Next Article in Journal
Bioactive Potential of Actinobacteria Strains Isolated from the Rhizosphere of Lavender, Lemon Balm, and Oregano
Previous Article in Journal
Artificial Neural Network Model for Predicting Carrot Root Yield Loss in Relation to Mechanical Heading
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 14
Issue 10
10.3390/agriculture14101756
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Applications of Organic Acids in Poultry Production: An Updated and Comprehensive Review

by
Wafaa A. Abd El-Ghany
Poultry Diseases Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Cairo University, Giza 12211, Egypt
Agriculture 2024, 14(10), 1756; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14101756
Submission received: 26 August 2024 / Revised: 13 September 2024 / Accepted: 26 September 2024 / Published: 5 October 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Farm Animal Production)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Feed additive antibiotics have been used for many decades as growth promotors or antibacterial substances worldwide. However, the adverse impacts of using antibiotics in animal or poultry feeds are not widely recognized. Therefore, the search for alternatives, such as probiotics, prebiotics, phytobiotics, post-biotics, bacteriophages, enzymes, essential oils, or organic acids (OAs), has become urgent. OAs are produced by beneficial intestinal bacteria through the fermentation of carbohydrates. OAs and their salts are still used as feed preservatives. They have long been added to feed in order to minimize contamination and the growth of harmful bacteria and fungi, reduce deterioration, and prolong the shelf life of feed commodities. Moreover, they have been mostly added to poultry feed as a blend to obtain maximal beneficial effects. The supplementation of poultry with OAs could improve the growth performance parameters and carcass traits, promote the utilization of nutrients, boost the immune response, and inhibit the growth of pathogenic bacteria. Therefore, this review article provides valuable insights into the potential benefits of using OAs in reducing microbial load, enhancing performance parameters in broilers and layers, improving gut health, and boosting the immune response.

1. Introduction

Antibiotic growth promoters have been used in livestock production systems for several years [1]. However, in 2006, the European Union prohibited the administration of these growth promoters due to the continuous development of antibiotic resistance. The hazardous use of antibiotics leads to the destruction of beneficial intestinal flora and the emergence of resistant bacteria, which are transmitted to humans through the food chain [2,3]. Therefore, the search for suitable alternatives has become an urgent issue, especially for the poultry production system [4,5,6]. The European Union permitted the use of acidifiers or organic acids (OAs) and their salts in poultry production due to their safety [7]. They also have many advantages, such as the absence of pollution, drug resistance, and residues, as well as beneficial effects on health [8,9]. Dietary OAs promote the production of prebiotics and probiotic lactic acid bacteria [10]. OAs could potentially replace antibiotic growth promoters, with positive effects on the performance and gut health of livestock [11] and poultry production [12,13,14,15].
There are two types of acids: organic and inorganic (Figure 1). The majority of feed additive OAs can be divided into volatile short-chain fatty acids (e.g., propionic, acetic, fumaric, lactic, or butyric acids), medium-chain fatty acids, and long-chain fatty acids [8]. Propionic acid, acetic acid, and butyric acid are produced by beneficial intestinal bacteria through the fermentation process of carbohydrates [16]. The organic carboxylic acid, which contains a generic structure of carboxyl “R-COOH,” is regarded as an organic acid (including fatty acids and amino acids) [17]. Also, formic acid, propionic acid, citric acid, acetic acid, etc. are partially dissociated weak acids that are composed of saturated straight-chain monocarboxylic acids, such as amino acids and fatty acids with an R-COOH constituent [18]. They are present in the form of salts, such as sodium, potassium, and calcium, with variable physical and chemical properties. The solubility and acid-binding capacity of water [19] and feed ingredients [20,21] can affect the efficacy of OAs. The beneficial effects of OAs could be enhanced by using blends rather than a single acid treatment [22].
OAs have been added to feed commodities to minimize the impact of contamination, the growth of harmful bacteria and fungi, and deterioration, as well as to prolong their shelf life [23]. Therefore, they are known to be good feed preservatives. Acetic acid or benzoic acid and their sodium salts are represented as safe feed preservatives [11]. They could have similar functions to antibiotics [7]. For instance, OAs were added to poultry feed at rates of 0.5 kg/ton and 2.5–3.0 kg/ton to reduce mold and Salmonella growth, respectively [24]. In addition, dietary formic acid and propionic acid could reduce the bacterial load of Salmonella spp. in contaminated feed [18].
Poor hygienic conditions on livestock farms, such as increasing litter moisture and varying temperature, can enhance microbial growth and consequently reduce the nutritional content of proteins and carbohydrates. Supplementation with OAs could improve growth performance parameters and carcass traits [25,26,27,28], reduce the gut’s pH, enhance pepsin production, promote nutrient digestibility and utilization [29,30], boost the immune response [31], and suppress the growth of pathogenic bacteria [14,32,33,34,35,36]. In addition, Ma et al. [26] demonstrated the antioxidant capacity of OAs, as supplementing diets with mixed OAs increased the amount of serum superoxide dismutase and the catalase of 3- and 6-week-old broilers.
However, there are some limitations to using OAs in poultry nutrition, including a reduction in feed palatability, a corrosive effect on metallic equipment, the presence of acid-resistant bacteria that reduce the efficacy of OAs, and the buffering capacity of dietary ingredients.
Accordingly, this review article provides comprehensive insights into the role of using OAs in reducing microbial load, enhancing performance parameters in broilers and layers, improving gut health, and boosting the immune response.

2. The Different Effects of OAs Supplementation on Poultry

Table 1 and Figure 2 illustrate the different effects of OAs inoculation on poultry feed.

2.1. Antimicrobials

OAs are present in different forms; they can be solid in feed, sprayed on the litter, or added to the water (Figure 3). The antimicrobial efficacy of OAs is still not fully investigated. The different mechanisms of actions of OAs as antimicrobials are illustrated in Figure 4. The positive influences of their antibacterial capacity are associated with the physical chemistry of the used acid, special characteristics of dissociation, composition and pH of media, animal species, type of organism, growth conditions, exact location in the intestines, and buffering capacity [18,29]. Additionally, the efficiency of OAs relies on the acid molecular weight, dissociation constant, and antimicrobial activity [104].
Dibner and Buttin [29] demonstrated that some OAs exhibit a narrow spectrum affecting bacteria (lactic acid) or fungi (sorbic acid), while others show a broad spectrum against bacteria and fungi (formic acid and propionic acid). As short-chain fatty acids, both butyric acid and valeric acid have antibacterial effects against Gram-negative or Gram-positive bacteria [105]. However, formic acid and acetic acid can directly control pathogens by acting upon the cell wall of Gram-negative bacteria [9].
The concentrations and the pH of OAs affect their antimicrobial power [106]. Under a low pH condition, the OAs become more available in a lipophilic dissociated form, easily diffuse into the bacterial and fungal cell membranes, and consequently disrupt the enzymatic reaction and transport system [6]. Moreover, the low pH condition can disturb the generation of energy and inhibit bacterial cell proliferation and growth (bacteriostasis) [6,107]. In the upper digestive tract, the low pH enhances the antimicrobial effects of the OAs and helps their absorption by diffusion in the epithelia [6], while in the lower part of the intestine, the OAs decrease the hosts competition with the natural microflora, resulting in improved digestion [107]. However, there is a discrepancy regarding the role of OAs in reducing the pH of the intestinal tract [108,109], and this may be due to the differences in acidifiers’ types and concentrations, experimental animals, acidifiers’ formulations and test sites, diet types and compositions, and other factors.
The cytoplasm of the bacterial cells contains both positively charged protons and negatively charged anions. The accumulation of protons in the cells leads to an increase in its acidity to an unbearable limit. Therefore, the bacterial cell depletes most of its energies to adjust its internal pH. This depletion may cause the inhibition of growth and multiplication and even death. Further, the accumulation of anions in the bacterial cells disturbs the DNA copying and cells’ multiplication, increases the level of the internal osmotic pressure, and consequently causes cells’ death [110]. On the other hand, OAs could release proton ions in the cytoplasm.
OAs have bactericidal and bacteriostatic characteristics [111]. They diffuse into the bacterial cell membrane and dissolve in anions and protons of the cytoplasm [112] with a subsequent expulsion of protons outside the bacterial cells [113]. This process reduces the energy supply and ends by cell death [114]. The undissociated forms of OAs can enter the bacterial cell membrane where they are dissociated, produce H+ ions, and raise the pH acidity of the cytoplasm [115]. Then, pH-sensitive bacteria are forced to discard the redundant proton ions via the H+-adenosine triphosphatase pump, which causes the impeding of bacterial cells’ proliferation [9]. However, the bacterial cell uses energy to restore the basic nature of the cytoplasm. So, once the OAs enter the cell, where the pH is about 7, the acids are dissociated and suppress the bacterial cell enzymes, such as decarboxylases and catalases, and the nutrient transport systems [116]. Moreover, the dissociated OAs produce anions (RCOO−) to disturb the protein synthesis and prevent the bacterial cells from replicating. The OAs may also affect the microbial cell membranes’ integrity or may interfere with nutrient transport and energy metabolism, causing bacterial cells’ death [18]. They can penetrate the bacterial membrane, inhibit the synthesis of adenosine triphosphate, disturb the bacterial membrane, and denature the DNA [117]. In addition, OAs can prevent the release of toxic compounds following bacterial colonization, thus averting the damage to the intestinal epithelial cell and improving the villus height [23]. Moreover, they can enhance the beneficial microbiota populations, thus creating a eubiotic intestinal environment [118,119].
A more efficient release of OAs compounds could be achieved via the microencapsulation process [120]. OAs could be metabolized and rapidly absorbed from the upper segments of the digestive tract (proventriculus, gizzard, and duodenum), but not from the lower parts [121]. The reduction in the gut’s pH limits pathogenic bacterial growth, especially of those which are less tolerant to acidic pH [25,103]. However, others decrease the pH of the bacteria after dissociation, causing death [13]. The orthophosphoric acid can lower the pH of the digesta, resulting in more levels of the undissociated form of acids [29]. Moreover, carboxylic acids, such as citric acid, lactic acid, tartaric acid, and malic acid, as well as monocarboxylic acids, such as propionic acid, acetic acid, butyric acid, and formic acid, have a pKa value of between 3 and 5 and consequently antimicrobial properties [122]. It has been demonstrated that acids can reduce the total intestinal microbial load and the subsequent infection rate, leading to enhanced digestibility and reduced energy demand by the gut-associated tissue [123].
Some pathogenic intestinal pathogens, such as Salmonella spp. [80,122,124,125], Campylobacter jejuni (C. jejuni) [29,60], pathogenic Escherichia coli (E. coli) [75,98,126], and Clostridium perfringens (C. perfringens) [127] or coccidia spp. [31,128], could be drastically affected by using OAs. However, the growth of beneficial gut microflora, such as Lactobacillus spp., could be improved following the OA treatment [14]. So, the reduction in intestinal bacterial load along with the enhancement of natural flora results in an improvement in the nutrients’ utilization and consequently the growth performance [3,17,129]. Drinking water acidification could diminish the clinical signs of Campylobacter infection in the gut [106]. Moreover, citric acid lowered the growth of Listeria monocytogenes on chicken thighs at 4 °C for 8 days [130]. On the other hand, different OAs can promote the growth of beneficial bacteria, such as Lactobacillus spp. [78,102,131]. For instance, dietary citric acid and/or avilamycin enhanced the development of Lactobacillus spp. but inhibited the growth and proliferation of pathogenic Salmonella spp. and E. coli via the activation of proteolytic enzymes, absorption of minerals, decreasing ammonia, depressing microbial metabolites, and the stimulation of feed intake (FI) [50]. In addition, the by-product of wheat milling, “wheat bran”, showed efficacy against Salmonella spp. in terms of percentage and particle size. It has been proven that the rapid fermentation of butyric acid downregulated Salmonella spp. gene expression [6,77] and inhibited bacterial cecal colonization due an improvement in intestinal barrier function [69].

