Effect of organic acid supplementation on performance index, water intake & economics of broiler chickens

Introduction

A major challenge in broiler production is the impact of clinical and subclinical bacterial and viral infections, which can cause morbidity and mortality. Broilers are highly susceptible to enteric pathogens such as Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp., and Clostridium spp. from an early age. These pathogens compete for nutrients, impair growth performance, and increase disease susceptibility, leading to the widespread use of antibiotic growth promoters (AGPs) to improve health and productivity. The European Union phased out and prohibited the use of AGPs in animal feed from 1 January 2006 under Regulation (EC) No. 1831/2003, primarily due to concerns regarding antimicrobial resistance and antibiotic residues in food products (European Parliament and Council, 2003; Castanon, 2007) [1,2] . In India, according to Rule 97(3A) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 [3] , the withdrawal period for veterinary drugs used in food producing animals shall not be less than 7 days for egg and milk and 28 days for meat obtained from poultry and mammals, before such products are marketed for human consumption (CDSCO, 2016) [3] . Consequently, there is increasing interest in safer alternatives to AGPs, including probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, phytobiotics, and organic acids (Adil et al., 2011) [4] . Organic acids are a group of chemicals having organic carboxylic acid, of the general structure R-COOH, having antimicrobial activities like those of antibiotics (Wang et al., 2009) [5] . Some examples of such antimicrobial organic acids are acetic, propionic, butyric, citric, lactic, malic, tartaric, sorbic and formic acids, etc (Dibner et al., 2002) [6] . The use of organic acids and their salts in poultry feeding is approved by the European Union as they are generally considered safe (Adil et al., 2010) [7] . They reduce colonization of pathogenic microorganisms, increase the digestibility of proteins and minerals and reduce toxic bacterial metabolites such as ammonia and amines, resulting in improved feed efficiency and growth performance of the host. For this study, Organic acids viz; Acetic, propionic and citric acids were supplemented through drinking water. Acetic acid supplementation in drinking water improves the growth performance of broilers (Hudha et al., 2010) [8] . Propionic acid can inhibit the growth of fungi, increase the growth of good bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract, decrease the pH of the digestive tract thereby stimulating the activity of digestive enzymes, and maintain a healthy condition, and microflora balance in the digestive tract (Lu et al., 2003) [9] .

Citric acid was found useful in improving overall health and growth of broilers (Abdelrazek et al., 2016; Islam et al., 2008) [10,11] .

Materials and methods

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Institutional Animal Ethics Committee (IAEC), CVAS, RAJUVAS, Bikaner, Rajasthan, India, bearing approval notice no. CVAS/IAEC/2023-24/69.

Experimental location and design

The study was conducted at Poultry Unit, Livestock Farm Complex, CVAS, RAJUVAS, Bikaner, Rajasthan. The trail was conducted for 35 days on 150 straight-run, day-old broiler chicks. The chicks were designated to five treatment groups, each containing 30 birds (n = 30 chicks/treatment) and each treatment was further divided into 3 replicates with 10 birds each (n = 10 chicks/replicate), as presented in Table 1.

Management of experimental birds

All standard and uniform managemental conditions were maintained for all the experimental birds throughout the trial period. Feed and water were offered ad libitum to each treatment. The birds were vaccinated against New-castle and Gumboro diseases.

Parameters recorded 1. Performance index

The productive performance of the broilers in terms of performance index for different treatment groups on weekly intervals was estimated as per the equation:

Water intake

The mean weekly and overall water intake (ml/bird) by birds in each group was recorded in order to find out the acceptance of acidic water, owing to its distinctive change in smell and flavour from the regu-lar tap water used in the control (T 1 ) group.

Comparative cost economics

The average cost of feed (starter feed-INR 61.500 and finisher feed-INR 60.500) and organic acid per kg body weight gain was calculated from the records of feed consumption, price of readymade feed, the price of organic acid utilized in each treatment and their body weight gain.

Overall economics of various treatment groups

Calculated as the difference between the total expenditure during experimental period and the income generated through sale (INR 130.000 per Kg live body weight) of broilers.

Statistical analysis

The data regarding various parameters recorded during this study was subjected to one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique using the statistical package SPSS software version 21 (Snedecor et al., 2004) [12] . The means of different experimental groups were tested for statistical significance (P < 0.05) by Duncan's new multiple range test [13] .

