. 2023 Jun 20;13(12):2037. doi: 10.3390/ani13122037

Table 3.

Effect of drinking water acidification on the performance [FCR, ADWG, ADFI, and EPEF ( $\bar{x}$ ± SEM)] of broiler chicks, experimentally challenged by C. jejuni.

Parameter	Period	Experimental Groups						p Value
Parameter	Period	A	B	C	D	E	F	p Value
FCR (g:g)	1–9 d *	1.24 ± 0.01			1.29 ± 0.02	1.30 ± 0.02	1.26 ± 0.02	0.075
	1–15 d *	1.50 ± 0.02			1.47 ± 0.05	1.48 ± 0.02	1.42 ± 0.02	0.245
	15–39 d	1.56 ± 0.03	1.57 ± 0.01	1.63 ± 0.01	1.68 ± 0.07	1.62 ± 0.03	1.55 ± 0.01	0.116
	1–39 d	1.56 ± 0.04	1.55 ± 0.02	1.59 ± 0.02	1.61 ± 0.06	1.58 ± 0.02	1.51 ± 0.01	0.374
ADWG (g)	1–9 d *	20.83 ± 0.45			20.30 ± 0.56	20.08 ± 0.42	20.10 ± 0.84	0.714
	1–15 d *	36.40 ± 0.91			34.29 ± 0.70	34.33 ± 0.97	35.36 ± 1.95	0.500
	15–39 d	91.40 ± 1.38	87.78 ± 4.67	84.71 ± 3.37	78.09 ± 3.12	84.44 ± 0.81	89.06 ± 3.53	0.094
	1–39 d	68.12 ± 0.90	65.43 ± 3.11	63.53 ± 2.20	59.01 ± 1.93	62.98 ± 0.45	66.06 ± 2.12	0.071
ADFI (g)	1–9 d *	26.40 ± 0.46			26.58 ± 0.55	26.54 ± 0.62	25.63 ± 0.74	0.416
	1–15 d *	40.75 ± 0.43 ^b			38.37 ± 1.05 ^a	38.31 ± 0.60 ^a	37.29 ± 0.75 ^a	0.003
	15–39 d	134.21 ± 1.04	126.72 ± 4.59	129.52 ± 2.66	124.47 ± 5.23	126.49 ± 0.95	129.08 ± 2.64	0.410
	1–39 d	86.75 ± 2.02 ^b#	80.41 ± 2.43 ^a#	81.40 ± 1.30 ^a,b#	78.11 ± 2.85 ^a#	79.01 ± 0.50 ^a#	79.66 ± 1.32 ^a#	0.060
EPEF	1–39 d	437.79 ± 16.30 ^b	421.21 ± 19.98 ^b	400.30 ± 16.41 ^a,b	367.19 ± 19.40 ^a	398.77 ± 5.37 ^a,b	437.23 ± 15.43 ^b	0.048

^a,b Means in the same row with a different superscript differ significantly (p ≤ 0.05). ^# Means in the same row with a different superscript differ significantly (p ≤ 0.10). * For the period 1–18 days, groups A, B, and C were considered as one (controls), as birds in these groups received only tap water (without any treatment), and the challenge by C. jejuni was not yet applied. FCR: Feed conversion ratio; ADWG: Average daily weight gain; ADFI: Average daily feed intake; EPEF: European production efficiency factor.