2.2. Performance Parameters

The blends of OAs can improve FI and nutrient utilization, so they can enhance the body weight gain (BWG) and the feed conversion ratio (FCR) of poultry [7,15,78,85,102,127,131,132,133,134]. The OAs treatment also showed reduced intestinal lesion scores and improved the gut health of broiler chickens with necrotic enteritis [14,15]. Moreover, under Eimeria challenge, a blend of benzoic acid and essential oils enhanced the growth performance in broilers [135].
The supplementation of OAs can improve the performance parameters [12,15,103,136,137,138], which is probably due to the enhancement in the digestible energy and protein contents of the feed, reducing the intestinal bacterial colonization [8], increasing the proliferation of beneficial flora, modulating the anti-inflammatory immune response [114], and lowering the ammonia and other harmful metabolites [123]. The OAs work to improve the digestion of proteins, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, zinc, and other nutrients which appear in the feed material of the small intestine [7]. In addition, the undissociated forms of OAs can penetrate the lipid layer of the bacterial and fungal cell membranes, causing the release of protons, accumulation of intracellular anions, a reduction in the intestinal pH, and then boosting the secretion of endogenous digestive enzymes [9,43]. Moreover, OAs can enhance the release of digestive enzymes, pancreatic secretion, the activity of microbial phytase, and the proliferation of intestinal cells [29]. A reduction in the pH of the crop, gizzard, and duodenum leads to an increase in the secretion of digestive enzymes, including pepsin, trypsin, chymotrypsin, proteinase, amylase, lipase, protein hydrolysate, and non-protease concentrations in the intestinal segment [99,139,140]. Furthermore, treatments with OAs can enhance the secretion of pepsin and chyme that reach the intestine to stimulate the decomposition and absorption of nutrients. This process plays a role in stimulating digestive system development, increasing amylase and lipase secretion, and consequently increasing the intestinal absorption capacity. The OAs slow the rate of digesta passage and thus enhance the absorption of the feed contents from the intestines [141].
The usage of OAs is also associated with the improvement in minerals’ digestibility [142]. The digestibility of minerals, particularly calcium and phosphorous, has been shown to improve, possibly due to the enhancement of digestive enzymes [143] or the effective role of Lactobacillus spp. in the gut [49,50].The mixing of OAs with essential oils can reduce the populations of pathogenic enteric bacteria and improve the growth of the beneficial gut microbiome, thus enhancing the intestinal health [14,15].

2.3. Carcass Traits

Treatments with different OAs can improve the meat quality of chickens’ carcasses [41]. Lee et al. [144] demonstrated that the pH of broiler thigh meat was increased by gallic acid and linoleic acid supplementations. Moreover, Fortuoso et al. [145] showed that a dose of 300 mg/kg glycerol monolaurate improved the nutritional quality of meat. The decrease in the muscle pH of broilers supplied by OAs may be related to the increase in the antioxidant activity in meat [146] or the effect of the gut microbiota and their metabolites [99]. Dietary supplementation with benzoic acid or amylase improved antioxidant capacity, nutrient digestion, and meat quality [146]. The improved meat tenderness after dietary treatments with OAs is probably due to improved nutrient metabolism, reduced anaerobic digestion, and enhanced antioxidant capacity. During the carcass’s processing, the anaerobic conditions of protein breakdown may result in the accumulation of lactic acid, which affects the water holding capacity of meat [99].

2.4. Intestinal Health

The addition of OAs to the drinking water of birds resulted in an increase in the number of jejunal goblet cells, which led to the stimulation and production of the mucus layer [147] and improved the gut epithelial cells [12,106,148,149] and the duodenal villus height [150].
A decrease in the crypt depth and increase in the villus height-to-crypt depth ratio were also found [31]. Likewise, the results of García et al. [44], Kum et al. [151], and Islam et al. [15] showed an increased villus height and villus-to-crypt depth ratio, reduced lesion scores, and thus an improvement in intestinal integrity following the dietary supplementation with OAs.
The treatments with OAs may reduce the pH of digesta and raise the gastric proteolytic activity [123]. The increase in the secreted pancreatic juice containing trypsin, amylase, protease, lipase, procarboxy peptidases, and chymotrypsinogen [7,103,152], as well as the enhancement in pepsin protein proteolysis activity, breaking down of proteins to simple peptides, and the releasing of gastrin and cholecystokinin hormones, have also been noticed following the addition of OAs to feed. Similarly, Ma et al. [26] reported that the supplementation of chicken diets with a mixture of OAs improved the pancreatic secretions and enhanced the expression of tight junction proteins, resulting in healthier broiler production. The acidic intestinal environment can reduce the bacterial metabolites, such as ammonia and amines [153], which consequently may improve the digestion process.
The fermentation process of some OAs, such as acetate, propionate, and butyrate, could enhance the intestinal morphology, tight junctions, and immunological status of birds [154]. Japanese quails that received a product containing acetic acid, formic acid, and butyric acid, as well as thymol, β-cymene, carvacrol, and borneol, showed an improvement in intestinal morphology, including in crypt depth, villus length and width, villus-to-crypt ratio, the thickness of the intestinal wall, goblet cell percentage, and the appearance of the intestinal surface area [95]. Adil et al. [155] demonstrated that a dietary 3% fumaric acid increased the villus height in all the segments of small intestines. Several studies showed that chickens which received butyrate have increased intestinal villus height, decreased crypt depth, and thereby an increased intestinal absorption surface [156,157,158]. It has been found that butyrate can regulate the gut barrier and plays an important role as an anti-inflammatory and immuno-regulatory substance to maintain gut homeostasis [105]. Butyric acid can promote the development of epithelial cells [159], preserve intestinal cells’ viability, and enhance the turnover of enterocytes, which may improve intestinal recovery. Similar results were obtained by Gao et al. [99] and Pham et al. [14]. Improved intestinal villi length and depth as well as increasing the number of goblet cells containing acidic mucins have also been reported in broilers fed on diets containing butyrate [160].
It has been known that infection with Eimeria (E.) spp. is usually associated with gut health. Supplementation with OAs could be a suitable alternative for anticoccidial drugs due to their ability to improve the intestinal integrity that is damaged by such infection [31]. Acetic acid could decrease the cecal pH and consequently reduce the impact of oocysts that, in turn, decrease intestinal lesions. In broiler chickens, Abbas et al. [161] reported that acetic acid was effective against E. tenella infection, while Ali et al. [162] showed that the dietary inclusion of butyric acid glycerides reduced the intestinal lesion score produced by E. maxima.

2.5. Immune Response

The modulation of immune response in hosts fed on OAs may be due to different reasons, as the main causes are unknown. However, several studies have proven the immuno-potentiating effects of OAs on poultry [6,50,85,163]. The weights of the immune organs of broiler chicks have been increased in response to OA supplementations [30]. Moreover, the levels of serum immunoglobulin (Ig) were elevated following the dietary feeding of layer chickens on OAs mixture and yeast culture [164]. For instance, chickens supplemented with OAs showed an improvement in immune response and an enhancement in antibody titer against Newcastle disease (ND) virus infection [59,165]. Moreover, Lee et al. [166] demonstrated that the percentages of cluster of differentiation (CD4+), CD25+, and T-cells were higher in broiler chickens that received avian influenza (AI) (H9N2) virus vaccine along with a diet containing OAs. The influence of three OAs on the immunity and intestinal morphology of E. coli (K88)-challenged broiler chickens was investigated, and the results revealed an improvement in the ileal morphology and immunity [75]. Also, OAs showed the ability to reverse the detrimental effects of S. typhimurium and boost the immunological response in the challenged chickens [141]. Emami et al. [142] reported that broiler chickens that received a diet containing phytase and OAs showed high levels of IgG. It has been found that OA supplementation may increase trypsin and chymotrypsin production and consequently activate the digestive tract to secrete IgA in the ileal mucosa [77]. Butyric acid has a positive impact on the birds’ immunity through the improvement of gut eubiosis and pH, increasing the number of beneficial bacteria and limiting the colonization of pathogens [160]. The inclusion of butyric acid in the ration of broiler chickens was associated with a good cell-mediated immunity after the inoculation of phytohemagglutinin-P, improved humoral antibody production after vaccination with ND virus vaccine, and injection of sheep red blood cells, and increased thymus and spleen weights [160].
Increasing Lactobacillus spp. count in the gut [142], inhibiting nuclear factor kappa B activation [167], increasing tumor necrosis factor [31], improving the immunological features of blood and small intestine, and modulating the bacterial population of caecum [26] are possible causes of OAs’ immuno-potentiation effect. In the study of Rodríguez-Lecompte et al. [168], the treatment of broiler chickens with an OAs blend upregulated the interferon-γ in the cecal tonsils and interleukin 6 (IL-6) and IL-10 in the ileum. Similarly, Lee et al. [169] reported that the dietary addition of OAs activated the regulatory T-cells and reduced the inflammatory response signal (α-1-acid glycoprotein) in broilers following vaccination with an AI (H9N2) virus vaccine. Moreover, the gut-associated immunity produced by the lymphoid tissues was linked with the gut bacteria following treatment with OAs [75]. The immuno-protective effects of OAs against broilers’ coccidiosis were also reported [31,128]. However, Hedayati et al. [111] found no significant difference among the dietary treatments with blends of different OAs and the antibody titers against ND, infectious bursal disease, and AI viruses in broilers.

