Content uploaded by Nasir Mukhtar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nasir Mukhtar on Feb 10, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
To cite this paper:Waseem Mirza M, Rehman ZU and Mukhtar N. 2016. Use of Organic Acids as Potential Feed Additives in Poultry Production. J. World's Poult. Res.
6(3): 105-116.
Journal homepage:http://jwpr.science-line.com/ 105
JWPR
Journal of World's
Poultry Research
© 2016, Scienceline Publication
J. World Poult. Res. 6(3): 105-116, September 25, 2016
Review, PII: S2322455X1600015-6
License: CC BY 4.0
Use of Organic Acids as Potential Feed Additives in
Poultry Production
Muhammad Waseem Mirza1*, Zaib-Ur-Rehman2 and Nasir Mukhtar2
1Research scientist at NIPH, Harper Adams University, Shropshire, TF10 8NB, United Kingdom
2Department of Poultry Science, Faculty of veterinary and Animal Sciences, PMAS-Arid Agriculture University Rawalpindi, Pakistan
*Corresponding author`s Email: wmirza@harper-adams.ac.uk Received: 05Aug. 2016
Accepted: 02Sep. 2016
ABSTRACT
Historically organic acids (OA) have been used by humans as natural food preservatives and hygiene
promoters with regard to the microbial growth and to enhance freshness and shelf-life of edible food items.
This characteristic of microbial growth inhibition of OA also makes them suitable replacement to antibiotic
growth promoters in poultry. OA are chemically weak acids, which prevent or completely seize the
proliferation and colonization of pathogenic bacteria in the intestine of birds. Thus, reducing the competition
for the nutrients as well as production of harmful microbial metabolites. This in turn improves bird’s
performance and enhances the specific and non-specific immunity by improving the bird’s intestinal
epithelial layer. OA also help improving absorptive capacity of the intestinal cells by improving the crypt-
villus structures as well as by improving the digestive secretions, thus influencing a boost in the digestion of
proteins, carbohydrates and especially the minerals. This results in enhanced growth rate and feed efficiency
in poultry. This comprehensive review about dynamics of OA revealed that this potential feed additive will
be used as performance modifier in commercial poultry production, functioning as gut microbial modifier,
immune modulator and nutrients digestion enhancer. This review updates the last decade's developments
about OA in poultry production.
Key words: Organic acid, Antimicrobial activity, Digestibility, Performance, Poultry
INTRODUCTION
Increased growth rate and improved feed
efficiency (Miles et al., 2006) along with prevention of
sub clinical diseases are the main reasons why dietary
antibiotic growth promoters (AGP) have been practiced
during the last 50 years in poultry production. However,
their constant use at low dosage develops resistance in
the bacteria (Collignon, 2003) and residues in the
animal products.There was a fear of transferring these
antibiotic-resistant bacteria to humans via food chain
(Dibner and Buttin, 2002), therefore, European Union
(EU) banned the use of AGP in animal nutrition in 2006
(European Union, 2003 and 2005). Ban on the use of
AGP in poultry feed resulted in a poorer production
performances and there was a change in the microbial
ecology in gastrointestinal tract of birds. However,
Danish industry evidence showed little effects of this
ban on the productive performance. This situation
therefore, compelled animal nutritionists and
researchers to search for other non-therapeutic
alternatives for poultry feed such as organic acids (OA)
(Panda et al., 2009), plant extracts, (Taylor, 2001)
enzymes, probiotics, prebiotics, herbs and essential oils
(Islam, 2012). The use of OA and their salts in the
poultry production were considered as safe therefore,
they were allowed to be used as feed additive by the
European Union (Adil et al., 2010). Moreover, most of
the research during last decade shows that OA are
excellent promoters of growth performance and gut
health in commercial poultry production (Sohail and
Javid, 2016). Therefore, it is important to understand
and highlight their importance, impact and mode of
action, to be able to maximize the benefits when
included in poultry diets.
Organic acids
Any substance that contains the R-COOH group in
its structure and has acidic properties is called an
Organic Acid (OA) and hence include fatty acid and
amino acid. Chemically they are weak acids and
contrary to mineral acids they do not dissociate
completely in water. The pKa is a logarithmic measure
of the acid dissociation constant, the most important
property that categorizes the strength and affects the
activity of OA. The lower or more negative the number,
the stronger and more dissociable the acid. It is
important for OA’s antimicrobial properties that its pKa
value should be in the range of 3-5 (Dibner and Buttin,
2002).Due to this partial dissociation, not allOA’s have
To cite this paper:Waseem Mirza M, Rehman ZU and Mukhtar N. 2016. Use of Organic Acids as Potential Feed Additives in Poultry Production. J. World's Poult. Res.
6(3): 105-116.
Journal homepage:http://jwpr.science-line.com/ 106
the ability to influence gut microflora or have
antimicrobial properties. OA are short chained acids
(C1-C7), consisting of either a simple monocarboxylic
acids i.e. formic, acetic, propionic and butyric acids or
ones containing carboxylic group at the alpha carbon
like tartaric, lactic, malic, and citric acids, which exhibit
antimicrobial properties. Acids like fumaric and sorbic
acid also have antifungal properties. The OAs and their
salts do not exhibit their beneficial effects solely
through their antimicrobial activity in feed and GIT of
birds but also act as performance enhancers in many
ways (Al-Kassi and Mohssen, 2009). These include an
improvement in the growth rate through increase in the
digestion and absorption of different nutrients,
improvement in crypt-villus structure i.e., crypt depth
and villus height and width and stimulation of the
digestive secretion of different organs.
Antimicrobial activity of organic acids
Major objective of the dietary acidification in
poultry is to reduce the pathogenic bacteria (Partanen
and Mroz, 1999; Griggs and Jacob, 2005) or increase
beneficial bacteria number, both in the feed and by
influencing the gut or intestinal environment (Ewing,
2009), so as to support enteric health and growth
performance. However, their magnitude of microbial
activity in the gut depends on the physiological status
of the organism as well as physicochemical
characteristics of the environment (Ricke, 2003). Most
common bacteria that affect the intestinal health of
poultry are Salmonella, Escherichia coli (E. coli),
Clostridium, etc. Though a very small effect but these
bacteria compete with the host for the nutrients and
produce different types of metabolites like ammonia
and amines, possibly a result of amino acid
deamination, hence leading to reduced growth of the
poultry birds. So, by reducing the number of these
bacteria, growth rate gets enhanced. OA can provide
control over E. coli, Campylobacter and
Salmonellachallenges in poultry (Chaveerachet al.,
2002 and Heres et al., 2003). Salmonella infection in
poultry mainly spreads through contaminated feed (Ao,
2005), therefore, an in-feed addition of OA will prevent
the foodborne Salmonella species (Broek et al., 2003).
Likewise, OA can be added in the water to keep it free
from all type of microorganisms. Albuquerque et al.
(1995) reported that out of 136 feed ingredient samples
studied for the incidence of Salmonella,19.85% were
contaminated with Salmonella. Acid-intolerant species
such as E. coli, Campylobacter and Salmonella families
are particularly affected by the actions of OA (Al-Kassi
and Mohssen, 2009). Hinton et al. (2000) reported that
low pH and higher number of lactobacilli lower the
incidence of the Salmonella in crop of broiler chicks.
Similarly in feed addition of formic acid reduces the
foodborne infections of poultry (Humphrey and
Lanning, 1988 and Rouse et al., 1988). The pH value in
crop decreased (P<0.05) in the broiler chicken fed OA
based diets (Adil et al., 2011). Dietary supplementation
of formic and propionic acid laying hens also resulted
in lowering of the pH of the crop and gizzard, this
lowered pH has also been shown to kill the Salmonella
in-vitro (Thompson and Hinton, 1997).As a
consequence fowl typhoid can be prevented/controlled
(Berchieri and Barrow, 1996). Izat et al. (1990)
documented that dietary acidification with buffered
propionic acid lessen the number of E. coli in the small
intestine. A mixture of OA significantly lowers the total
bacterial count especially gram negative bacteria in
broilers (Gunal et al., 2006). The RCOO- anions
produced from OA can hinder bacterial genetic
regulation i.e., DNA and protein synthesis. Van
Immerseel et al. (2006) reported that at low dose
butyric acid can suppress genes responsible for the
Salmonella invasion. In an in-vitro study Entani et al.