Results and discussion

Performance index (PI)

As per the data of mean performance index of different treatment groups, summarized in Table 2, the cumulative/overall mean performance index for the group supplemented with the mixture of organic acids (T 5 ) was found to be statistically higher (p < 0.05) than the rest of the groups. Meanwhile, the overall mean performance index of groups supplemented with acetic, propionic and citric acids alone were found to be statistically similar (p > 0.05) to one another yet higher (p < 0.05) than the control group (T 1 ). The findings of this study regarding PI of broilers were in accordance to those of Abou-Ashour et al. (2021) [14] , who observed that supplementing broilers with a blend of citric and acetic acid yielded the highest PI value, followed by acetic and citric acid individually. Additionally, they noted that the enhancement in PI among the different groups supplemented with acetic and citric acid, either alone or in combination, was notably greater than that of the control group.

Average water intake

As per the data presented in Table 3, a significant reduction (p < 0.05) in the overall water intake was observed in the groups supplemented with organic acids, irrespective of the type and combination. The groups supplemented with acetic and citric acid showed the even lower (p < 0.05) water intake when compared to the groups supplemented with propionic acid and mixture of all three organic acids.

The outcomes of this study concerning water intake were found to be similar to those of Ali et al. (2020) [15] , who noted a considerable decrease (P < 0.05) in water intake among the groups supplemented with organic acids. Conversely, Sultan et al. (2015) [16] observed a non-significant effect throughout their entire trial period. Means having different superscript in a row differ significantly (p < 0.05) within a column.

Comparative cost economics

The results of comparative cost economics given in Table 4, indicate that the total cost of feed and organic acid/Kg body weight gain during the entire trial period was lowest for the group supplemented with the mixture of organic acids, followed by the groups supplemented with citric, propionic and acetic acid, respectively; and highest for the control group.

Overall economics of various treatment groups

The overall economics of various groups is represented in Table 5.

Maximum return was derived from the group supplemented with the mixture of organic acids, followed by the groups supplemented with citric, propionic and acetic acids; with the least returns from the control group. The results of this study regarding cost economics were consistent with findings from Prasad and Sen (1992) [17] , Islam et al. (2008) [11] , Lokhande (2005) [18] , Thirumeignanam et al. (2006) [19] , Hudha et al. (2010) [8] , Rout et al. (2016) [20] , Kamel and Mohammed (2016) [21] , Abou-Ashour et al. (2021) [14] , and Khenjan and Sanswat (2023) [22] . These studies also reported improved returns and lower costs of production per kilogram of body weight gain.

Conclusion

Supplementation of drinking water with organic acids improved broiler performance in terms of performance index, reduced water intake, and enhanced production economics over the 35-day trial. Performance index (PI) was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in all acidsupplemented groups compared to the control, with the group supplemented with mixture of acetic, propionic & citric acid yielding the highest overall PI. The groups supplemented with acetic, propionic, and citric acid individually produced statistically similar PI. Organic acid treatment also reduced overall water intake significantly (p < 0.05), most notably in the groups supplemented with acetic and citric acid, without any adverse effect on growth. These physiological gains translated directly into economic benefit: the group supplemented with mixture of organic acids recorded the lowest total feed-plus-acid cost per kilogram body weight gain and the highest net profit. These findings indicate that a combination of acetic, propionic, and citric acids in drinking water is a more effective and economically viable strategy than single-acid supplementation for improving growth performance and reducing production costs, supporting its use as a practical, antibiotic-free alternative in commercial broiler production.