3. Conclusions

The supplementation of poultry feed with OAs can improve the performance of broilers and layers, carcass traits, gut health, the colonization of beneficial bacteria, and the immune response, but reduces the intestinal load of pathogenic bacteria. Therefore, they are highly valuable as they have contributed to improving birds’ performance and health and they can be used as an alternative to antibiotics in the poultry feed.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

References

  1. Haulisah, N.A.; Hassan, L.; Bejo, S.K.; Jajere, S.M.; Ahmad, N.I. High levels of antibiotic resistance in isolates from diseased livestock. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 652351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Robinson, K.; Becker, S.; Xiao, Y.; Lyu, W.; Yang, Q.; Zhu, H.; Yang, H.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, G. Differential impact of sub therapeutic antibiotics and ionophores on intestinal microbiota of broilers. Microorganisms 2019, 7, 282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Khan, R.U.; Naz, S.; Raziq, F.; Qudratullah, Q.; Khan, N.A.; Laudadio, V.; Tufarelli, V.; Ragni, M. Prospects of organic acids as safe alternative to antibiotics in broiler chickens diet. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2022, 29, 32594–32604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Dai, D.; Qiu, K.; Zhang, H.J.; Wu, S.G.; Han, Y.M.; Wu, Y.Y.; Qi, G.; Wang, J. Organic acids as alternatives for antibiotic growth promoters alter the intestinal structure and microbiota and improve the growth performance in broilers. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 11, 618144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Hafeez, A.; Iqbal, S.; Sikandar, A.; Din, S.; Khan, I.; Ashraf, S.; Khan, R.U.; Laudadio, V.; Tufarelli, V. Feeding of phytobiotics and exogenous protease in broilers: Comparative effect on nutrient digestibility, bone strength and gut morphology. Agriculture 2021, 11, 228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Scicutella, F.; Mannelli, F.; Daghio, M.; Viti, C.; Buccioni, A. Polyphenols and organic acids as alternatives to antimicrobials in poultry rearing: A review. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Adil, S.; Banday, M.T.; Bhat, G.A.; Mir, M.S.; Rehman, M. Effect of dietary supplementation of organic acids on performance, intestinal, histomorphology, and serum biochemistry of broiler chicken. Vet. Med. Int. 2010, 2010, 479485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dittoe, D.K.; Ricke, S.C.; Kiess, A.S. Organic acids and potential for modifying the avian gastrointestinal tract and reducing pathogens and disease. Front. Vet. Sci. 2018, 5, 216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Rathnayake, D.; Mun, H.S.; Dilawar, M.A.; Baek, K.S.; Yang, C.J. Time for a paradigm shift in animal nutrition metabolic pathway: Dietary inclusion of organic acids on the production parameters, nutrient digestibility, and meat quality traits of swine and broilers. Life 2021, 11, 476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Brzóska, F.; Śliwiński, B.; Michalik-Rutkowska, O. Effect of dietary acidifier on growth, mortality, post-slaughter parameters and meat composition of broiler chickens. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2013, 13, 85–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pearlin, B.V.; Muthuvel, S.; Govidasamy, P.; Villavan, M.; Alagawany, M.; Ragab Farag, M.; Dhama, K.; Gopi, M. Role of acidifiers in livestock nutrition and health: A review. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2020, 104, 558–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Vinolya, R.E.; Balakrishnan, U.; Yasi, B.; Chandrasekar, S. Effect of dietary supplementation of acidifiers and essential oils on growth performance and intestinal health of broiler. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2021, 30, 100179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. AbdEl-Hack, M.E.; El-Saadony, M.T.; Salem, H.M.; El-Tahan, A.M.; Soliman, M.M.; Youssef, G.B.A.; Taha, A.E.; Soliman, S.M.; Ahmed, A.E.; El-kott, A.F.; et al. Alternatives to antibiotics for organic poultry production: Types, modes of action and impacts on bird’s health and production. Poult. Sci. 2022, 101, 101696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Pham, V.H.; Abbas, W.; Huang, J.; He, Q.; Zhen, W.; Guo, Y.; Wang, Z. Effect of blending encapsulated essential oils and organic acids as an antibiotic growth promoter alternative on growth performance and intestinal health in broilers with necrotic enteritis. Poult. Sci. 2022, 101, 101563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Islam, Z.; Sultan, A.; Khan, S.; Khan, K.; Jan, A.U.; Aziz, T.; Alharbi, M.; Alshammari, A.; Alasmari, A.F. Effects of an organic acids blend and coated essential oils on broiler growth performance, blood biochemical profile, gut health, and nutrient digestibility. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2024, 23, 152–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Rawi, M.H.; Abdullah, A.; Ismail, A.; Sarbini, S.R. Manipulation of gut micro biota using acacia gum polysaccharide. ACS Omega 2021, 6, 17782–17797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ebeid, T.A.; Al-Homidan, I.H. Organic acids and their potential role for modulating the gastrointestinal tract, antioxidative status, immune response, and performance in poultry: A review. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 2022, 78, 83–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ricke, S.C. Perspectives on the use of organic acids and short chain fatty acids as antimicrobials. Poult. Sci. 2003, 82, 632–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Coban, H.B. Organic acids as antimicrobial food agents: Applications and microbial productions. Bioprocess. Biosyst. Eng. 2020, 43, 569–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mohammadpour, A.A.; Kermanshahi, H.; Golian, A.; Gholizadeh, M.; Gilani, A. Evaluation of varying levels of acid-binding capacity of diets formulated with various acidifiers on physical and histological characteristics of leg bones in broiler chickens. Comp. Clin. Pathol. 2014, 23, 1409–1420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hogan, K.; Page, G. Validation of an alternative growth promoter, under research and commercial broiler production conditions in North America. Metab. Nutr. Feed. Addit. I Poult. Sci. United State 2017, 118. [Google Scholar]
  22. Polycarpo, G.V.; Andretta, I.; Kipper, M.; Cruz-Polycarpo, V.C.; Dadalt, J.C.; Rodrigues, P.H.M.; Albuquerque, R. Meta-analytic study of organic acids as an alternative performance-enhancing feed additive to antibiotics for broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 2017, 96, 3645–3653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Adewole, D.I.; Oladokun, S.; Santin, E. Effect of organic acids–essential oils blend and oat fiber combination on broiler chicken growth performance, blood parameters, and intestinal health. Anim. Nutr. 2021, 7, 1039–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Banupriya, S.; Kathirvelan, C.; Patric Joshua, P. Significance of feed acidification in poultry feed. Int. J. Sci. Environ. Technol. 2016, 5, 1596–1599. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hamid, H.; Shi, H.Q.; Ma, G.Y.; Fan, Y.; Li, W.X.; Zhao, L.H.; Zhang, J.Y.; Ji, C.; Ma, Q.G. Influence of acidified drinking water on growth performance and gastrointestinal function of broilers. Poult. Sci. 2018, 97, 3601–3609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ma, J.; Mahfuz, S.; Wang, J.; Piao, X. Effect of dietary supplementation with mixed organic acids on immune function, antioxidative characteristics, digestive enzymes activity, and intestinal health in broiler chickens. Front. Nutr. 2021, 8, 673316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Reda, F.M.; Ismail, I.E.; Attia, A.I.; Fikry, A.M.; Khalifa, E.; Alagawany, M. Use of fumaric acid as a feed additive in quail’s nutrition: Its effect on growth rate, carcass, nutrient digestibility, digestive enzymes, blood metabolites, and intestinal microbiota. Poult. Sci. 2021, 100, 101493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Allaw, A.A.; Hatem, Q.Z.; Kamil, Y.M. Effect of dietary fumaric acid on growth performance and some biochemical parameters in broiler. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2023, 1252, 012120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Dibner, J.J.; Buttin, P. Use of organic acids as a model to study the digestibility, immune response and intestinal morphology of male broilers fed phosphorus deficient diets supplemented with microbial phytase and organic acids. Livest. Sci. 2002, 157, 506–513. [Google Scholar]
  30. Ghazalah, A.A.; Atta, A.M.; Elkloub, K.; Mustafa, M.E.L.; Shata, R.F.H. Effect of dietary supplementation of organic acids on performance, nutrients digestibility and health of broiler chicks. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2011, 10, 176–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mustafa, A.; Bai, S.P.; Zeng, Q.F.; Ding, X.M.; Wang, J.P.; Xuan, Y.; Su, Z.W.; Zhang, K.Y. Effect of organic acids on growth performance, intestinal morphology, and immunity of broiler chickens with and without coccidial challenge. AMB Express 2021, 11, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Dauksiene, A.; Ruzauskas, M.; Gruzauskas, R.; Zavistanaviciute, P.; Starkute, V.; Lele, V.; Klupsaite, D.; Klementaviciute, J.; Bartkiene, E. A comparison study of the caecum microbial profiles, productivity and production quality of broiler chickens fed supplements based on medium chain fatty and organic acids. Animals 2021, 11, 610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Melaku, M.; Zhong, R.; Han, H.; Wan, F.; Yi, B.; Zhang, H. Butyric and citric acids and their salts in poultry nutrition: Effects on gut health and intestinal microbiota. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 10392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Guo, Y.J.; Wang, Z.Y.; Wang, Y.S.; Chen, B.; Huang, Y.Q.; Li, P.; Tan, Q.; Zhang, H.Y.; Chen, W. Impact of drinking water supplemented 2-hydroxy-4-methylthiobutyric acid in combination with acidifier on performance, intestinal development, and microflora in broilers. Poult. Sci. 2022, 101, 101661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Hamidifard, M.; Khalaji, S.; Hedayati, M.; Rajaei sharifabadi, H. Use of condensed fermented corn extractives (liquid steep liquor) as a potential alternative for organic acids and probiotics in broiler ration. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2023, 22, 418–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Okey, S.N. Alternative feed additives to antibiotics in improving health and performance in poultry and for the prevention of antimicrobials: A review. Niger. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 2023, 6, 65–76. [Google Scholar]