(1998) reported that a media containing 0.1 percent
acetic acid inhibited the growth of 17 strains of the
bacteria including Salmonella typhimurium and eight
strains of E. coli. Adil et al. (2011) reported addition of
OA to the diets of broiler chicken significantly
decreased (P<0.05) the caecal viablecoliform counts
compared to the unsupplemented group. Butyric acid
supplementation decreases the colonization of
salmonella in the liver and spleen in broilers
(Fernández-Rubio et al., 2009). Maribo et al. (2000a)
found that benzoic acid supplementation in the feed of
pigs resulted in significantly lower counts of lactic acid
bacteria, lactobacilli, coliform and yeast throughout the
entire GIT.
Mycotoxinsthat are the metabolites of fungi are
the major threat to the poultry industry as these
suppress the immune system; reduces the dietary
energy contents as well as causing poor feed conversion
and less growth rate etc. A variety of OA such as acetic
acid, lactic acid, propionic acid, or blends of acids are
used to help control mold contamination (Higgins and
Brinkhaus, 1999 and Santin, 2010). For the in-vitro
assay, paper discs soaked in a spore solution were
placed on the surface of agar plates containing
increasing concentrations of the respective OA. In-vitro
efficacy of propionic, acetic, lactic, undecylenic,
butyric, valeric, benzoic, and sorbic acid against the
Aspergillus spp., Geotrichum spp., Mucor spp.,
Fusarium spp., Penicillium spp., and Scopulariopsis
spp. indicated that mold inhibiting property of the
valeric acid is highest, followed by propionic acid and
butyric acid. These three acids completely inhibit the
growth of above mentioned mold at the concentrations
of not higher than 0.35%. All the other OA showed
fewer mold inhibiting activity and the least activity was
To cite this paper:Waseem Mirza M, Rehman ZU and Mukhtar N. 2016. Use of Organic Acids as Potential Feed Additives in Poultry Production. J. World's Poult. Res.
6(3): 105-116.
Journal homepage:http://jwpr.science-line.com/ 107
shown by the lactic acid. Fusarium was the most
susceptible mold when comparing the efficacy of
different OA on different molds (Higgins and
Brinkhaus, 1999). Propionic acid and butyric acid with
effective inclusion rates of 0.1% and 0.2% were equal
in their efficacy to inhibit Aspergillus spp. and
Fusarium spp., respectively. Maribo et al. (2000b)
compared bactericidal activities of six different acids in
the stomach and small intestine of pigs against
coliforms. The order of bactericidal activities of
different OA were as follows from higher to lower
order: benzoic acid >fumaric acid > lactic acid >
butyric acid > formic acid > propionic acid.
Antimicrobial activity of OA is highly affected by
the surrounding pH as pH affects the dissociation of the
OA (Cherrington, 1991). When pH is low, ionization of
the OA will also be less. Undissociated forms of OA
are lipophilic and can diffuse across cell membranes of
bacteria and fungi (Partanen, 2001). Once internalized
into the more alkaline pH of the cell cytoplasma they
dissociate quickly into their constituent ions resulting in
lowering of the pH (Young and Foegeding, 1993) and
as a consequence disrupting the nutrient transport
system and enzymatic reactions (Cherrington, 1991).
Concentration of the hydrogen ions due to dissociation
of the acids increases and bacteria try to pump out these
protons (hydrogen ions) from the cell. This process
requires energy, so the availability of energy for the
proliferation lessens, resulting in bacteriostasis
(Luckstadt and Mellor, 2011; Suiryanrayna and
Ramana, 2015). This direct antimicrobial activity
makes OA an excellent choice as feed and food
preservatives as well as hygiene promoters.
Coccidiosis, an important manage mental disease
of poultry, causing more than $3 billion worth of
economic losses to the world poultry industry annually
(Dalloul and Lillehoj, 2006) is caused by the Emeria; a
genus of protzoal parasite. Abbas et al. (2011) studied
the anticoccidal effects of acetic acid against the
Eimeriatenella by using 1, 2 and 3 percent acetic acid;
and 125 ppm amproliumin drinking water. Results
showed that acetic acid lowered the oocyte score, lesion
score and mortality percentage in broilers. These effects
were more prominent at 3%level of acetic acid but there
was no difference between 3% acetic acid and
amprolium in preventing the coccidiosis. Further
studies are necessary in this regard for understanding
the anticoccidial effects of other OA. Microbial growth
inhibitory properties of some OA are presented in table
1 and table 2.
Table 1. The inhibitory effect of some organic acids used in animal nutrition on microbial growth.
Organic acid
Properties1
Growth inhibitory2
Molecular formula
Acid dissociation
constant (pKa)
Bacteria
Yeast
Mould
Formic acid
HCOOH
3.75
++++
+
+
Lactic acid
CH3CHOHCOOH
3.86
+
-
-
Acetic acid
CH3COOH
4.76
++
+++
+++
Propionic acid
CH3CH2COOH
4.87
++
+++
+++
Citric acid
C3H5O(COOH)
3.10-5.40
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Sorbic acid
C6H8O2
4.76
+++
++++
++++
Benzoic acid
C6H5COOH
4.20
+++
++++
++++
1Adapted from Pölönen and Wamberg (2007); 2adapted from Lassén (2007)
Table 2. Effects of different organic acids on various types of bacteria.
Organic Acid
Bacteria
Sample tested
Effect
Reference
Butyric acid
Salmonella enteritidis
Caecal colonization
Decreased total count
Van Immerseel et al. (2004)
Formic acid
Salmonella
Cloacal swabs and content
Not detected
Hinton et al. (1985)
Formic, propionic and
acetic acid
Campylobacter
Boiler Feed
Decrease total count
Chaveerach et al. (2002)
Buffered propionic acid
Escherichia coli
Boiler Feed
Decreased the count
Izat et al. (1990)
Butyric acid
Escherichia coli
Caecum, small intestine and
crop
Decreased the count
Panda et al. (2009)
Organic acid mixture
Coliform
Ileum and caecum
Decreased the count
Pirgozliev et al. (2008)
Malic acid
Escherichia coli
Intestine
Decreased the count
Moharrery and Mahzonieh
(2005)
To cite this paper:Waseem Mirza M, Rehman ZU and Mukhtar N. 2016. Use of Organic Acids as Potential Feed Additives in Poultry Production. J. World's Poult. Res.
6(3): 105-116.
Journal homepage:http://jwpr.science-line.com/ 108
Table 3. Effectof different organic acids on the gastrointestinal tract of monogastric animals.
Organic Acid
Route
Effect on Intestine
Reference
Butyric acid
Feed
Increased the villus height
Adil et al. (2010)
Formic acid
Feed
Increased the villus height and crypt depth
Garcia et al. (2007)
Citric acid
Feed
Lowered the pH of digesta and gastrointestinal tract
Radcliffe et al. (1998)
Fumaric acid
Feed
Increased the villus height
Adil et al. (2010)
Lactic acid
Feed
Increased the villus height
Adil et al. (2010)
Butyric acid
Feed
Lowered the pH of crop and small intestine
Panda et al. (2009)
Effect of organic acids on gastrointestinal tract
Being the major organ responsible for nutrient
digestive and absorptive phase, gastrointestinal tract
plays a vital role in the chicken growth (Amit-Romach
et al., 2004). It is also the largest reservoir of
commensal bacteria and other microbes in bird’s body.