References

1. European Parliament and Council. Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition. Official Journal of the European Union. 2003;L(268):29-43.
2. Castanon JIR. History of the use of antibiotic as growth promoters in European poultry feeds. Poultry Science. 2007;86(11):2466-2471.
3. Central Drugs Standard Control Organization. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (as amended up to 31 December 2016). Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. 2016.
4. Adil S, Banday MT, Bhat GA, Salahuddin M, Raquib M, Shanaz S. Response of broiler chicken to dietary supplementation of organic acids. Journal of Central European Agriculture. 2011;12(3):498-508.
5. Wang JP, Yoo JS, Lee JH, Zhou TX, Jang HD, Kim HJ, Kim IH. Effects of phenyl lactic acid on production performance, egg quality parameters and blood characteristics in laying hens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research. 2009;18:203-209.
6. Dibner JJ, Buttin P. Use of organic acids as a model to study the impact of gut microflora on nutrition and metabolism. Journal of Applied Poultry Research. 2002;11(4):453-463.
7. Adil S, Banday MT, Bhat GA, Mir MS, Rehman M. Effect of dietary supplementation of organic acids on performance, intestinal histomorphology, and serum biochemistry of broiler chicken. Veterinary Medicine International. 2010:479-485.
8. Hudha MN, Ali MS, Azad MA, Hossain MM, Tanjim M, Bormon SC, Rahman MS, Rahman MM, Paul AK. Effect of acetic acid on growth and meat yield in broilers. International Journal of Biological Research. 2010;1(4):31-35.
9. Lu J, Idris U, Harmon B, Hofacre C, Maurer JJ, Lee MD. Diversity and succession of the intestinal bacterial community of the maturing broiler chicken. Applied and environmental microbiology. 2003;69(11):6816-6824.
10. Abdelrazek HMA, Abuzead SMM, Ali SA, El-Genaidy HMA, Abdel-Hafez SA. Effect of citric and acetic acid water acidification on broiler's performance with respect to thyroid hormones levels. Advances in Animal and Veterinary Sciences. 2016;4(5):271-278.
11. Islam MZ, Khandaker ZH, Chowdhury SD, Islam KMS. Effect of citric acid and acetic acid on the performance of broilers. Journal of the Bangladesh Agricultural University. 2008;6(2):452-201635517.
12. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. Statistical methods. 8th edition. Oxford and IBH publishing company, Kolkata. 2004.
13. Duncan DB. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics. 1955;11(1):1-42.
14. Abou-Ashour AMH, El-Naga A, Manal K, Hussein EA, El-Bana Z. Effect of dietary citric, acetic acids or their mixture on broiler chicks' performance, carcass characteristics and some intestinal histomorphological parameters. Egyptian Journal of Nutrition and Feeds. 2021;24(1):119-138.
15. Ali AM, Elagrb HM, Hamoud MM, Gamal AM, Mousa MR, Nasr SAE, Ali MM. Effect of acidified drinking water by organic acids on broiler performance and gut health. Advances in Animal and Veterinary Sciences. 2020;8(12):1301-1309.
16. Sultan A, Ullah T, Khan S, Khan RU. Effect of organic acid supplementation on the performance and ileal microflora of broiler during finishing period. Pakistan Journal of Zoology. 2015;47(3):635-639.
17. Prasad J, Sen D. Effect of different levels of acidification of drinking water on the performance of broilers. Indian Journal of Poultry Science. 1992;27(1):66-67.
18. Lokhande DY, Ranade AS, Desai DN, Patil MB, Avari PE, Patwardhan DS, Gaikwad PG. Comparative evaluation of prebiotic, probiotic and acidifier in broiler diets. The Journal of Bombay Veterinary College. 2005;13(1-2):17-19.
19. Thirumeignanam D, Swain RK, Mohanty S, Patil PK. Studies on the effect of dietary organic acids on performance of commercial broilers. Abstract ANCON. 2006;27:161.
20. Rout SK, Pradhan CR, Rath R, Panda N, Panigrahi B, Pati PK. Influence of probiotics and acidifier supplementation on growth, carcass characteristics and economics of feeding in broilers. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition. 2016;33(1):97-101.
21. Kamel ER, Mohamed LS. Effect of Dietary Supplementation of Probiotics, Prebiotics, Synbiotics, Organic acids and enzymes on productive and economic efficiency of broiler chicks. Alexandria Journal for Veterinary Sciences. 2016;50(1):8-17.
22. Khenjan P, Sansawat A. Effect of mixed organic acids and multivitamins supplementation program in drinking water of broilers raised under opened house conditions. King Mongkut's Agricultural Journal. 2023;41(1):20-30.
23. How to cite this article: Manzoor T, Jhirwal AK, Choudhary ML, Godara K, Sharma A. Effect of organic acid supplementation on performance index, water intake & economics of broiler chickens. International Journal of Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry. 2026;SP-11(9):254-257. doi: https://www.do i.org/10.22271/veterinary.2026.v11.i9Sd.3813