip bed, with a relative humidity of 40-60%, under natural light conditions, while the prototype feed additive is stored for no more than 1 year in refrigerator conditions.

Lower values of fulvic acid (up to 20 ml per 1 kg) in the mixture sharply reduced the effectiveness of the feed additive on the increase in live weight, while higher values of fulvic acid (more than 20 ml per 1 kg) in the mixture did not affect the quality and positive properties of the feed. additives.

The experimental results are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 shows the experimental results of the selection of the ingredients of the mixture when changing the concentration of fulvic acid (per 1 kg of the mixture, taking into account 4 g of bacterial concentrate introduced).

table 2

For 1 kg of mixture dry milk whey zeolite powder skimmed milk powder substitute The minimum efficiency of gain in live weight of chickens (%) Minimum efficiency of increase in live weight of ducks (%) Fraction of fulvic acid in ml per 100 mg of feed additive 0.5 one hundred 200 699.1 0,4 0.7 2 one hundred 200 697.6 2.1 2,3 3.5 one hundred 200 696.1 3.2 4.8 five one hundred 200 694.6 5.7 7.6 6.5 one hundred 200 693.1 5.7 7.5 8 one hundred 200 691.6 5.7 7.4 9.5 one hundred 200 690.1 5.6 7.5 eleven one hundred 200 688.6 5.6 7.6 12.5 one hundred 200 687.1 5.7 7.4 14 one hundred 200 685.6 5.6 7.6 15.5 one hundred 200 684.1 5.5 7.4 17 one hundred 200 682.6 5.2 7.3

The method of obtaining a feed additive is as follows.

Obtaining a feed additive is carried out by mixing the dried biomass of bacterial concentrate, including a mixture of bacteria of the following species:

- Lactococcus lactis subsp. Lactis in the amount of 5x10 ⁸ CFU / g;

- taken in equal shares of Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp.bulgaricus, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus plantarum with a total amount of 1x10 ⁹ CFU / g;

- taken in equal shares of Bifidobacterium bifidum, Bifidobacterium longum, Bifidobacterium adolescentis with a total amount of 2x10 ⁷ CFU / g;

- taken in equal proportions Propionibacterium shermanii, Propionibacterium freudenrechii - a total of 5x10 ⁸ CFU / g;

- a mixture of yeast fungi Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Saccharomyces unisporus, Torulopsis sphaerica, Torulaspora delbrueskii, Candida kefir, Candida holmii, Candida friedrichii, Kluyveromyces lactis, Kluyveromyces / marxianus, ⁹ g in total, taken in equal proportions.

The total number of microbial cells in the bacterial concentrate is at least 2.5-10 ⁹ CFU / g.

To obtain 1 kg g of a feed additive, the dried mixture of bacterial concentrate is added in a volume of 4 g to the filler. As a filler, 100 g of dry milk whey, 200 g of zeolite powder and a substitute for skimmed milk powder are used - the rest is up to 1 kg.

After drying, the components of the resulting feed additive are sent for grinding to a feed grinder, where they are ground to a powder state.

In the finished powder, add 20 ml of fulvic acid by spraying it.

The finished supplement is fed to the bird.

Store the feed additive dry for at least 2 years at room temperature 22-24 ° C. The concentration of living bacteria at the end of the storage period must reach at least 2x10 ⁹ CFU / g.

Tests have shown that the obtained probiotic feed additive at certain optimal ratios of these components provides when feeding broilers and ducks: increasing their productivity, reducing feed costs per 1 kg of live weight gain, as well as maximizing the safety of the livestock.

The effectiveness of the claimed probiotic feed additive is illustrated by examples, the initial indicators in which are its composition, and the experimentally determined indicators are the average daily gain in live weight of the poultry of the experimental groups for the period of scientific and production experience, in percent and grams in relation to the control group, reducing feed costs for 1 kg increase in live weight of poultry in the experimental groups, in percent and grams in relation to the control group, as well as the safety of the livestock in the experimental groups.