Therefore, epithelium of the intestine is the natural
obstacle to the bacteria and toxic substances entering
the body. Different pathogens, chemical toxins and
stress conditions alter the permeability of this natural
defense (Pelicano et al., 2005), by shortening of villus
height and extension of intestinal crypt resulting in
lower villi height to crypt depth ratio (Mista et al.,
2010), aiding the invasion of pathogens and leading to
inflammatory processes at the intestinal mucosa
(Podolsky, 1993). This subsequently leads to increased
cell turn over, decrease in villus height, and lowering of
the digestive and absorptive processes (Visek, 1978).
Dietary inclusion of organic acids are known to have
strong antibacterial properties and beneficial effects on
intestinal acidity and histomorphology, which are
imperative to support enteric health and growth
performance of poultry (Geyra et al., 2001 and Loddi et
al., 2004). Evident from Adil et al. (2010) and Cengiz et
al. (2012) study who reported that dietary inclusion of
OA in broiler diets resulted in an increase in the villus
height. Mista et al. (2010) reported that these
histopathological changes in the small intestine can be
averted through the use of short chain fatty acids;
mainlyacetate, propionate and butyrate in mice.
Similarly Fukunaga et al. (2003) while working on rats
reported that short chain fatty acids can accelerate gut
epithelial cell proliferation, thereby increasing intestinal
tissue weight and resulting in changes in mucosal
morphology. Effect of different OA on the
gastrointestinal tract is presented in Table 3.
The proposed mode of action of OA is related to
the reduction of intestinal pH (Waldroup et al., 1995),
which might be followed by alterations in the intestinal
ecosystem (Canibe et al., 2001).For example butyric
acid supplementation of broilers diets @ 0.2, 0.4, and
0.6 percent, significantly decreased the pH of crop,
proventriculus and gizzard as compared to control and
furazolidone group, maximum reduction in the pH was
recorded at 0.4 and 0.6% butyrate compared with 0.2%
butyrate (Panda et al., 2009). Eventhough inclusion of
0.4% and 0.8% buffered propionic acid in broiler diets
resulted in decreased total number of coliforms and E.
coli in the small intestine of the bird however, it had no
effect on intestinal pH (Izat et al., 1990). Likewise,
acetic lactic and citric acid does not affect the pH of
different intestinal segments (Abdel-Fattah et al., 2008).
OA salts such as ammonium formate and calcium
propionate at the dose rate of 3 mg/kg diet can
significantly improve intestinal villus height (Paul et
al., 2007).Likewise, dietary organic acid in broilers at
the age of 42 d resulted in a significant increase in
villus width, height and area of the duodenum, jejunum
and ileum region (Kum et al., 2010).
Short chain fatty acids are also believed to cause
an increase in the plasma glucagon-like peptide 2 and
ileal pro-glucagon mRNA, glucose trans-porter
expression and protein expression, which are all signals
that they can potentially mediate gut epithelial cell
proliferation (Tappenden and McBurney, 1998).
Effect of organic acids on immunity
Dietary OA play an important contributory role in
the immune status of the bird. Reduction of subclinical
infections (Humphrey and Lanning, 1988) and
stimulation of the growth of beneficial bacteria may
contribute to increased nutrient digestibility and a
reduction in nutrient demand by the gut-associated
immune tissue and microorganisms (Dibner and Buttin,
2002).
The immune mechanisms in birds are fairly
similar with the mammals and are directly influenced
by genetic, physiological, nutritional, and
environmental factors (Sharma, 2003). The immune
system of bird is complex and is composed of several
cells and soluble factors that must work together to
produce a protective immune response. Major
constituents of the avian immune system are the
lymphoid organs. Thymus and Bursa of fabricius are of
utmost importance because these are involved in the
development and differentiation of the T- lymphocytes
and B-lymphocytes respectively (Qureshiet al., 1998).
Functional immune cells leave the primary lymphoid
organs and populate secondary lymphoid organs.
Secondary lymphoid organs include spleen, gut-
associated lymphoid tissues, gland of Harder, bone
marrow and bronchial-associated lymphoid tissues
(Sharma, 2003).
Citric acid supplementation enhances the density
of lymphocytes in the lymphoid organs, so enhances the
non-specific immunity (Chowdhuryet al., 2009 and
Haque et al., 2010). Birds having the greater density of
lymphocytes have stronger immune status to combat
To cite this paper:Waseem Mirza M, Rehman ZU and Mukhtar N. 2016. Use of Organic Acids as Potential Feed Additives in Poultry Production. J. World's Poult. Res.
6(3): 105-116.
Journal homepage:http://jwpr.science-line.com/ 109
antigens (Khan et al. 2008). Wang et al., (2009) found
that the dietary supplementation of phenylacetic acid
increase the lymphocyte percentage in a short duration
in layers. Organic acid supplementation causes
hyperthyroidism and peripheral conversion of thyroxin
(T4) to triiodothyronine (T3) which means that these
birds have better immune competence and bursa growth
(Abdel-Fattah et al., 2008). However, erythrocyte,
leukocyte, eosinophil, heterophil and lymphocyte are
not influenced by OA (Khosravi et al., 2010). Citric
acid supplementation increases the bioavailability of Zn
from the soybean meal in poultry (Boling et al., 2000b),
a metal known for its immune enhancing properties
(Kidd et al., 1996).
Dietary supplementation with acetic and lactic
acid increases the serum globulin and decreases the
albumin to globulin ratio (Rahmani et al., 2005; Abdel-
Fattah et al., 2008). Globulin is a source of antibody
production, so its serum level is a good indicator of
immune responses and consequently better disease
resistance (Griminger and Scanes, 1986). Das et al.,
(2011) and Houshmand et al., (2012) reported an
increased antibody titer against Newcastle disease in
broilers by dietary supplementation of OA.
Effect of organic acid on the nutrient
digestibility
Protein and energy are the major factors
influencing the performance of birds. Depending upon
the regional location, protein in poultry diet can be
supplied by animal and/or vegetable sources. Amongst
vegetable protein sources, soybean meal remains the
priority of animal nutritionists. However, there is a
downside to it since it contains major anti-nutritional
factors for poultry e.g., galacto-oligosaacharides, lectins
and trypsin inhibitors; the major anti-nutritional factors
present in soybean meal (Huisman and Jansman, 1991).
Digestion of the protein in chicks is badly affected by
the undigested galacto-oligosaacharides (Gdala et al.,
1997) due to absence of α-1,6-
galactosidase(Gitzelmann and Auricchio, 1965). Ao
(2005) studied in-vitro effect of citric acid on the
release of reducing sugar and α-amino nitrogen from
soybean meal having different levels of protease and α-
galactosidase. Results indicated that citric acid
increases activity of both the exogenous galactosidase
enzymes, thus enhancing the liberation of α-amino
nitrogen and reducing sugars. Li et al. (1998) in an
experiment using citric acid addition to the phytase
supplemented swine diets reported a non significant
improvement in dry matter, nitrogen, phosphorus and
calcium digestibility. While other researcher (Dibner
and Buttin, 2002; Omogbenigun et al., 2003;
Suiryanrayna and Ramana, 2015) reported that organic
acid supplementation in simple stomach animal diets
resulted in an improved protein digestibility and energy
availability by reducing microbial competition with the
host for nutrients, endogenous nitrogen losses and
production of ammonia. As OA increased the digestion
of the protein, this consequently reduces the emission
of ammonia and sulfur containing gases from the
poultry house.
It is thought that reduction in the pH of digestadue
to organic acid supplementation may increases the
pepsin activity (Afsharmanesh and Porreza, 2005),
resulting in enhanced protein digestibility (Gauthier,
2002).Pepsin proteolysis the proteins, thus producing
the peptides which act as a strong stimulant for the
release of hormones including gastrin and
cholecystokinin (Hersey, 1987).These hormones then
acts on pancreatic cells signaling them to release
digestive enzymes. OA also act by increasing
pancreatic secretions resulting in enhanced production
of pancreatic juice (Smantha et al., 2009).As a
consequence higher concentrations of trypsinogen,
chymotrypsinogen A, chymotrypsinogen B,
procarboxypeptidase A and procarboxypeptidase B are
produced, which then lead to increased protein
digestion (Kirchgessner and Roth 1982; Afsharmanesh
and Porreza, 2005). Hume et al. (1993) studied the
metabolism of propionic acid and found that 75% of
this acid is used as energy source. Likewise Runho et
al. (1997) reported improved metabolisable energy
contents of broiler diets due fumaric acid
supplementation.This proposes a correlation between
energy levels and OA.