  37. Vogt, H.; Matthes, S.; Harnisch, S. The effect of organic acids in the rations on the performances of broilers and laying hens. Arch. Geflugelkd. 1981, 45, 221–232. [Google Scholar]
  38. Tamblyn, K.C.; Conner, D.E. Bactericidal activity of organic acids against Salmonella typhimurium attached to broiler chicken skin. J. Food Prot. 1997, 60, 629–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Runho, R.C.; Sakomura, N.K.; Kuana, S.; Banzatto, D.; Junqueira, O.M.; Stringhini, J.H. Use of an organic acid (fumaric acid) in broiler rations. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 1997, 26, 1183–1191. [Google Scholar]
  40. Van Immerseel, F.; Fievez, V.; De Buck, J.; Pasmans, F.; Martel, A.; Haesebrouck, F.; Ducatelle, R. Microencapsulated short-chain fatty acids in feed modify colonization and invasion early after infection with Salmonella Enteritidis in young chickens. Poult. Sci. 2004, 83, 69–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Leeson, S.; Namkung, H.; Antongiovanni, M.; Lee, E.H. Effect of butyric acid on the performance and carcass yield of broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 2005, 84, 1418–1422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Moghadam, A.N.; Pourreza, J.; Samie, A.H. Effect of different levels of citric acid on calcium and phosphorus efficiencies in broiler chicks. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 2006, 9, 1250–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hernández, F.; García, V.; Madrid, J.; Orengo, J.; Catalá, P.; Megías, M.D. Effect of formic acid on performance, digestibility, intestinal histomorphology and plasma metabolite levels of broiler chickens. Br. Poult. Sci. 2006, 47, 50–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. García, V.; Catalá-Gregori, P.; Hernández, F.; Megías, M.D.; Madrid, J. Effect of formic acid and plant extracts on growth, nutrient digestibility, intestine mucosa morphology, and meat yield of broilers. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2007, 16, 555–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hu, Z.; Guo, Y. Effects of dietary sodium butyrate supplementation on the intestinal morphological structure, absorptive function and gut flora in chickens. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2007, 132, 240–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sengor, E.; Yardimci, M.; Cetingul, S.; Bayram, I.; Sahin, H.; Dogan, I. Short communication effects of short chain fatty acid (SCFA) supplementation on performance and egg characteristics of old breeder hens. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2007, 37, 158–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Abdel-Fattah, S.A.; El-Sanhoury, M.H.; El-Medany, N.M.; Abdelazeem, F. Thyroid activity, some blood constituents, organs morphology and performance of broiler chicks fed supplemental organic acids. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2008, 7, 215–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Martinez Do Vale, M.; Menten, J.F.M.; Daroz De Morais, S.C.; Brainer, M.M.A. Mixture of formic and propionic acid as additives in broiler feeds. Sci. Agric. 2004, 61, 371–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Nezhad, Y.E.; Sis, N.M.; Shahryar, H.A.; Dastouri, M.R.; Golshani, A.A.; Tahvildarzadeh, A.; Najafyan, K.A. The effects of combination of citric acid and microbial phytase on the egg quality characteristics in laying hens. Asian J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 2008, 3, 293–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chowdhury, R.; Islam, K.M.S.; Khan, M.J.; Karim, M.R.; Haque, M.N.; Khatun, M.; Pesti, G.M. Effect of citric acid, avilamycin, and their combination on the performance, tibia ash, and immune status of broilers. Poult. Sci. 2009, 88, 1616–1622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Fernández-Rubio, C.; Ordonez, C.; Abad-González, J.; Garcia-Gallego, A.; Honrubia, M.P.; Mallo, J.J.; Balana-Fouce, R. Butyric acid-based feed additives help protect broiler chickens from Salmonella enteritidis infection. Poult. Sci. 2009, 88, 943–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Haque, M.N.; Chowdhury, R.; Islam, M.A.; Akbar, M.A. Propionic acid is an alternative to antibiotics in poultry diet. Bangladesh J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 38, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mikkelsen, L.L.; Vidanarachchi, J.K.; Olnood, C.G.; Bao, Y.M.; Selle, P.H.; Choct, M. Effect of potassium diformate on growth performance and gut microbiota in broiler chickens challenged with necrotic enteritis. Br. Poult. Sci. 2009, 50, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Panda, A.; Rao, S.R.; Raju, M.; Sunder, G.S. Effect of butyric acid on performance, gastrointestinal tract health and carcass characteristics in broiler chickens. Asian-Australs. J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 22, 1026–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Aydin, A.; Pekel, A.Y.; Issa, G.; Demirel, G.; Patterson, P.H. Effect of dietary copper, citric acid, and microbial phytase on digesta pH and ileal and carcass microbiata of broiler chickens fed a low available phosphorus diet. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2010, 19, 422–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Açikgöz, Z.; Bayraktar, H.; Altan, Ö. Effects of formic acid administration in the drinking water on performance, intestinal microflora and carcass contamination in male broilers under high ambient temperature. Asian-Australs. J. Anim. Sci. 2011, 24, 96–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Adil, S.; Banday, M.T.; Bhat, G.A.; Qureshi, S.D.; Wani, S.A. Effect of supplemental organic acids on growth performance and gut microbial population of broiler chicken. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 2011, 23, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  58. Namkung, H.; Yu, H.; Gong, J.; Leeson, S. Antimicrobial activity of butyrate glycerides toward Salmonella typhimurium and Clostridium perfringens. Poult. Sci. 2011, 90, 2217–2222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Houshmand, M.; Azhar, K.; Zulkifli, I.; Bejo, M.H.; Kamyab, A. Effects of non-antibiotic feed additives on performance, immunity and intestinal morphology of broilers fed different levels of protein. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 42, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Naseri, K.G.; Rahimi, S.; Khaki, P. Comparison of the effects of probiotic, organic acid and medicinal plant on Campylobacter jejuni challenged broiler chickens. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2012, 14, 1485–1496. [Google Scholar]
  61. Koyuncu, S.; Andersson, M.G.; Löfström, C.; Skandamis, P.N.; Gounadaki, A.; Zentek, J.; Häggblom, P. Organic acids for control of Salmonella in different feed materials. BMC Vet. Res. 2013, 9, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Kamal, A.M.; Ragaa, N.M. Effect of dietary supplementation of organic acids on performance and serum biochemistry of broiler chicken. Nat. Sci. 2014, 12, 38–45. [Google Scholar]
  63. Cerisuelo, A.; Marín, C.; Sánchez-Vizcaino, F.; Gómez, E.A.; De La Fuente, J.M.; Durán, R.; Fernández, C. The impact of a specific blend of essential oil components and sodium butyrate in feed on growth performance and Salmonella counts in experimentally challenged broilers. Poult. Sci. 2014, 93, 599–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Gül, M.; Ali Tunç, M.; Cengiz, S.; Yildiz, A. Effect of organic acids in diet on laying hens’ performance, egg quality indices, intestinal microflora, and small intestinal villi height. Eur. Poult. Sci. 2014, 78, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Jansen, W.; Reich, F.; Klein, G. Large-scale feasibility of organic acids as a permanent preharvest intervention in drinking water of broilers and their effect on foodborne Campylobacter spp. before processing. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2014, 116, 1676–1687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Agboola, A.F.; Omidiwura, B.R.O.; Odu, O.; Popoola, I.O.; Iyayi, E.A. Effects of organic acid and probiotic on performance and gut morphology in broiler chickens. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 45, 494–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Banday, M.T.; Adil, S.; Khan, A.A.; Untoo, M. A study on efficacy of fumaric acid supplementation in diet of broiler chicken. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2015, 14, 589–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Khooshechin, F.; Hosseini, S.M.; Nourmohammadi, R. Effect of dietary acidification in broiler chickens: 1. Growth performance and nutrients ileal digestibility. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 14, 3885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Abdelqader, A.; Al-Fataftah, A.R. Effect of dietary butyric acid on performance, intestinal morphology, microflora composition and intestinal recovery of heat-stressed broilers. Livest. Sci. 2016, 183, 78–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Basmaciolu-Malayoglu, H.; Ozdemir, P.; Bagriyanik, H.A. Influence of an organic acid blend and essential oil blend, individually or in combination, on growth performance, carcass parameters, apparent digestibility, intestinal microflora and intestinal morphology of broilers. Br. Poult. Sci. 2016, 57, 227–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kaczmarek, S.A.; Barri, A.; Hejdysz, M.; Rutkowski, A. Effect of different doses of coated butyric acid on growth performance and energy utilization in broilers. Poult. Sci. 2016, 95, 851–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Mohammadagheri, N.; Najafi, R.; Najafi, G. Effects of dietary supplementation of organic acids and phytase on performance and intestinal histomorphology of broilers. Vet. Res. Forum. 2016, 7, 189–195. [Google Scholar]