Example 1.

To test the effectiveness of the claimed probiotic feed additive when feeding broiler chickens, a research and production experiment was carried out in the conditions of the Slavyanskaya poultry farm of JSC Agrocomplex named after N.I. Tkachev of the Vyselkovsky district of the Krasnodar Territory.

To conduct a scientific and production experience, 5 groups of 50 heads in each group were formed from broiler chickens of the Arbor Acres cross:

1st group - the control group, which received the main diet (without additives);

2nd group - experimental, receiving the main diet and additionally 0.1% to the weight of the feed additive of known composition (prototype);

3rd group - experimental, receiving the main diet and additionally 0.05% by weight of the feed of the claimed additive, according to the invention;

4th group - experimental, receiving the main diet and additionally 0.075% by weight of the feed of the claimed additive, according to the invention;

5th group - experimental, receiving the main diet and additionally 0.1% by weight of the feed of the claimed additive, according to the invention.

The chickens were raised in cages, the conditions were the same for all groups and corresponded to zootechnical standards. The basic diet (RR) for chickens of all groups was in accordance with the recommendations of the poultry supplier. The duration of the research and production experience was 42 days.

Table 3 shows data characterizing the effectiveness of the claimed feed additive in comparison with a known feed additive.

Table 3.

Indicator name Indicator value Known (2nd experimental group) Declared 3rd experienced
Group 4th experimental group 5th experimental group Average daily gain in live weight of broiler chickens in experimental groups over the period of the experiment,% to control 105.7 111.8 112.2 112.0 Reduction of feed costs per 1 kg of live weight gain of broiler chickens of experimental groups during the experiment period,% to control 4.8 7.5 7.8 7,7 Livestock safety,% 98.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

From the data shown in Table 3, it can be seen that the average daily gain in live weight of broiler chickens in the experimental groups that received an additional declared feed additive with RR, compared with the control group receiving RR (without additives) was 111.8-112.2% , and the average daily gain in live weight of broiler chickens who received an additional known feed additive with RR is lower than in the control group and amounted to 105.7%, that is, the effectiveness of the application of the claimed feed additive is 6.1-6.5% higher than famous.

It should be noted that the use of the claimed feed additive in the diet of broiler chickens provides a decrease in feed costs per 1 kg of live weight gain in comparison with the control group by 7.5-7.8%, and for a known feed additive by 4.8%, t .e. the cost of feed using the claimed feed additive is lower than the cost of feed using a known feed additive by 2.7-3.0%).

In addition, in the experimental groups of broilers that received the claimed feed additive, the safety of the livestock was 100%), and in the experimental group that received the known additive - 98.0%).

The results of scientific and industrial experience confirm the higher efficiency of the claimed feed additive in comparison with the known feed additive.

Example 2.

To test the effectiveness of the claimed probiotic feed additive when feeding ducks, a scientific and production experiment was carried out in the conditions of the poultry farm of Kuban Poultry Breeder LLC in 2019. In the course of the experiment, the effect of a probiotic feed additive in the feeding of ducks was studied and the effect of the feed additive on general biological and economic indicators when growing poultry was evaluated.

During the experiment, three groups were formed - control and experimental:

Experimental group 1 - building No. 2, number of 3800 heads, cross French STAR 53, landing date 10/25/2019, receiving the main ration and additionally 0.1% to the feed weight of the additive according to the invention.

Experimental group 2, building No. 3, number of 3800 heads, French cross STAR 53, landing date 10/25/2019, receiving the main diet and additionally 0.1% to the feed weight of the additive of known composition (prototype).

Control (group 3) - building No. 4, number of 3850 heads, cross French STAR 53 landing date 10/25/2019

The groups were formed taking into account the creation of the same conditions of detention in accordance with zoological requirements, feeding was carried out with complete food.

The feed additive was used in the form of an additive in dry compound feed according to the scheme, according to table 4.

Table 4.