Thyroid hormones (Tri-iodothyronine) play a
major role in regulating the oxidative metabolism in
poultry. Any marked change in thyroid function
(hypothyroidism or hyperthyroidism) will result in
altered metabolic rate (Whittow, 2000). Abdel-Fattah et
al., (2008) studied the effects of dietary organic
acidification in broiler chicks using variable doses i.e.,
1.5 and 3%, of lactic, citric and acetic acid to evaluate
the effects on thyroid hormones and reported a
significantly elevated serum Triiodothyronine (T3)
concentration of organic acid fed broilers however, T4
levels were not significantly affected.
Minerals are crucial for normal physiological,
structural and catalytic functioning of the body,
(Underwood and Suttle, 1999) and therefore, must be
supplied through feed. Minerals represent about 3.5%
of the total body composition, of which 46% is calcium
(Ca), 29% is phosphorus (P) and 24% included
potassium (K), Sulphur (S), sodium (Na), chlorine (Cl)
and magnesium (Mg). Minerals, especially Ca and P
help to build bones and make them strong and rigid.
Trace levels of iodine (I), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn)
and zinc (Zn) are also included in the dietary mineral
supplements to the poultry. OA reportedly increase the
digestion of minerals in poultry. Citric acid (40 to 60
g/kg of diet) is very efficacious in improving P
utilization in chickens fed on maize soybean meal diets
and reduced the available phosphorus requirement by
approximately 1 g/kg diet (Boling et al., 2000b). Boling
et al. (2000a) also reported that the dietary citric acid
supplementation increases the bioavailability of Zn to
the chicks. Citric acid supplementation also increases
the retention of Ca, P and Zn, thereby increased their
levels in plasma (Brenes et al., 2003). Likewise acetic
acid, citric acid and lactic acid increased the serum Ca
and P (Abdel-Fattah et al., 2008). Adil et al., (2010)
used butyric acid, fumaric acid and lactic acid in broiler
diets and reported a significant increase in the serum
concentration of Ca and P. Dietary supplementation of
To cite this paper:Waseem Mirza M, Rehman ZU and Mukhtar N. 2016. Use of Organic Acids as Potential Feed Additives in Poultry Production. J. World's Poult. Res.
6(3): 105-116.
Journal homepage:http://jwpr.science-line.com/ 110
OA resulted in chelation of anions of OA with the
minerals making them less reactive with vitamins and
more bioavailable to the birds (Li et al., 1998). There
are many factors which affect the bone development
e.g. genotype, age of bird, dietary Ca and P level,
dietary vitamin D3, dietary fiber content and type of
feed ingredients. Monogastric animals consume diets
composed mostly of oilseed and cereal grains that
contain high level of P present in the form of phytic
acid or phytate. The P in this form is generally
unavailable to poultry due to low phytase activity found
in the digestive tract (Cromwell, 1992). Many studies
showed that OA can increase phytate P utilisation by
poultry (Boling-Frankenbach et al., 2001 and Brenes et
al., 2003). Maximum activity of microbial phytasecould
be reached at lower pH values, thus it could be
achieved by adding OA in the diet. Benzoic acid
supplementation increase the uptake of the Ca by 0.85 g
per day, retention of P by 0.74 g day, retention of K by
0.77 g day and plasma levels of the P in growing pigs
(Sauer et al., 2009).
Pirgozliev et al. (2008) reported that birds fed
organic acid supplemented diets excreted less mucin
(measured as sialic acid (SA)), an indicator of
endogenous losses, than birds fed supplemented diets.
Increased concentration of SA in digesta or excreta is
often connected to gut health problems (Reutter et al.,
1982), thus dietary organic acid supplementation
improves the gut health of birds.
Bone ash is the direct indicator of mineral
deposition and bone strength. Citric acid
supplementation at the rate of 6% to the broiler diet
resulted in an increased bone ash of up to 43%
compared to the groups fed non-supplemented diets
(Boling et al., 2000b). Shohl (1937) observed a 61%
increase in femur ash when rats consumed Ca and P
deficient diets supplemented with citric acid/sodium
citrate. Perhaps citric acid, a strong chelator of Ca,
removes Ca from or decreases Ca binding to the phytate
molecule, thus making it less stable and more
susceptible to endogenous phytase.
Effect of organic acids on performance and
profitability of poultry
The effects of OA on performance are not
consistent for the poultry. As stated before quoting
Ricke (2003), the magnitude of the organic acid
response varies due to several reasons. OA increase the
average live weight, daily gain (BWG), daily feed
consumption and improves the feed conversion ratio
(FCR) (Al-Kassi and Mohssen, 2009). Fumaric acid
significantly increases the BWG (Skinner et al., 1991)
at the rate of 0.5% and 1.0% without affecting feed in
take in broilers and layers. Likewise, Patten and
Waldroup, (1988) recorded a higher BWG in broilers
with no effect on feed utilization when fed fumaric acid
supplemented diets. Adil et al. (2011) reported that
dietary supplementation with the butyric acid, fumaric
acid and lactic acid at the 2 and 3% level each; resulted
in higher final live BWG, improved FCR in broilers.
Vogt et al. (1982) studied malic, sorbic, and tartaric
acids (0.5 to 2%) in broilers and reported increase in
BWG, with optimal levels of 1.12 and 0.33% for sorbic
and tartaric acids, respectively and improved FCR. Izat
et al. (1990) reported that formic acid, calcium formate
and buffered propionic acid did not affect the feed
utilization. Panda et al. (2009) studied the effect of
butyric acid supplementation in broiler ration at the
dose level of 0.2, 0.4 and 0.6 percent and documented
improved BWG, FCR and a decrease in the weight and
percentage of abdominal fat. Butyric acid was as much
effective as furazolidone. Similarly body weight and
FCR significantly improved by using 2% lactic acid in
broiler diet (Versteegh and Jongbloed, 1999). Buffered
propionic acid significantly improved the dressing
percentage in female broilers and reduced abdominal
fat in males at 49 days of age (Izat et al., 1990).
Likewise Patten and Waldroup, (1988) suggested an
increase in broiler production profitability through
increased BWG when dietary supplementation of OA
was adopted.
Contrary to the above findings Brown and
Southern (1985) found that chick performance is not
affected by the supplementation of citric acid and
ascorbic acid. Supplementation of propionic acid
depresses the feed intake and growth performance but
similar results are not reported by the use of lactic acid
(Cave, 1984). Though lacking any suggested reason for
these effects, Alcicek et al. (2004) reported that dietary
supplementation of the organic acid does not affect the
feed intake and FCR at 21 and 42 day of age in broilers.
Citric acid addition in the broiler diets does not have
any significant effect on egg production, egg mass, egg
size, feed efficiency, specific gravity of egg and body
weight of laying hens (Boling et al., 2000a).