  73. Naela, M.; Korany, R.M. Studying the effect of formic acid and potassium deformity on performance, immunity and gut health of broiler chickens. Anim. Nutr. 2016, 2, 296–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ding, X.; Yang, C.W.; Yang, Z.B.; Yang, W.R.; Jiang, S.Z.; Yi Wen, K.E. Effects of feed acidifiers on growth performance, caecum micro flora and nutrient and energy utilisation in broilers. Eur. Poult. Sci. 2017, 81, 180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Emami, N.K.; Daneshmand, A.; Naeini, S.Z.; Graystone, E.N.; Broom, L.J. Effects of commercial organic acid blends on male broilers challenged with E. coli K88: Performance, microbiology, intestinal morphology, and immune response. Poult. Sci. 2017, 96, 3254–3263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Elnaggar, A.S.; Abo El-Maaty, H.M.A. Impact of using organic acids on growth performance, blood biochemical and hematological traits and immune response of ducks (Cairina moschata). Egypt. Poult. Sci. J. 2017, 37, 907–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Liu, J.D.; Bayir, H.O.; Cosby, D.E.; Cox, N.A.; Williams, S.M.; Fowler, J. Evaluation of encapsulated sodium butyrate on growth performance, energy digestibility, gut development, and Salmonella colonization in broilers. Poult. Sci. 2017, 96, 3638–3644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Rodjan, P.; Soisuwan, K.; Thongprajukaew, K.; Theapparat, Y.; Khongthong, S.; Jeenkeawpieam, J.; Salaeharae, T. Effect of organic acids or probiotics alone or in combination on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, enzyme activities, intestinal morphology and gut microflora in broiler chickens. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2018, 102, 931–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Song, B.; Li, H.; Wu, Y.; Zhen, W.; Wang, Z.; Xia, Z.; Guo, Y. Effect of microencapsulated sodium butyrate dietary supplementation on growth performance and intestinal barrier function of broiler chickens infected with necrotic enteritis. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2017, 232, 6–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Vermeulen, K.; Verspreet, J.; Courtin, C.; Haesebrouck, F.; Ducatelle, R.; Van Immerseel, F. Reduced particle size wheat bran is butyrogenic and lowers Salmonella colonization, when added to poultry feed. Vet. Microbiol. 2017, 198, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Bourassa, D.V.; Wilson, K.M.; Ritz, C.R.; Kiepper, B.K.; Buhr, R.J. Evaluation of the addition of organic acids in the feed and/or water for broilers and the subsequent recovery of Salmonella typhimurium from litter and ceca. Poult. Sci. 2018, 97, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Jazi, V.; Foroozandeh, A.D.; Toghyani, M.; Dastar, B.; Koochaksaraie, R.R. Effects of Pediococcus acidilactici, mannan-oligosaccharide, butyric acid and their combination on growth performance and intestinal health in young broiler chickens challenged with Salmonella typhimurium. Poult. Sci. 2018, 97, 2034–2043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Moquet, P.C.A.; Salami, S.A.; Onrust, L.; Hendriks, W.H.; Kwakkel, R.P. Butyrate presence in distinct gastrointestinal tract segments modifies differentially digestive processes and amino acid bioavailability in young broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 2018, 97, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Sultan, A.; Khan, S.; Khan, S.; Chand, N.; Khan, M.S.; Maris, H. Effect of organic acid blend on carcass yield, nutrient digestibility and tibia ash during starter phase of broiler chicks. Pak. J. Zool. 2018, 50, 1483–1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Yang, X.; Xin, H.; Yang, C.; Yang, X. Impact of essential oils and organic acids on the growth performance, digestive functions and immunity of broiler chickens. Anim. Nutr. 2018, 4, 388–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Makled, M.N.; Abouelezz, K.F.M.; Gad-Elkareem, A.E.G.; Sayed, A.M. Comparative influence of dietary probiotic, yoghurt, and sodium butyrate on growth performance, intestinal microbiota, blood hematology, and immune response of meat-type chickens. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2019, 51, 2333–2342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Sabour, S.; Tabeidian, S.A.; Sadeghi, G. Dietary organic acid and fiber sources affect performance, intestinal morphology, immune responses and gut microflora in broilers. Anim. Nutr. 2019, 5, 156–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ustundag, O.A.; Ozdogan, M. Effects of bacteriocin and organic acid on growth performance, small intestine histomorphology, and microbiology in Japanese quails (Coturnix coturnix japonica). Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2019, 51, 2187–2192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Wang, Z.C.; Yu, H.M.; Xie, J.J.; Cui, H.; Gao, X.H. Effect of pectin oligosaccharides and zinc chelate on growth performance, zinc status, antioxidant ability, intestinal morphology and short-chain fatty acids in broilers. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2019, 103, 935–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Adhikari, P.; Yadav, S.; Cosby, D.E.; Cox, N.A.; Jendza, J.A.; Kim, W.K. Research Note: Effect of organic acid mixture on growth performance and Salmonella typhimurium colonization in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 2645–2649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Ding, J.; He, S.; Xiong, Y.; Liu, D.; Dai, S.; Hu, H. Effects of dietary supplementation of fumaric acid on growth performance, blood hematological and biochemical profile of broiler chickens exposed to chronic heat stress. Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 2020, 22, eRBCA-2019-1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Hu, Y.; Wang, L.; Shao, D.; Wang, Q.; Wu, Y.; Han, Y.; Shi, S. Selectived and reshaped early dominant microbial community in the cecum with similar proportions and better homogenization and species diversity due to organic acids as AGP alternatives mediate their effects on broilers growth. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 10, 2948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Lan, R.X.; Li, S.Q.; Zhao, Z.; An, L. Sodium butyrate as an effective feed additive to improve growth performance and gastrointestinal development in broilers. Vet. Med. Sci. 2020, 6, 491–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Mahmoud, H.; Afiffy, O.; Mahrous, M. Effect of using formic acid on growth performance and some blood parameter of broiler chicken. Assiut Vet. Med. J. 2020, 66, 140–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Matty, H.N.; Hassan, A.A. Effect of supplementation of encapsulated organic acid and essential oil Gallant+® on some physiological parameters of Japanese quails. Iraqi J. Vet. Sci. 2020, 34, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Mortada, M.; Cosby, D.E.; Shanmugasundaram, R.; Selvaraj, R.K. In vivo and in vitro assessment of commercial probiotic andorganic acid feed additives in broilers challenged with Campylobacter coli. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2020, 29, 435–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Nari, N.; Ghasemi, H.A. Growth performance, nutrient digestibility, bone mineralization, and hormone profile in broilers fed with phosphorus deficient diets supplemented with butyric acid and Saccharomyces boulardii. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 926–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Amer, S.A.; A-Nasser, A.; Al-Khalaifah, H.S.; AlSadek, D.M.M.; Abdel Fattah, D.M.; Roushdy, E.M.; Sherief, W.R.I.A.; Farag, M.F.M.; Altohamy, D.E.; Abdel-Wareth, A.A.A.; et al. Effect of dietary medium-chain-monoglycerides on the growth performance, intestinal histomorphology, amino acid digestibility, and broiler chickens’ blood biochemical parameters. Animals 2021, 11, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Gao, C.Q.; Shi, H.Q.; Xie, W.Y.; Zhao, L.H.; Zhang, J.Y.; Ji, C.; Ma, Q.G. Dietary supplementation with acidifiers improves the growth performance, meat quality and intestinal health of broiler chickens. Anim. Nutr. 2021, 7, 762–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Iqbal, H.; Rahman, A.; Khanum, S.; Arshad, M.; Badar, I.H.; Asif, A.R.; Hayat, Z.; Iqbal, M.A. Effect of essential oil and organic acid on performance, gut health, bacterial count and serological parameters in broiler. Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 2021, 23, eRBCA-2021-1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Kumar, A.; Toghyani, M.; Kheravii, S.K.; Pineda, L.; Han, Y.; Swick, R.A.; Wu, S.B. Organic acid blends improve intestinal integrity, modulate short-chain fatty acids profiles and alter microbiota of broilers under necrotic enteritis challenge. Anim. Nutr. 2021, 8, 82–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Sureshkumar, S.; Park, J.H.; Kim, I.H. Effects of the inclusion of dietary organic acid supplementation with anti-coccidium vaccine on growth performance, digestibility, fecal microbial, and chicken fecal noxious gas emissions. Braz. J. Poultry Sci. 2021, 23, eRBCA-2020-1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Han, M.; Chen, B.; Dong, Y.; Miao, Z.; Su, Y.; Liu, C.; Li, J. Evaluation of liquid organic acids on the performance, chyme ph, nutrient utilization, and gut microbiota in broilers under high stocking density. Animals 2023, 13, 257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Hermans, D.; Martel, A.; Van Deun, K.; Verlinden, M.; Van Immerseel, F.; Garmyn, A.; Messens, W.; Heyndrickx, M.; Haesebrouck, F.; Pasmans, F. Intestinal mucus protects Campylobacter jejuni in the ceca of colonized broiler chickens against the bactericidal effects of medium-chain fatty acids. Poult. Sci. 2010, 89, 1144–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Liu, L.; Li, Q.; Yang, Y.; Guo, A. Biological function of short-chain fatty acids and its regulation on intestinal health of poultry. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 736739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Chaveerach, P.; Lipman, L.J.A.; van Knapen, F. Antagonistic activities of several bacteria on in vitro growth of 10 strains of campylobacter jejuni/coli. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2004, 90, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Khan, S.H.; Iqbal, J. Recent advances in the role of organic acids in poultry nutrition. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2016, 44, 359–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Giannenas, I.A.; Papaneophytou, C.P.; Tsalie, E.; Triantafillou, E.; Tontis, D.; Kontopidis, G.A. The effects of benzoic acid and essential oil compounds in combination with protease on the performance of chickens. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 2014, 23, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Palamidi, I.; Paraskeuas, V.; Theodorou, G.; Breitsma, R.; Schatzmayr, G.; Theodoropoulos, G.; Kostas, F.; Mountzouris, K.C. Effects of dietary acidifier supplementation on broiler growth performance, digestive and immune function indices. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2016, 57, 271–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Biggs, P.; Parsons, C.M. The effects of several organic acids on growth performance, nutrient digestibilities, and cecal microbial populations in young chicks. Poult. Sci. 2008, 87, 2581–2589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Hedayati, M.; Manafi, M.; Yari, M.; Avara, A. The influence of an acidifier feed additive on biochemical parameters and immune response of broilers. Annu. Res. Rev. Biol. 2014, 4, 1637–1645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Eklund, T. The antimicrobial effect of dissociated and un-dissociated sorbic acid at different pH levels. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 1983, 54, 383–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Hajati, H. Application of organic acids in poultry nutrition. Int. J. Avian Wildlife Biol. 2018, 3, 324–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Markazi, A.D.; Luoma, A.; Shanmugasundaram, R.; Muruge san, R.; Mohnl, M.; Selvaraj, R. Effect of acidifier product supplementation in laying hens challenged with Salmonella. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2019, 28, 919–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Stefanello, C.; Vieira, S.L.; Rios, H.V.; Simoes, C.T.; Ferzola, P.H.; Sorbara, J.O.B.; Cowieson, A.J. Effects of energy, α-amylase, and β-xylanase on growth performance of broiler chickens. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 2017, 225, 205–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Huyghebaert, G.; Richard, D.; Van Immerseel, F. An update on alternatives to antimicrobial growth promoters for broilers. Vet. J. 2011, 187, 182–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Nguyen, D.H.; Seok, W.J.; Kim, I.H. Organic acids mixture as a dietary additive for pigs—A review. Animals 2020, 10, 952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Carrasco, J.M.D.; Casanova, N.A.; Miyakawa, M.E.F. Microbiota, gut health and chicken productivity: What is the connection? Microorganisms 2019, 7, 374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Jackman, J.A.; Boy, R.D.; Elrod, C.C. Medium-chain fatty acids and monoglycerides as feed additives for pig production: Towards gut health improvement and feed pathogen mitigation. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2020, 11, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Galli, G.M.; Aniecevski, E.; Petrolli, T.G.; Da Rosa, G.; Boiago, M.M.; Simões, C.A.; Wagner, R.; Copetti, P.M.; Morsch, V.M.; Araujo, D.N.; et al. Growth performance and meat quality of broilers fed with micro encapsulated organic acids. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2021, 271, 114706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Hirshfield, I.N.; Terzulli, S.; O’Byrne, C. Weak organic acids: A panoply of effects on bacteria. Sci. Prog. 2003, 86, 245–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Aljumaah, M.R.; Alkhulaifi, M.M.; Abudabos, A.M.; Alabdullatifb, A.; El Mubarak, A.H.; Al Suliman, A.R.; Stanley, D. Organic acid blend supplementation increases butyrate and acetate production in Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium challenged broilers. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0232831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Khan, R.U.; Chand, N.; Ali, A. Effect of organic acids on the performance of Japanese quails. Pak. J. Zool. 2016, 48, 1799–1803. [Google Scholar]
  124. Wang, J.; Dai, D.; Zhang, H.J.; Wu, S.G.; Han, Y.M.; Wu, Y.Y.; Qi, G.H. Organic acids modulate systemic metabolic perturbation caused by Salmonella pullorum challenge in early-stage broilers. Front. Physiol. 2019, 10, 1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. El-Saadony, M.T.; Salem, H.M.; El-Tahan, A.M.; Abd El-Mageed, T.A.; Soliman, S.M.; Khafaga, A.F.; Swelum, A.A.; Ahmed, A.E.; Alshammari, F.A.; Abd El-Hack, M.E. The control of poultry salmonellosis using organic agents: An updated overview. Poult. Sci. 2022, 101, 101716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Hassan, H.M.A.; Mohamed, M.A.; Youssef, A.W.; Hassan, E.R. Effect of using organic acids to substitute antibiotic growth promoters on performance and intestinal microflora of broilers. Asian-Australas J. Anim. Sci. 2010, 23, 1348–1353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Abdelli, N.; Pérez, J.F.; Vilarrasa, E.; Cabeza Luna, I.; Melo-Duran, D.; D’Angelo, M.; Solà-Oriol, D. Targeted-release organic acids and essential oils improve performance and digestive function in broilers under a necrotic enteritis challenge. Animals 2020, 10, 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Abdullahi, A.Y.; Yu, X.G.; Fu, Y.Q.; Wang, M.W.; Qi, N.S.; Xia, M.H.; Kallon, S.; Pan, W.D.; Shi, X.L.; Fang, Y. Effects of dietary supplement of organic acids induced protective immunity against coccidiosis. Iran. J. Appl. Anim. Sci. 2020, 10, 119–129. [Google Scholar]
  129. Khan, R.U.; Naz, S.; Dhama, K.; Kathrik, K.; Tiwari, R.; Abdelrahman, M.M.; Alhidary, I.A.; Zahoor, A. Direct-fed microbial: Beneficial applications, modes of action and prospects as a safe tool for enhancing ruminant production and safeguarding health. Int. J. Pharmacol. 2016, 12, 220–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Gonzalez-Fandos, E.; Martinez-Laorden, A.; Perez-Arnedo, I. Combined effect of organic acids and modified atmosphere packaging on listeria monocytogenes in chicken legs. Animals 2020, 10, 1818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Nguyen, D.H.; Kim, I.H. Protected organic acids improved growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and decreased gas emission in broilers. Animals 2020, 10, 416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Hassan, R.I.; Mosaad, G.M.; Abd Elstar, M. Effect of feeding citric acid on performance of broiler ducks fed different protein levels. J. Adv. Vet. Res. 2016, 6, 18–26. [Google Scholar]
  133. Araujo, R.; Polycarpo, G.; Barbieri, A.; Silva, K.; Ventura, G.; Polycarpo, V.C.C. Performance and economic viability of broiler chickens fed with probiotic and organic acids in an attempt to replace growth-promoting antibiotics. Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 2019, 21, eRBCA-2018-0912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Stefanello, C.; Rosa, D.P.; Dalmoro, Y.K.; Segatto, A.L.; Vieira, M.S.; Moraes, M.L.; Santin, E. Protected blend of organic acids and essential oils improves growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and intestinal health of broiler chickens undergoing an intestinal challenge. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020, 6, 491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Aristimunha, P.C.; Rosa, A.P.; Boemo, L.S.; Garcez, D.C.; Rosa, D.P.; Londero, A.; Scher, A.; Forgiarini, J. A blend of benzoic acid and essential oil compounds as an alternative to antibiotic growth promoters in broiler diets. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2016, 25, 455–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Yegani, M.; Korver, D.R. Factors affecting intestinal health in poultry. Poult. Sci. 2008, 87, 2052–2063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Mourya, P.S. Nutrient utilization and growth performance of broilers on dietary supplementation of acidifiers. Ind. J. Anim. Nutr. 2011, 28, 98–101. [Google Scholar]
  138. Hashemi, S.R.; Zulkifli, I.; Davoodi, H.; Zunita, Z.; Ebrahimi, M. Growth performance, intestinal microflora, plasma fatty acid profile in broiler chickens fed herbal plant (Euphorbia hirta) and mix of acidifiers. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2012, 178, 167–1674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Kong, L.J.; Zheng, Y.W.; Lai, C.H.; Wang, X.Y.; Zeng, X. Effects of the cooperation of EM and acidifier on digestive enzyme activity, blood biochemical indes and calcium and phosphorus metabolism of broiler. Shandong Poult. 2003, 6, 10–13. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  140. Luckstadt, C.; Mellor, S. The use of organic acids in animal nutrition, with special focus on dietary potassium diformate under European and austral-Asian conditions. Recent Adv. Anim. Nutr. Aust. 2011, 18, 123–130. [Google Scholar]