Period of life Feed additive application rate 0-10 days 0.5 kg / 1 ton of feed 11-30 days 1.0 kg / 1 ton of feed 31 days before slaughter 1.5 kg / 1 ton of feed

Monitoring the clinical state of the livestock during the rearing process was carried out daily. To assess the effect of the use of a probiotic supplement, weekly growth rates, preservation, and feed conversion were evaluated.

In the course of the experiment, it was found that the ducks of both groups were active, willingly ate food, grew well and developed well. In ducks of the experimental group that received the supplement, the increase in live weight relative to the control indicator was traced in the form of a trend, reaching a maximum by the end of the growing period. The results are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Live weight of ducks of different groups, g.

Groups Age, days 0-10 11-30 31-55 1 (experienced) 438 2416 4348 2 (experienced) 419 2304 4115 3 (control) 407 2220 4030

Accordingly, the average daily body weight gain was the highest in the experimental group that received the supplement than in the control group (Table 6). In the 1st experimental group, which received the supplement, this indicator exceeded the control one by 8%. There was also a noticeable increase in the 1st experimental group compared to the 2nd experimental group.

Table 6. Influence of the use of the additive on the average daily gain of ducks, g.

Age period, weeks Groups 1 - experienced 1 - experienced 3 - control one 47 46 45 2 80 78 76 3 101 99 96 four 112 107 102 five 96 94 90 6 80 77 76 7 65 62 60 8 fifty 45 40

It should be noted that the ducks of all groups received food ad libitum and consumed it, per 1 head, approximately equal amount (in the experimental group it was 0.204 g more). The average daily gain and live weight of the test group ducks were higher than in the control group. It is obvious that the tested complex of the feed additive had a stimulating effect on the digestion processes, increasing the digestion of feed and the absorption of nutrients in the duck's body. In ducks 1 - experimental group in the second period of rearing, feed costs per 1 kg of live weight gain decreased both in comparison with the control and in comparison with 2 - experimental group, where the additive was used according to the prototype, which provided an indicator for the entire rearing period at the level 4.35 kg. In addition, the safety of the livestock of the 1st experimental building was 93.6%, which is 2.2% higher than the indicators of the control building and 1.4% higher than the indicators of the building of the 2nd experimental group.

Thus, this test showed that the use of the claimed feed additive helps to preserve the number of ducks and to increase their productivity.

In general, taking into account examples 1 and 2, the feed additive according to the invention provides, in comparison with the prototype, low feed costs per 1 kg of live weight gain when rearing poultry.

Claims (8)

Probiotic feed additive for poultry, consisting of bacterial concentrate, which is a mixture of lactobacilli and propionic acid bacteria, previously sublimated to the state of lyophilized powder, and fillers, characterized in that the feed additive contains dry milk whey as fillers, zeolite powder, a dry fat-free substitute milk and fulvic acid, with the following ratio of components, wt%: lyophilized bacterial concentrate powder 0,4 dry milk whey 10.0 zeolite powder 20.0 fulvic acid 2.0 skimmed milk powder substitute rest, where the bacterial concentrate is formed by a mixture in which the types of bacteria are present: - Lactococcus lactis subsp. Lactis in the amount of 5x10 ⁸ CFU / g; - taken in equal shares of Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp.bulgaricus, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus plantarum with a total amount of 1x10 ⁹ CFU / g; - taken in equal shares of Bifidobacterium bifidum, Bifidobacterium longum, Bifidobacterium adolescentis with a total amount of 2x10 ⁷ CFU / g; - taken in equal proportions Propionibacterium shermanii, Propionibacterium freudenrechii in a total amount of 5x10 ⁸ CFU / g; - a mixture of yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Saccharomyces unisporus, Torulopsis sphaerica , Torulaspora delbrueskii, Candida kefir, Candida holmii, Candida friedrichii, Kluyveromyces lactis, Kluyveromyces marxianus, taken in equal proportions, a total of 1x10 ⁹ cfu / g.