Meat preservation
Consumer interests regarding natural and certified
organic foods are increasing. These consumer
preferences increased the demand for bio-preservation
of the food. OA are one of the best food
preservatives(Ewing, 2009). Contaminated poultry meat
causes the food borne diseases in humans. More than 76
million citizens in USA became ill by ingesting food
especially meat products contaminated with pathogenic
bacteria (Mead et al., 1999) which resulted in 1600
deaths (Callaway et al., 2003). Short chain OA are
commonly used food preservatives and there is an
increasing trend of bio-preservation of food in
European countries as these can be used safely without
creating residual effects. Lactic or acetic acid reduced
the potential of Campylobacter in carcass or meat
(Cudjoe and Kapperud, 1991). Addition of formic and
propionic acid in the broiler feed causes sub-lethal
damage of Salmonella resulting in the incomplete
colonization (Thompson and Hinton, 1997). Poultry
meat is preserved in order to prevent contamination, as
contaminated poultry meat cause many foodborne
diseases in humans (caused by microorganisms such as
E. coli, Clostritdium perfringens, Clostridium
botulinum, Campylobacter jejunietc.). Some fungi like
Aspergillusflavus and Aspergillus paraciticus also
produce different type of diseases by producing toxins
(Prange et al., 2005). Out of these, Salmonella is a
major foodborne pathogen associated with poultry meat
because fecal material and dirt from feathers and the
To cite this paper:Waseem Mirza M, Rehman ZU and Mukhtar N. 2016. Use of Organic Acids as Potential Feed Additives in Poultry Production. J. World's Poult. Res.
6(3): 105-116.
Journal homepage:http://jwpr.science-line.com/ 111
hide, as well as dirt of processing equipments can
contaminate the carcasses during slaughtering and
packaging operations. Due to high pH (5.5-6.5), water
activity (0.98-0.99) and enriched nutrient profile, fresh
poultry meat is highly perishable and provide favorable
environment for growth of food contaminating
microorganisms (Acuf, 2005). Salmonella gallinarum
and Salmonella enteritidis are frequently found in
poultry and poultry products but rarely cause illness in
humans (Braden, 2006). Salmonella typhimuriumis the
most common serotype associated with laboratory
confirmed illness cases (CDC, 2009). Therefore, in this
scenario OA can be used as potential hygiene
promoters, where they lower the pH and also act as a
complexing agent for ions, thereby inhibiting microbial
growth (Ewing, 2009).
Environmental and economic challenges of
using organic acid in poultry
All in all the usage of OA on the basis of above
mentioned properties not only makes them a good
choice for poultry production but also ensures a lower
biological, environmental and economic overhead
compared with other available supplements. For
example enhanced nutrient digestibility will have
nutrient sparing effect which along with better
production performance will also lower the losses,
therefore reducing the risk of environmental
pollutionfrom animal production (Lückstädt and
Mellor, 2011). This is particularly true for a reduction
in nitrogen and mineral related environmental issues
from poultry facilities (Dibner and Buttin, 2002;
Riemensperger, 2012). Therefore their usage in poultry
production is economically justifiable.
Possible adverse effects of using organic acid
However, there were few concern raised by the
scientists regarding the adverse effects of OA
supplementation on organoleptic properties (the
appearance and texture) of poultry meat (Dickens and
Whittemore, 1994 and Dickens et al., 1994). There is
also an environmental concern for the disposal of waste
water from poultry units using OA supplementation
along with a fear of the emergence of acid-resistant
pathogens (Fabrizio et al., 2002). Gabert and Sauer
(1995) noted a reduction in ileal digestibility of both CP
and amino acid when diet was supplemented with
fumaric acid in growing pigs.
CONCLUSION
OA inhibit the growth of pathogenic bacteria,
especially zoonotic bacteria, e.g. Campylobacter, E.
coli and Salmonella, in the feed and gastrointestinal
tract of poultry which is of great importance with
respect to poultry health. They also cause reduction in
the microbial load on poultry meat products. OA
improve the mucosa growth, villus height and width,
crypt depth and decrease the intestinal pH. They also
boost the immune system and the digestibility of
protein, carbohydrate and minerals, thus enhancing the
growth performance of poultry. Therefore, OA can be
meritoriously used as a replacer of the antibiotic growth
promoters in poultry.
Competing Interests
The authors declare that they have no competing
interests.
REFERENCES
Abbas RZ, Munawar SH, Manzoor Z, Iqbal Z, Khan
MN, Saleemi MK, Zia MA and Yousaf A (2011).
Anticoccidial effects of acetic acid on
performance and pathogenic parameters in broiler
chickens challenged with Eimeria Tenella.
PesquisaVeterináriaBrasileira,31(2): 99-103.
Abdel-Fattah SA, Ei-Sanhoury MH, Ei-Mednay NM
and Abdul-Azeem F (2008). Thyroid activity of
broiler chicks fed supplemental organic acid.
International Journal of Poultry Science, 7(3):
215-222.
Acuff GR (2005). Chemical decontamination strategies
for meat.In J. N. Sofos (Ed.), improving the safety
of fresh meat (pp. 350–363). Boca Raton, FL:
(CRC Press).
Adil S, Banday MT, Bhat GA, Qureshi SD and Wani
SA (2011). Effect of supplemental organic acids
on growth performance and gut microbial
population of broiler chicken. Livestock Research
for Rural Development, 23(1): 1-8.
Adil S, Banday T, Bhat GA, Mir MS and Rehman M
(2010).Effect of dietary supplementation of
organic acids on performance, intestinal
histomorphology, and serum biochemistry of
broiler chicken. Veterinary Medicine
International,doi:10.4061/2010/479485
Afsharmanesh M and Porreza J (2005). Effects of
calcium, citric acid, ascorbic acid, vitamin D on
the efficacy of microbial phytase in broiler starters
fed wheat-based diets: performance, bone
mineralization and ileal digestibility. International
Journal of Poultry Science, 4 (6): 418-424.
Albuquerque R, Ito NMK and Miyaji CI
(1995).Ocorrência de salmonella semin
gredientes, rações e "swabs" de pó colhidos em
fábricas industriais de rações. In:
CONFERÊNCIA APINCO'95 DE CIÊNCIA E
TECNOLOGIA AVÍCOLAS, Curitiba, 1995.
Trabalhos de pesquisa. Campinas: FACTA, pp.
161-162.
Alcicek A, Bozkurt M and CABUK M (2004). The
effect of a mixture of herbal essential oils, an
organic acid or a probiotic on broiler performance.
South African Journal of Animal Science, 34(4):
217-222.
Al-Kassi AG and Mohssen MA (2009). Comparative
study between single organic acid effect and
synergistic organic acid effect on broiler
performance. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 8(6):
896-899.
Amit-Romach E, Sklan D and Uni Z (2004). Microflora
ecology of the chicken intestine using 16S
To cite this paper:Waseem Mirza M, Rehman ZU and Mukhtar N. 2016. Use of Organic Acids as Potential Feed Additives in Poultry Production. J. World's Poult. Res.
6(3): 105-116.
Journal homepage:http://jwpr.science-line.com/ 112
ribosomal DNA primers. Poultry Science, 83(7):
1093-1098.
Ao T (2005). Exogenous enzymes and organic acids in
the nutrition of broiler chicks: effects on growth
performance and in vitro and in vivo digestion.
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Kentucky.
Berchieri AJR and Barrow PA (1996). Reduction in
incidence of experimental fowl typhoid by
incorporation of a commercial formic acid
preparation into poultry feed. Poultry Science,
75(3): 339-341.
Boling S, Douglas M, Snow J, Parsons C and Baker D
(2000a). Citric acid does not improve phosphorus
utilization in laying hens fed a corn-soybean meal
diet. Poultry Science, 79(9): 1335-1337.
Boling S, Webel D, Mavromichalis I, Parsons C and
Baker D (2000b). The effects of citric acid on
phytate-phosphorus utilization in young chicks
and pigs. Journal of Animal Science,78(3): 682-
689.
Boling-Frankenbach S, Snow J, Parsons C and Baker D
(2001). The effect of citric acid on the calcium
and phosphorus requirements of chicks fed corn-
soybean meal diets. Poultry Science, 80(6): 783-
788.
Braden CR (2006). Salmonella enterica serotype
Enteritidis and eggs: A national epidemic in the
United States. Food Safety,43(4): 512–517.
Brenes A, Viveros A, Arija I, Centeno C, Pizarro M and
Bravo C (2003). The effect of citric acid and
microbial phytase on mineral utilization in broiler
chicks. Animal Feed Science and Technology,
110(1): 201-219.
Broek GVD, Bergh MVD, Ebbinge B, Selko BV and
Tilburg (2003). Clean drinking water during
production by use of organic acids. World Poultry,
19: 34-37.
Brown DR and Southern LL (1985). Effect of citric and
ascorbic acids on performance and intestinal pH of
chicks. Poultry Science, 64(7): 1399-1401.
Callaway TR, Anderson RC, Edrington, TS, Elder RO,
Genovese KJ, Bischoff KM, Poole TL, Jung YS,
Harvey RB and Nisbet DJ (2003). Pre-slaughter
intervention strategies to reduce food-borne
pathogens in food animals. Journal of Animal
Science, 81(14): 17-23.
Canibe N, Engberg RM and Jensen BB (2001).An
overview of the effect of organic acids on gut flora
and gut health.Proceeding of the Workshop:
Alternatives to Feed Antibioticsand Coccidiostats
in Pigs and Poultry (AFAC), Norfa network,
October 13-16, Oslo, Norway.
Cave NAG (1984). Effect of dietary propionic and
lactic acids on feed intake by chicks. Poultry
Science,63(1): 131-134.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
(2009). Preliminary FoodNet Data on the
incidence of infection with pathogens transmitted
commonly through food—10 states, 2008.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report59(14):
333-337.
Cengiz O, Koksal BH, Tatli O, Sevim O, Avci H,
Epikmen T, Beyaz D, Buyukyoruk S, Boyacioglu
M, Uner A and Onol AG (2012). Influence of
dietary organic acid blend supplementation and
interaction with delayed feed access after hatch on
broiler growth performance and intestinal health.
VeterinarniMedicina, 57(10): 515–528.
Chaveerach P, Keuzenkamp D, Urlings H, Lipman L
and Vanknapen F (2002). In vitro study on the
effect of organic acids on Campylobacter
jejuni/coli populations in mixtures of water and
feed. Poultry Science, 81(5): 621-628.
Cherrington CA, Hinton M, Mead GC and Chopra I
(1991). Organic acids: chemistry, anti-bacterial
activity and practical applications. Advance
Microbiology and Physiology, 32: 87-107.
Chowdhury R, Islam KMS, Khan MJ, Karim MR,
Haque MN, Khatun M and Pesti GM (2009).
Effect of citric acid, avilamycin and their
combination on the performance, tibia ash and
immune status of broiler chicks. Poultry Science,
88(8): 1616-1622.
Collignon P (2003). A review-the use of antibiotics in
food production animals–does this cause problems
in human health. 9th Biennial Conference of the
Australasian Pig Science Association (inc.)
(APSA), Fremantle, Western Australia, pp. 73-80.
Cromwell GL (1992). The biological availability of
phosphorus for pigs. Pig News Information,13:
75-78.
Cudjoe KS and Kapperud G (1991). The effect of lactic
acid spray on Campylobacter jejuni inoculated
onto poultry carcasses. Acta Veterinaria
Scandinavica, 32(4): 491-498.
Dalloul RA and Lillehoj HS (2006). Poultry
coccidiosis: Recent advancements in control
measures and vaccine development. Expert
Review of Vaccines, 5(1): 143-163.
Das SK, Islam KMS and Islam MA (2011). Efficacy of
citric acid in diet contains low levels of protein
and energy on the performance and immunity of
broiler.7th International Poultry Show and
Seminar 2011 World's Poultry Science
Association- Bangladesh Branch, 25-27 March,
2011, Dhaka, Bangladesh, pp. 318-324.
Dibner JJ and Buttin P (2002). Use of organic acid as a
model to study the impact of gut microflora on
nutrition and metabolism. Journal of Applied
Poultry Research,11(4):453-63.
Dickens JA, Lyon BG, Whittemore AD and Lyon CE
(1994). The effect of an acetic acid dip on carcass
appearance, microbiological quality, and cooked
breast meat texture and flavor. Poultry Science,
73(4): 576–581.
Dickens JA and Whittemore AD (1994). The effect of
acetic acid and air injection on appearance,
moisture pick-up, microbiological quality, and
Salmonella incidence on processed poultry
carcasses. Poultry Science, 73(4): 582–586
Economic and Social Committee of the European
Union (2005). Laying down requirements for feed
hygiene: regulation (EC) No 183/2005 of the
European parliament and of the council. 453-463.
European Union (2003). Regulation (EC) No
1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the
To cite this paper:Waseem Mirza M, Rehman ZU and Mukhtar N. 2016. Use of Organic Acids as Potential Feed Additives in Poultry Production. J. World's Poult. Res.
6(3): 105-116.
Journal homepage:http://jwpr.science-line.com/ 113
Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for
use in animal nutrition. Off. J. Eur. Union L
268:29–43.
Ewing Wesley N (2009).The living gut. Nottingham
University Press, pp. 143-148.
Entani E, Asai M, Tsujihata S, Tsukamoto Y and Ohta
M (1998). Antibacterial action of vinegar against
food-borne pathogenic bacteria including
Escherichi coli O157:H7. Journal of Food
Protection, 61(8): 953–959.
Fabrizio KA, Sharma RR, Demirci A and Cutter CN
(2002).Comparison of Electrolyzed Oxidizing
Water with Various Antimicrobial Interventions to
Reduce Salmonella Species on Poultry. Poultry
Science, 81(10):1598–1605.
Fernndez-Rubio C, Ordonez C, Abad-Gonzalez J,
Garcia-Gallego A, Honrubia MP, Mallo JJ and
Balana-Fouce R (2009). Butyric acid-based feed
additives help protect broiler chickens from
Salmonella Enteritidis infection. Poultry Science,
88(5): 943-948.
Fukunaga TM, Sasaki Y, Araki T, Okamoto T, Yasuoka
T, Tsujikawa T, Fujiyama Y and Bamba T (2003).
Effects of the soluble fibre pectin on intestinal cell
proliferation, fecal short chain fatty acid
production and microbial population. Digestion,
67(1-2): 42-49.
Gabert VM and Sauer WC (1995). The effect of
fumaric acid and sodium fumarate
supplementation to diets for weanling pigs on
amino acid digestibility and volatile fatty acid
concentrations in ileal digesta. Animal Feed
Science and Technology, 53(3-4): 243–54.
Garcia V, Catala-Gregori P, Hernandez F, Megias M
and Madrid J (2007). Effect of formic acid and
plant extracts on growth, nutrient digestibility,
intestine mucosa morphology, and meat yield of
broilers. Journal of Applied Poultry Research,
16(4): 555-562.
Gauthier R (2002). Intestinal health, the key to
productivity (The case of organic acids). XXVll
Convencion ANECA-WPDSA Puerto Vallarta,
Jal. Mexico, 30 April 2002.
Gdala G, Jansman AJM, Buraczewska L, Huisman J
and Leeuwen PV (1997). The influence of
galactosidase supplementation on the ileal
digestibility of lupin seed carbohydrates and
dietary protein in young pigs. Animal Feed
Science and Technology, 67(2): 115-125.
Geyra A, Uni Z and Sklan D (2001). Enterocyte
dynamics and mucosal development in the
posthatch chick.Poultry Science, 80(6): 776-782.
Gitzelmann R and Auricchio S (1965). The handling of
soy α-galactosidase by a normal and galactosemic
child. Pediatrics, 36(2):231-232.
Griggs JP and Jacob JP (2005). Alternatives to
antibiotics for organic poultry production. Journal
of Applied Poultry Research, 14(4): 750–756.
Griminger P and Scanes CG (1986). Protein
metabolism. In: STURKIE, P.D. (Ed.) Avian
Physiology, 4th ed. pp. 326-345 (Springer Verlag,
New York, Berlin, Heidelberg, Tokyo).
Gunal M, Yayli G, Kaya O, Karahan N and Sulak O
(2006).The effects of antibiotic growth promoter,
probiotic or organic acid supplementation on
performance, intestinal microflora and tissue of
broilers. International Journal of Poultry Science,
5(2): 149-155.