  141. Abudabos, A.M.; Alyemni, A.H.; Dafalla, Y.M.; Khan, R.U. Effect of organic acid blend and Bacillus subtilis alone or in combination on growth traits, blood biochemical and antioxidant status in broilers exposed to Salmonella typhimurium challenge during the starter phase. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2017, 45, 538–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Emami, N.K.; Naeini, S.Z.; Ruiz-Feria, C.A. Growth performance, digestibility, immune response and intestinal morphology of male broilers fed phosphorus deficient diets supplemented with microbial phytase and organic acids. Livest. Sci. 2013, 157, 506–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Dhawale, A. Better eggshell quality with a gut acidifier. Poult. Int. 2005, 44, 18–21. [Google Scholar]
  144. Lee, K.H.; Jung, S.; Kim, H.J.; Kim, I.S.; Lee, J.H.; Jo, C. Effect of dietary supplementation of the combination of gallic and linoleic acid in thigh meat of broilers. Asian-Australas J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 25, 1641–1848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Fortuoso, B.F.; Dosreis, J.H.; Gebert, R.R.; Barreta, M.; Griss, L.G.; Casagrande, R.A.; De Cristo, T.G.; Santiani, F.; Campigotto, G.; Rampazzo, L.; et al. Glycerol monolaurate in the diet of broiler chickens replacing conventional antimicrobials: Impact on health, performance and meat quality. Microb. Pathog. 2019, 129, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Wang, Y.B.; Wang, Y.; Lin, X.J.; Gou, Z.Y.; Fan, Q.L.; Ye, J.L.; Jiang, S.Q. Potential effect of acidifier and amylase as substitutes for antibiotic on the growth performance, nutrient digestion and gut microbiota in yellow-feathered broilers. Animals 2020, 10, 1858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Strous, G.J.; Dekker, J. Mucin-type glycoproteins. Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 1992, 27, 57–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Khatun, M.; Islam, K.M.S.; Howleder, M.A.R.; Haque, M.N.; Chowdhury, R.; Karim, M.R. Effects of dietary citric acid, probiotic and their combination on the performance, tibia ash and non-specific immune status of broiler. Ind. J. Anim. Sci. 2010, 80, 813–816. [Google Scholar]
  149. Alagawany, M.; Elnesr, S.S.; Farag, M.R.; Abd El-Hack, M.E.; Barkat, R.A.; Gabr, A.A.; Foda, M.A.; Noreldin, A.E.; Khafaga, A.F.; El-Sabrout, K.; et al. Potential role of important nutraceuticals in poultry performance and health–a comprehensive review. Res. Vet. Sci. 2021, 137, 9–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Cakir, S.; Midilli, M.; Erol, H.; Simsek, N.; Cinar, M.; Altintas, A.; Alp, H.; Altintas, L.; Cengiz, Ö.; Antalyali, A. Use of combined pro biotic-prebiotic, organic acid and avilamycin in diets of Japanese quails. Rev. Med. Vet. 2008, 159, 565–569. [Google Scholar]
  151. Kum, S.; Eren, U.; Önol, A.G.; Sandikci, M. Effects of organic acid supplementation on the intestinal mucosa in broilers. Rev. Med. Vet. 2010, 10, 463–468. [Google Scholar]
  152. Dibner, J.J.; Richards, J.D. Antibiotic growth promoters in agriculture: History and mode of action. Poult. Sci. 2005, 84, 634–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Samanta, S.; Haldar, S.; Ghosh, T.K. Comparative efficacy of an organic acid blend and bacitracin methylene disalicylate as growth promoters in broiler chickens: Effects on performance, gut histology, and small intestinal milieu. Vet. Med. Int. 2010, 2010, 645150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Corrêa-Oliveira, R.; Fachi, J.L.; Vieira, A.; Sato, F.T.; Vinolo, M.A.R. Regulation of immune cell function by short-chain fatty acids. Clin. Transl. Immunol. 2016, 5, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Adil, S.; Banday, T.; Bhat, G.A.; Salahuddin, M.; Raquib, M.; Shanaz, S. Response of broiler chicken to dietary supplementation of organic acids. J. Cent. Eur. Agric. 2011, 12, 498–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Qaisrani, S.N.; Van Krimpen, M.M.; Kwakkel, R.P.; Verstegen, M.W.A.; Hendriks, W.H. Diet structure, butyric acid, and fermentable carbo hydrates influence growth performance, gut morphology, and cecal fermentation characteristics in broilers. Poult. Sci. 2015, 94, 2152–2164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Wu, W.; Xiao, Z.; An, W.; Dong, Y.; Zhang, B. Dietary sodium butyrate improves intestinal development and function by modulating the microbial community in broilers. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0197762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Elnesr, S.S.; Ropy, A.; Abdel-Razik, A.H. Effect of dietary sodium butyrate supplementation on growth, blood biochemistry, haematology and histomorphometry of intestine and immune organs of Japanese quail. Animal 2019, 13, 1234–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Levy, A.W.; Kessler, J.W.; Fuller, L.; Williams, S.; Mathis, G.F.; Lumpkins, B.; Valdez, F. Effect of feeding an encapsulated source of butyric acid (ButiPEARL) on the performance of male Cobb broilers reared to 42 d of age. Poult. Sci. 2015, 94, 1864–1870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Sikandar, A.; Zaneb, H.; Younus, M.; Masood, S.; Aslam, A.; Khattak, F.; Ashraf, S.; Yousaf, M.S.; Rehman, H. Effect of sodium butyrate on performance, immune status, microarchitecture of small intestinal mucosa and lymphoid organs in broiler chickens. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2017, 30, 690–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Abbas, R.Z.; Munawar, S.H.; Manzoor, Z.; Iqbal, Z.; Khan, M.N.; Saleemi, M.K.; Zia, M.A.; Yousaf, A. Anticoccidial effects of acetic acid on performance and pathogenic parameters in broiler chickens challenged with Eimeria tenella. Pesqui. Vet. Bras. 2011, 31, 99–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Ali, A.M.; Seddiek, S.A.; Khater, H.F. Effect of butyrate, clopidol and their combination on the performance of broilers infected with Eimeria maxima. Br. Poult. Sci. 2014, 55, 474–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Fascina, V.B.; Pasquali, G.A.M.; Carvalho, F.B.; Muro, E.M.; Vercese, F.; Aoyagi, M.M.; Pezzato, A.C.; Gonzales, E.; Sartori, J.R. Effects of phytogenic additives and organic acids, alone or in combination, on the performance, intestinal quality and immune responses of broiler chickens. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Avic. 2017, 19, 497–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Park, J.H.; Park, G.H.; Ryu, K.S. Effect of feeding organic acid mixture and yeast culture on performance and egg quality of laying hens. Kor. J. Poult. Sci. 2009, 29, 109–115. [Google Scholar]
  165. Abbas, G.; Khan, S.H.; Rehman, H. Effects of formic acid administration in the drinking water on production performance, egg quality and immune system in layers during hot season. Avian Biol. Res. 2013, 6, 227–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Lee, I.K.; Bae, S.; Gu, M.J.; You, S.J.; Kim, G.; Park, S.M.; Jeung, W.H.; Ko, K.H.; Cho, K.J.; Kang, J.S.; et al. H9N2-specific IgG and CD4+ CD25+ T cells in broilers fed a diet supplemented with organic acids. Poult. Sci. 2017, 96, 1063–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. Zhang, W.H.; Jiang, Y.; Zhu, Q.F.; Gao, F.; Dai, S.F.; Chen, J.; Zhou, G.H. Sodium butyrate maintains growth performance by regulating the immune response in broiler chickens. Br. Poult. Sci. 2011, 52, 292–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Rodríguez-Lecompte, J.C.; Yitbarek, A.; Brady, J.; Sharif, S.; Cavanagh, M.D.; Crow, G.; Guenter, W.; House, J.D.; Camelo-Jaimes, G. The effect of microbial nutrient interaction on the immune system of young chicks after early probiotic and organic acid administration. J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 90, 2246–2254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Lee, K.W.; Lillehoj, H.S.; Jeong, W.; Jeoung, H.Y. An Avian necrotic enteritis: Experimental models, host immunity, pathogenesis, risk factors, and vaccine development. Poult. Sci. 2011, 90, 1381–1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agriculture 14 01756 g001
Figure 1. Types of acids used in the poultry industry.
Figure 1. Types of acids used in the poultry industry.
Agriculture 14 01756 g001
Agriculture 14 01756 g002
Figure 2. The different uses of OAs in the poultry production system.
Figure 2. The different uses of OAs in the poultry production system.
Agriculture 14 01756 g002
Agriculture 14 01756 g003
Figure 3. The different forms of OAs in poultry production.
Figure 3. The different forms of OAs in poultry production.
Agriculture 14 01756 g003
Agriculture 14 01756 g004
Figure 4. The different antimicrobial mechanisms of actions of OAs.
Figure 4. The different antimicrobial mechanisms of actions of OAs.
Agriculture 14 01756 g004
Table 1. The effects of different OAs inoculations on poultry feed.
Table 1. The effects of different OAs inoculations on poultry feed.
Organic Acid(s)EffectsReference
Dietary ascorbic acid, malic acid, and tartaric acid↑ BWG and feed efficiency[37]
0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 6% of acetic acid, citric acid, lactic acid, malic acid, mandelic acid, propionic acid, or tartaric acid, respectively↓ S. typhimurium colonization count[38]
0.5–1% fumaric acidImproved metabolizable energy[39]
0.16% butyric acid↓ Salmonella count in caecum[40]
0.2% butyric acid↑ Carcass weight, breast muscles yield, and dressing %
↑ FCR
↓ Abdominal fat		[41]
Dietary citric acid↑ FI[42]
5 and 10 g/kg formic acidImproved ileal nutrient digestibility [43]
5000 and 10,000 ppm formic acid↑ Growth
↑ Apparent ileal digestibility		 [44]
0.05% sodium butyrate ↓ Lactobacilli and E. coli [45]
Butyric acid, 285 mg/kg of feed↑ Eggshell strength
↓ Malformed eggs		 [46]
A combination of acetic acid, citric acid, and lactic acid↑ BW [47]
A dietary mixture of formic (70%) and propionic acid (30%) Improved FI in a quadratic form [48]
Dietary citric acid and phytase↑ Specific gravity and eggshell thickness
↓ Egg weight		 [49]
0.5% citric acid or avilamycin and their combination↑ FI, growth, carcass yield, and bone ash
↑ Lactobacillus spp. development
↓ Growth and proliferation of Salmonella and E. coli
↑ Phosphorus utilization in intestine		 [50]
0.09% free or protected sodium butyrate ↓ S. enteritidis in crop, cecum, and liver [51]
