. 2023 Apr 13;13(8):1328. doi: 10.3390/ani13081328

Table 3.

Effects of phage cocktail, probiotics, and their combination on growth performance of chickens.

Item ^†	Age (days)	C	1ϕ	2ϕ	P	1ϕP	2ϕP
BW (g)	1	43.00 ± 1.10	42.78 ± 1.09	42.98 ± 0.78	42.82 ± 0.96	42.78 ± 1.05	43.32 ± 0.38
	21	859.58 ± 14.20	874.07 ± 8.85	864.67 ± 11.05	871.78 ± 6.09	874.02 ± 12.31	855.10 ± 13.74
	35	1605.30 ± 39.45 ^a	1734.17 ± 47.55 ^ab	1741.27 ± 56.58 ^ab	1690.43 ± 40.05 ^ab	1785.75 ± 31.93 ^b	1733.63 ± 56.00 ^ab
BWG (g/bird)	1–21	816.63 ± 13.97	861.32 ± 9.47	821.70 ± 11.09	828.98 ± 6.04	831.25 ± 11.91	811.80 ± 12.95
	22–35	745.72 ± 40.37 ^a	860.10 ± 50.69 ^ab	876.60 ± 46.20 ^ab	818.65 ± 41.87 ^ab	911.73 ± 32.82 ^b	878.53 ± 47.67 ^ab
	1–35	1562.35 ± 40.42 ^a	1691.42 ± 47.67 ^ab	1698.30 ± 56.55 ^ab	1647.63 ± 39.82 ^ab	1742.98 ± 32.76 ^b	1690.33 ± 55.75 ^ab
FI (g/bird)	1–21	1169.88 ± 18.03	1153.10 ± 10.46	1111.35 ± 30.52	1104.87 ± 37.66	1160.58 ± 20.14	1131.58 ± 10.33
	22–35	1748.38 ± 24.66	1761.45 ± 51.10	1650.32 ± 104.62	1653.68 ± 40.06	1740.27 ± 63.75	1760.85 ± 44.20
	1–35	2918.27 ± 38.40	2914.55 ± 55.02	2922.88 ± 158.00	2758.53 ± 51.98	2900.85 ± 70.40	2892.42 ± 53.92
FCR (feed/gain)	1–21	1.43 ± 0.17 ^c	1.35 ± 0.17 ^a	1.37 ± 0.15 ^ab	1.40 ± 0.10 ^bc	1.37 ± 0.11 ^ab	1.34 ± 0.15 ^a
	22–35	2.53 ± 0.12 ^b	2.10 ± 0.08 ^a	2.06 ± 0.06 ^a	1.97 ± 0.06 ^a	1.89 ± 0.04 ^a	2.01 ± 0.07 ^a
	1–35	1.87 ± 0.04 ^b	1.68 ± 0.03 ^a	1.65 ± 0.03 ^a	1.61 ± 0.03 ^a	1.60 ± 0.03 ^a	1.61 ± 0.03 ^a
Mortality rate (%)	1–21	2.08	2.08	2.08	NIL	NIL	2.08
	22–35	2.08	NIL	2.08	NIL	2.08	NIL
	1–35	4.17	2.08	4.17	NIL	2.08	2.08

Each value is the mean ± SE of six replicate cages with eight chickens each. ^a,b,c Means within the same row with different superscript letters differ significantly (p < 0.05). ^† C = control (basal diet); 1ϕ = BD + 1 g/kg phage cocktail; 2ϕ = BD + 2 g/kg phage cocktail; P = BD + 1 g/kg probiotic; 1ϕP = BD + 1 g/kg phage cocktail + 1 g/kg probiotic; 2ϕP = BD + 2 g/kg phage cocktail + 1 g/kg probiotic; BW = body weight; BWG = body weight gain.