Haque MN, Islam KMS, Akbar MA, Karim MR,
Chowdhury R, Khatun M and Kemppainen BW
(2010). Effect of dietary citric acid, flavomycin
and their combination on the performance, tibia
ash and immune status of broiler. Canadian
Journal of Animal Science, 90(1): 57-63.
Heres L, Engel B, Van-Knapen F, De-Jong MC,
Wagenaar JA and Urlings HA (2003). Fermented
liquid feed reduces susceptibility of broilers for
Salmonella enteritidis. Poultry Science, 82(4):
603–611.
Hersey SJ (1987). Pepsin secretion.In Physiology of the
gastrointestinal tract, (L.R. Johnson, Ed.). 2: 947-
957(New York, Raven Press).
Higgins C and Brinkhaus F (1999). Efficacy of several
organic acids against molds. Journal of Applied
Poultry Research, 8(4): 480-487.
Hinton AJR, Buhr RJ and Ingram KD (2000).
Reduction of Salmonella in the crop of broiler
chickens subjected to feed withdrawal. Poultry
Science, 79(11): 1566-1570.
Hinton H and Linton AH (1988). Control of Salmonella
infections in broiler chicken by the acid treatment
of their feed. The Veterinary Record,
123(16):416–421.
Hinton M, Linton AH and Perry FG (1985). Control of
salmonella by acid disinfecting of chicks food.
The Veterinary Record, 116(18):502.
Houshmand M, Azhar K, Zulkifli I, Bejo MH and
Kamyab A (2012). Effects of non-antibiotic feed
additives on performance, immunity and intestinal
morphology of broilers fed different levels of
protein. South African Journal of Animal Science,
42(1): 22-32.
Huisman J and Jansman AJM (1991). Dietary effects
and analytical aspects of antinutritional factors in
peas and soybeans in monogastric farm animals. A
literature review. Nutrition Abstracts and
Reviews, 61: 901-921.
Hume ME, Corrier DE, Ivie GW and Deloach JR
(1993). Metabolism of propionic acid in broiler
chicks. Poultry Science, 72(5): 786-793.
Humphrey TJ and Lanning DG (1988).The vertical
transmission of Salmonellas and formic acid
treatment of chicken feed.A possible strategy for
control. Epidemiology and Infection, 100(01):43-
49.
Islam K (2012). Use of citric acid in broiler diets.
World's Poultry Science Journal, 68(01): 104-
118.
Izat A, Tidwell N, Thomas R, Reiber M, Adams M,
Colberg M and Waldroup PW (1990). Effects of a
buffered propionic acid in diets on the
performance of broiler chickens and on microflora
of the intestine and carcass. Poultry Science,
69(5): 818-826.
To cite this paper:Waseem Mirza M, Rehman ZU and Mukhtar N. 2016. Use of Organic Acids as Potential Feed Additives in Poultry Production. J. World's Poult. Res.
6(3): 105-116.
Journal homepage:http://jwpr.science-line.com/ 114
Kidd MT, Ferket PR and Qureshi MA (1996). Zinc
metabolism with special reference to its role in
immunity. World's Poultry Science Journal,
52(03): 309-324.
Kirchgessner M and Roth FX (1982).Fumaric acid as a
feed additive in pig nutrition. Pig News
Information, 3: 259-263.
Khan MZI, Akter SH, Islam MN, Karim MR, Islam
MR and Kon Y (2008). The effect of selenium and
vitamin E on the lymphocytes and
immunoglobulin containing plasma cells in the
lymphoid organ and mucosa-associated tissue of
broiler chick. Anatomia, Histologia,
Embryologia,37(1): 52-59.
Khosravi A, Boldaji F, Dastar B and Hasani S (2010).
Immune response and performance of broiler
chicks fed protexin and propionic acid.
International Journal of Poultry Science, 9(2):
188-191.
Kum S, Eren U, Onol A and Sandikci M (2010). Effects
of Dietary Organic Acid Supplementation on the
Intestinal Mucosa in Broilers. Revue De Medecine
Veterinaire, 10: 463-468.
Langhout P (2000). New additives for broiler chickens.
World Poultry, 16:22–27.
Lassén TM (2007). Acidified raw materials and acids in
fur animal feed: Acid preservation of raw
materials intended for fur animal feed. Workshop
Nordiske Jordbrugs forskeres Foreign (NJF)
Subsection for Fur Animals 37-65.
Li D, CheX, Wang Y, Hong C and Thacker P (1998).
Effect of microbial phytase, vitamin D3, and citric
acid on growth performance and phosphorus,
nitrogen and calcium digestibility in growing
swine. Animal Feed Science and Technology,
73(1): 173-186.
Loddi MM, Moraes VMB, Nakaghi LSO, Tuca FM,
Hannas MI and Ariki J (2004). Mannan
oligosaccharide and organic acids on performance
and intestinal morphometric characteristics of
broiler chickens.In proceedings of the 20th annual
symposium. World's Poultry Congress, Istanbul,
Turkey.Suppl, vol. 1, p. 45.
Lückstädt C and Mellor S (2011). The use of organic
acids in animal nutrition, with special focus on
dietary potassium diformate under European and
Austral-Asian conditions. In Recent Advances in
Animal Nutrition – Australia,18:123-130.
Maribo H, Jensen BB and Hedemann MS (2000a).
Different doses of organic acids to piglets. Danish
Bacon and Meat Council, no. 469: 23-28 (In
Danish).
Maribo H, Olsen LE, Jensen BB and Miquel N
(2000b).Produkter til smågrise: combinationen af
mælkesyre og myresyre og benzoesyre.
Meddelelse 490. Landsudvalget for Svin, pp. 13
(in Danish).
Mead PS, Slutsker L, Dietz V, Mccraig LF, Bresee JS,
Shapiro C, Griffin PM and Tauxe RV (1999).
Food-related illness and death in the United
States. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 5(5): 607–
625.
Miles RD, Butcher GD, Henry PR and Littell RC
(2006). Effect of antibiotic growth promoters on
broiler performance intestinal growth parameters,
and quantitative morphology. Poultry Science,
85(3): 476-485.
Mista D, Piekarska J, Houszka M, Zawadzki W and
Gorczykowski M (2010). The influence of orally
administered short chain fatty acids on intestinal
histopathological changes and intensity of
Trichinella spiralis infection in mice.Veterinarni
Medicina, 55(6): 264–274.
Moharrery A and Mahzonieh M (2005). Effect of malic
acid on visceral characteristics and coliform
counts in small intestine in the broiler and layer
chickens. International Journal of Poultry Science,
4(10): 761-764.
Mroz Z, Jongbloed AW, Partanen KH, Verman K,
Kemme PA and Kogut J (2000). The effects of
calcium benzoate in diets with or without organic
acids on dietary buffering capacity, apparent
digestibility, retention of nutrients and manure
characteristics in swine. Journal of Animal
Science, 78(10): 2622-2632.
Omogbenigun FO, Nyachti CM and Solminski BA
(2003). The effect of supplementing microbial
phytase and organic acids to corn-soybean based
diet fed to early-weaned pigs. Journal of Animal
Science, 81(7): 1806-1813.
Riemensperger A (2012). Organic Acid-Based Products
– Market Evaluation and Technical Comment.
Available at:
http://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/2372/organic-
acidbased-products-market-evaluation-and-
technical-comment; Accessed on 15-03-2015.
Panda A, Rao SVR, Raju M and Sunder GS (2009).
Effect of butyric acid on performance,
gastrointestinal tract health and carcass
characteristics in broiler chickens. Asian-
Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 22(7):
1026-1031.
Partanen K (2001). Organic acids their efficacy and
modes of action in pigs.in Gut Environment of
Pigs. A. Piva, K. E. Bach Knudsen, and J. E.
Lindberg, eds. pp. 201 (Nottingham University
Press, Nottingham, UK).