Dietary citric acid↑ Lymphocyte number in lymphoid organs [52]
0.45% of potassium diformate↓ Reduced necrotic enteritis-related mortality and amount of C. perfringens in the jejunum [53]
Dietary 0.4% butyric acid↑ BWG and FCR [54]
Dietary 3% citric acid↓ Ileal coliform contents [55]
Formic acid in the drinking water No effect on the counts of total organisms and E. coli in intestine [56]
3% butyric acid ↓ Crop pH and cecal coliform count
↑ Intestinal length		 [57]
0.50% formic acid, 0.50% fumaric acid, 0.25% acetic acid, and 2.0% citric acid↑ Villus height in duodenum[30]
250–7000 mg/kg N-butyric acid ↓ S. Typhimurium or C. perfringens colonization [58]
Dietary 0.15% blend of OAs for broilers↑ Antibody titers against ND at 21 days old [59]
1% mixture of formic acid (32%), acetic acid (7%), ammonium format (20%), mono- and diglyceride of unsaturated fatty acids, and copper acetate in the drinking water of C. jejuni-infected broilers↑ FI
No effect on the BWG and FCR 		[60]
1% formic acid in feed for 5 days↓ Salmonella count [61]
3% butyric acid, 3% fumaric acid, and 3% lactic acid in the drinking water of broilers↑ BW
Improved FCR
No effect on the cumulative FI		 [62]
0.1% butyric acid↓ Salmonella count in caecum [63]
Soft Acid S includes 60% formic acid, 20% propionic acid, and 20% soft acid and Soft Acid P consists of 70% propionic acid, 5% citric acid, and 25% soft acid (2.5 kg/ton of feed of layer chickens)↑ Small intestinal villi
↓ The total bacteria, total yeast-fungi count, and sheep red blood cell levels
No effect on the FI, egg production, egg weight, and FCR
No effect on the shell stiffness, shape index, shell thickness, albumen index, yolk index, and Haugh unit		 [64]
0.075% blend of formic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid, and sorbic acid; medium-chain fatty acids combined with ammonium formate, and coconut/palm kernel fatty acid distillate in their waterNo growth-promoting effects [65]
0.4% formic acid, propionic acid Improved villus height-to-crypt depth ratio [66]
1% fumaric acid in diets↑ BWG [67]
1–3 g/kg (0.1–0.3%) of a blend of formic acid, lactic acid, malic acid, tartaric acid, citric acid, and orthophosphoric acid in the drinking water↑ The apparent metabolizable energies and total phosphorous ileal digestibility
↑ BW, average daily gain, and average daily FI
Negative impact on FCR 		[68]
0.05% encapsulated butyrate↑ Intestinal weight and epithelial cell area [69]
2 g/kg organic oil blendVillus height in ileum [70]
0.02%, 0.03%, and 0.04% protected calcium butyrate↑ BWG
↑ Mucosa thickness, villus length, and crypt depth		 [71]
2% citric acid↑ Epithelial cell proliferation and villi height of gastrointestinal tract [72]
5 g/kg formic acid↑ BWG, dressing %
↓ FCR		 [73]
3 kg/ton commercial acidifier↑ Average daily gain
↓ FCR		 [74]
0.1%, 0.02%, and 0.04% of formic and propionic acids ↑ Beneficial intestinal bacterial flora load
↓ E. coli (K:88)
↑ Growth performance parameters
↑ IgG titer to sheep red blood cells and vaccination with infectious bursal disease and infectious bronchitis viruses		[75]
0.1% and 0.3% formic acid and citric acid for ducklings↑ BW, BWG, and FCR[76]
0.05 or 0.1% encapsulated sodium butyrate↑ Ileal digestibility energy coefficient [77]
0.2% mixture of 32% fumaric acid, 3% formic acid, 13% lactic acid, 3% propionic acid, and 1% citric acid↑ Villus height and crypt depth
↑ The expression of tight junction proteins and performance		 [78]
800 mg/kg micro-encapsulated sodium butyrate↑ BW, daily gain, and FCR [79]
0.1% fermented fatty acids of wheat bran ↓ Salmonella count [80]
1% formic acid in water of S. typhimurium-infected broilers↓ BW [81]
0.05% encapsulated butyric acid↑ Lactobacilli and Bifidobacterium
↓ Salmonella and coliform
No effect on amylase, protease, and lipase		 [82]
Protected or unprotected 0.1% butyrateNo effect on gut weight, retention time, dry matter, organic matter, nitrogen, and non-protein nitrogen [83]
0.1%, 0.15%, and 2% blend of ortho phosphoric acid, formic acid, and propionic acid in the drinking water ↓ Growth performance parameters [84]
Dietary 0.30 g/kg sorbic acid and fumaric acid↑ Secretion of trypsin, lipase, and chymotrypsin in the intestine
↑ Spleen index
↑ IgA in duodenal and ileal mucosa		 [85]
0.06% sodium butyrate↑ Lactobacilli
↓ E. coli in Ileum		 [86]
A combination of sodium butyrate, citric acid, phosphoric acid, acetic acid, propionic acid, formic acid, and lactic acid↑ Growth performance parameters [87]
3 g/kg organic acid blend in Japanese quails↑ Villus height and width in jejunum and duodenum [88]
A blend of OAs (0.1%) in the drinking water of broiler chickens orally challenged with (109 CFU/mL) C. jejuni↓ C. jejuni counts [89]
0.9% formic acid and sodium formate ↓ S. typhimurium colonization
↑ Growth performance parameters		 [90]
Dietary fumaric acid↑ Erythrocyte counts, hemoglobin concentration, and total serum protein, albumin, globulin, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [91]
0.1% formic acid, acetic acid, and ammonium formate in the drinking water of broilers↑ Growth performances
↑ Actinobacteria count
↓ Proteobacteria, Verrucomicrobia, and Cyanobacteria count
The relative abundance of the Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, and Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio was not affected		 [92]
0.6 and 1.2 g/kg sodium butyrate↑ Average daily gain and FCR [93]
3% fumaric acid in a diet↓ Cholesterol and total lipids [94]
Encapsulated organic acids of formic acid, acetic acid, and butyric acid, in addition to essential oils, like thymol, carvacrol, β-cymene, borneol, and myrcene coated with a matrix of triglyceride↑ Epithelium thickness and surface area [95]
0.5 kg/ton feed formic acid with cinnamaldehyde ↓ Proliferation of C. coli
No effect on the cecal and carcass surface loads		[96]
0.2% butyric acidNo significant effect on dry matter, crude protein, ether extract, calcium, phosphorus, and apparent metabolized energy[97]
0.2% mixture of 32% fumaric acid, 3% formic acid, 13% lactic acid, 3% propionic acid, and 1% citric acid ↓ E. coli population
↑ Lactobacillus spp. and E. coli ratio in the ileum and caecum 		[98]
0.3% blend of acetic acid, propionic acid, formic acid, and ammonium formate↑ Villus height[4]
Dietary supplementation of phosphoric acid (0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 g/kg) and lactic acid (0.3 g/kg)↑ Feed-to-gain ratio
↑ Trypsin, chymotrypsin, and lipase secretion in the duodenum
↑ Breast and thigh muscle pH value
↓ Cooking loss and meat tenderness
↓ Abundance of E. coli and Salmonella
↑ Villus height of the duodenum		 [99]
1 g/kg of a diet of a mixture of 40% formic acid, 40% formate, and 20% sodium ↑ Serum glucose level [100]
0.5–2.5 g/kg feed of short- and medium-chain fatty acids ↓ C. perfringens shedding in the caecum [101]
A blend of formic acid, acetic acid, and ammonium formate (1.5 mL/L drinking water) + a blend of encapsulated butyrate, encapsulated multi-chain fatty acids, OAs, mainly sorbic acid and phenolic compound, were added to the basal diets at 0.15% and 0.1% in Eimeria spp.-challenged broilers↑ Average BW, average BWG, and FCR
↑ TNF-γ
↓ Intestinal crypt depth
↑ Villus height-to-crypt depth ratio
↑ Intestinal goblet cells
↑ Lactobacillus reuteri, Cyanobacteria 		[31]
0.3% mixture of 11% formic acid, 13% ammonium formate, 5.1% acetic acid, 10% propionic acid, 4.2% lactic acid, and 2% of other lower levels of OAs (sorbic acid and citric acid) (3000 mg/kg diet)↑ Formic acid in cecal contents on day 21 and acetic acid, propionic acid, butyric acid, and the total volatile fatty acids in the cecal content on day 42
↑ IgA, D-lactate, and IL-10
↓ pH value in duodenum
↑Amylase activity of the pancreas and the tight junction protein (mainly Claudin-1, Claudin-2, and ZO-1) in duodenum
↑ Villus-to-crypt ratio in ileum
Modulates microbiota structure
↓ Abundance of E. coli 		[26]
Dietary fumaric acid (15 g/kg feed) in Japanese quails↑ BW, BWG, and FCR[27]
0.1% organic acid↑ Villus height of jejunum [102]
A blend of formic acid (32%), acetic acid (7%), and ammonium formate (20%)Formic acid improved the physical growth, digestibility, immunity, and antimicrobial activity
Acetic acid showed anti-bacteria effect 		[3]
0, 1, 1.5 g/kg feed formic acid ↑ BW, BWG, and the amount of feed ingested
↓ Glucose, triglycerides, and cholesterol		[28]
A mixture of formic acid (32%), acetic acid (7%), ammonium formate (20%), mono- and diglyceride of unsaturated fatty acids, and copper acetate (under high stocking density)↓ Chyme pH value in the proventriculus, gizzard, and duodenum
↑ Acetic acid, butyric acid, and isovaleric acid in cecal chyme
↓ Valeric acid in cecal chyme 		[103]
A combination of both OA blend (formic acid, propionic acid, ammonium formate, and ammonium propionate) (200 mg/kg) and essential oils mixture (150 mg/kg)Improves BWG and FCR
↑ Villus height
↓ Growth of C. perfringens, E. coli, and Salmonella
↓ Intestinal lesion score
↓ Serum level of calprotectin and liver enzymes 		[15]
↑= increase; ↓ = decrease; BW = body weight; BWG = body weight gain; FI = feed intake; FCR = feed conversion ratio; Ig = immunoglobulin; IL = interleukin; TNF = tumor necrosis factor; ND = Newcastle disease; E. coli = Escherichia coli; C. perfringens = Clostridium perfringens; C. jejuni = Campylobacter jejuni; C. coli = Campylobacter coli; S. typhimurium = Salmonella typhimurium; S. enteritidis = Salmonella enteritidis.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Abd El-Ghany, W.A. Applications of Organic Acids in Poultry Production: An Updated and Comprehensive Review. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1756. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14101756

AMA Style

Abd El-Ghany WA. Applications of Organic Acids in Poultry Production: An Updated and Comprehensive Review. Agriculture. 2024; 14(10):1756. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14101756

Chicago/Turabian Style

Abd El-Ghany, Wafaa A. 2024. "Applications of Organic Acids in Poultry Production: An Updated and Comprehensive Review" Agriculture 14, no. 10: 1756. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14101756

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop