Table 2.
Effects of TC and EG on cecal pH, cecal endogenous bacteria, body weight, and cumulative feed consumption of 20-day-old chickensa
| Treatment | pHb | Cecal bacteria (log10 CFU/g)b | Avg body wt (g)c | Cumulative feed intake (g)c |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative control | 6.2 ± 0.1 | 8.7 ± 0.2 | 790.5 ± 19.3A | 960.0 ± 5.8A |
| TC control | 6.2 ± 0.1 | 8.6 ± 0.1 | 808.8 ± 26.3A | 952.9 ± 6.0A |
| EG control | 6.2 ± 0.1 | 8.8 ± 0.2 | 582.0 ± 39.7B | 760.3 ± 5.8E |
| Positive control | 6.1 ± 0.1 | 9.4 ± 0.2 | 786.4 ± 20.3A | 896.9 ± 9.1B |
| 0.5% (vol/wt) TC | 6.3 ± 0.1 | 8.5 ± 0.3 | 799.9 ± 36.8A | 885.5 ± 6.2B |
| 0.75% (vol/wt) TC | 6.0 ± 0.1 | 8.9 ± 0.2 | 792.1 ± 40.8A | 883.3 ± 6.0B |
| 0.75% (vol/wt) EG | 6.3 ± 0.1 | 9.3 ± 0.1 | 536.4 ± 26.4B | 821.8 ± 5.9C |
| 1% (vol/wt) EG | 6.3 ± 0.1 | 9.2 ± 0.1 | 530.6 ± 17.2B | 785.5 ± 6.2D |
a
Values are means ± SEM (n = 18 per treatment group).
b
Means within the column did not differ significantly (P > 0.05).
c
Values with different superscript capital letters (A to E) differed significantly from each other within a column (P < 0.05).