Partanen KH and Mroz Z (1999). Organic acids for
performance enhancement in pig diets. Nutrition
Research Reviews, 12(1): 1-30.
Patten JD and Waldroup PW (1988). Use of organic
acids in broiler diets. Poultry Science, 67(8):
1178–1182.
Paul SK, Halder G, Mondal MK and Samanta G (2007).
Effect of organic acid salt on the performance and
gut health of broiler chicken. Journal of Poultry
Science, 44(4): 389-395.
Pelicano ERL, Souza PA, Souza HBA, Figueiredo DF,
Boiagom M, Carvalho SR and Bordon VF (2005).
Intestinal mucosa development in broiler chicken
fed natural growth promoters. Brazilian Journal of
Poultry Science, 7(4): 221-229.
Pirgozliev V, Murphy TC, Owens B, George J and
Mccann ME (2008). Fumaric and sorbic acid as
To cite this paper:Waseem Mirza M, Rehman ZU and Mukhtar N. 2016. Use of Organic Acids as Potential Feed Additives in Poultry Production. J. World's Poult. Res.
6(3): 105-116.
Journal homepage:http://jwpr.science-line.com/ 115
additives in broiler feed. Research in Veterinary
Science, 84(3): 387-94.
Podolsky DK (1993). Regulation of intestinal epithelial
proliferation: a few answers, many questions.
Animal Journal Physiologic, 264(2): 179-186.
Pölönen I and Wamberg S (2007). Acidified raw
materials and acids in fur animal feed:Workgroup
II - Effects of acid on animal health. Workshop
Nordiske Jordbrugs forskeres Foreign (NJF)
Subsection for Fur Animals 116-133.
Prange A, Birzele B, Hormes J and Modrow H (2005).
Investigation of different human pathogenic and
food contaminating bacteria and mould grown on
selenite/selenate and tellurite/tellurate by x-ray
absorption spectroscopy. Food Control, 16(8):
713-728.
Qureshi MA, Hussain I and Heggen CL (1998).
Understanding immunology in disease
development and control. Poultry Science, 77(8):
1126–1129.
Radcliffe J, Zhang Z and Kornegay E (1998).The
effects of microbial phytase, citric acid, and their
interaction in a corn-soybean meal-based diet for
weanling pigs. Journal of Animal Science, 76 (7):
1880-1886.
Rahmani HR, Speer W and Modirsanei M (2005). The
effect of intestinal pH on broiler performance and
immunity. Proceedings of the 15th European
Symposium on poultry nutrition, Balatonfured,
Netherlands: World's Poultry Science Association
(WPSA), Hungary (25-29 September), pp. 338-
340.
Reutter W, Kottgen E, Bauer C and Wolfgang G
(1982). Biological significance of sialic acids. In:
Shauer, R. (Ed.), Sialic Acids, Chemistry,
Metabolism, and Function. Springer-Verlag, New
York, NY, pp. 263–305.
Ricke SC (2003). Perspectives on the use of organic
acids and short chain fatty acids as antimicrobials.
Poultry Science, 82(4): 632–639.
Rouse J, Rolow A and Nelson CE (1988). Research
Note: Effect of chemical treatment of Poultry feed
on survival of Salmonella. Poultry Science, 67(8):
1225-1228.
Runho RC, Sakomura NK, Kuana S, Banzatto D,
Junqueira OM and Stringhini JH (1997). Use of an
organic acid (fumaric acid) in broiler rations.
Revista da Sociedade Brasileirade Zootecnia-
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Animal
Science, 26: 1183-1191.
Santin E (2010). Mycotoxins threaten the immune
system. World Poultry, pp. 8-10.
Sauer W, Cervantes M, Yanez J, Araiza B, Murdoch G,
Morales A and Zijlstra RT (2009). Effect of
dietary inclusion of benzoic acid on mineral
balance in growing pigs. Livestock Science,
122(2): 162-168.
Sharma JM (2003). The avian immune system. In Y. M.
Saif, Diseases of Poultry.11th ed. pp 5-16 (Iowa
State University Press, Ames).
Shohl AT (1937). The effect of the acid-base content of
the diet upon the production and cure of rickets
with special reference to citrates. Journal of
Nutrition, 14: 69-83.
Skinner JT, Izat AL and Waldroup PW (1991). Fumaric
acid enhances performance of broiler chickens.
Poultry Science, 70(6): 1444–1447.
Samanta S, Haldar S and Ghosh TK (2009).
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. Veterinary medicine international, 2010:
1-8.
Sohail HK and JavidIqbal (2016). Recent advances in
the role of organic acids in poultry nutrition.
Journal of Applied Animal Research, 44(1): 359–
369.
Suiryanrayna Mocherla VAN and Ramana JV (2015).
A review of the effects of dietary organic acids fed
to swine. Journal of animal science and
biotechnology, 6(1): 1-13.
Tappenden KA and Mcburney MI (1998). Systemic
short-chain fatty acids rapidly alter gastro
intestinal structure, function, and expression of
early response genes. Digestive Diseases and
Sciences, 43(7): 1526–1536.
Taylor DJ (2001). Effects of antimicrobials and their
alternatives. British Poultry Science, 42: 67–68.
Thompson JL and Hinton M (1997). Antibacterial
activity of formic and propionic acids in the diet
of hens on salmonellas in the crop. British Poultry
Science, 38(1): 59-65.
Tyler JW, Hancock DD, Parish SM, Rea DE, Besser
TE, Sanders SG and Wilson LK (1996).
Evaluation of 3 assays for failure of passive
transfer in calves. Journal of Veterinary Internal
Medicine, 10(5): 304-307.
Underwood EJ and SuttleNF (1999). The mineral
nutrition of livestock. pp. 67-149. (CAB
International).
Van IF, Fievez 1V, Buck JD, Pasmans F, Martel A,
Haesebrouck F and Ducatelle R (2006).
Microencapsulated short-chain fatty acids in feed
modify colonization and invasion early after
infection with salmonella enteritidis in young
chickens. Poultry Science, 83(1): 69-74.
Van-IF, Buck DE, Boyen J, Bohez F, Pasmans L, Volf
F, Sevcik J, Rychlik M, Haesebrouck F and
Ducatelle R (2004). Medium-chain fatty acids
decrease colonization and invasion shortly after
infection with Salmonella Enteritidis in chickens
through hilA suppression. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology, 70(6): 3582-3587.
Versteegh HAJ and Jongbloed AW (1999).The effect of
supplementary lactic acid in diets on the
performance of broilers.ID-DLO Rep. No. 99.006.
Institute for Animal Science and Health, Branch
Runderweg, Lelystad, The Netherlands.
Visek WJ (1978). The mode of growth promotion by
antibiotics. Journal of Animal Science, 46(5):
1447-1469.
Vogt H, Matthes S and Harnisch S (1982). Effect of
organic acids in rations on the performances of
broilers. Archiv Fur Geflugelkunde, 46: 223-227.
To cite this paper:Waseem Mirza M, Rehman ZU and Mukhtar N. 2016. Use of Organic Acids as Potential Feed Additives in Poultry Production. J. World's Poult. Res.
6(3): 105-116.
Journal homepage:http://jwpr.science-line.com/ 116
Waldroup A, Kaniawati S and Mauromoustakos A
(1995). Performance characteristics and
microbiological aspects of broilers fed diets
supplemented with organic acids. Journal of Food
Protection, 58(5): 482-489.
Wang JP, Yoo JS, Lee JH, Zhou TX, Jang HD, Kim HJ
and Kim IH (2009). Effects of phenyllactic acid
on production performance, egg quality
parameters, and blood characteristics in laying
hens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 18(2):
203-209.
Whittow GC (2000). Sturkie's avian physiology.
Academic Press San Diego.
Young KM and Foegeding PM (1993). Acetic, lactic
and citric acids and pH inhibition of Listeria
monocytogenes Scott A and the effect on
intracellular pH. Journal of Applied Bacteriology,
74(5): 515-520.
