INTRODUCTION

Avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) is one of the most important bacterial pathogens causing colibacillosis in poultry and represents a major challenge to the global poultry industry [1]. APEC infection is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, impaired growth performance, and substantial economic losses [2]. In broiler chickens, infection commonly induces intestinal inflammation, reduced nutrient absorption, decreased body weight gain, and pathological damage to vital organs, particularly the liver [3]. Hepatic injury is typically reflected by elevated serum glutamate pyruvate transaminase (SGPT) and serum glutamate oxaloacetate transaminase (SGOT) activities [4]. The considerable physiological and economic consequences of APEC infection highlight the need for alternative strategies that enhance disease resistance while maintaining optimal production performance [5].

Antibiotics have traditionally been used as antibiotic growth promoters (AGPs) to improve production efficiency and control bacterial diseases in poultry [6]. However, the growing prevalence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and increasing concerns about antibiotic residues in poultry products have led to stricter regulations governing AGP use worldwide [7]. Consequently, the poultry industry has intensified efforts to identify safe, sustainable, and effective alternatives that do not compromise animal or public health [8]. Among the available alternatives, probiotics, particularly lactic acid bacteria (LAB), have attracted considerable attention because they can improve intestinal health and production performance [9].

LAB contribute to gastrointestinal health through multiple mechanisms, including modulating the intestinal microbiota, enhancing host immune responses, producing antimicrobial metabolites, maintaining intestinal barrier integrity, and improving nutrient utilization [10, 11]. These beneficial effects enable broilers to better withstand infectious challenges, including APEC infection [12]. Among LAB, Lacticaseibacillus paracasei has demonstrated strong antagonistic activity against enteric pathogens, high tolerance to acidic and bile environments, and excellent adhesion to the intestinal epithelium, making it a promising probiotic candidate for poultry production [13].

Traditional Indonesian fermented foods, particularly dadih from West Sumatra, constitute valuable reservoirs of indigenous probiotic microorganisms, including L. paracasei [14]. Dadih undergoes spontaneous fermentation mediated by indigenous microbial communities that are naturally adapted to tropical environmental conditions [15]. LAB isolated from dadih exhibit high viability, desirable probiotic characteristics, and broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity against pathogenic microorganisms [16]. Consequently, these indigenous LAB represent an economical and locally available resource with considerable potential to improve broiler health and productivity under bacterial challenge [17].

Compared with imported commercial probiotic strains, indigenous probiotics isolated from traditional fermented foods may provide additional advantages through adaptation to local environmental conditions, regional microbial ecosystems, and production systems [10, 12]. Such characteristics may enhance their survival, colonization, and functional efficacy under tropical poultry production conditions. Moreover, using locally sourced probiotic strains supports sustainable livestock production by reducing dependence on imported feed additives while promoting the use of indigenous biological resources.

Beyond improving intestinal health and immunity, probiotics positively influence several economically important production parameters, including nutrient utilization, growth performance, carcass yield, and feed efficiency [18]. Their hepatoprotective properties may also reduce SGPT and SGOT activities by alleviating hepatic injury associated with APEC infection [19]. Collectively, these improvements enhance production efficiency and profitability, which can be evaluated using Income Over Feed Cost (IOFC), an important indicator of economic performance in commercial broiler production [20].

Although numerous studies have demonstrated the beneficial effects of probiotics in poultry, relatively few have evaluated indigenous L. paracasei isolated from dadih under APEC challenge conditions. Furthermore, previous investigations have primarily focused on intestinal health, immune responses, antioxidant activity, or hematological parameters, whereas comprehensive evaluations integrating growth performance, nutrient intake, carcass characteristics, hepatoprotective effects, and economic efficiency remain limited. Information comparing indigenous L. paracasei directly with conventional AGPs under controlled APEC challenge conditions is particularly scarce. Consequently, the practical production value and economic feasibility of this indigenous probiotic as an alternative to AGPs have not been fully established.

Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of indigenous L. paracasei isolated from dadih as a sustainable alternative to AGPs in broiler chickens experimentally challenged with APEC. Specifically, the study assessed its effects on nutrient intake, growth performance, carcass characteristics, liver function as determined by SGPT and SGOT activities, and economic performance using IOFC. In addition, this study extends the authors' previous work reported by Lokapirnasari et al. [13], which demonstrated the beneficial effects of the same L. paracasei isolate on antioxidant status, lipid metabolism, and hematological parameters in APEC-challenged broilers. This investigation provides new evidence on production performance, hepatoprotection, and economic efficiency, strengthening the scientific basis for using indigenous L. paracasei from dadih as a safe, effective, and sustainable probiotic for commercial broiler production.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ethical approval

All experimental procedures involving broiler chickens were reviewed and approved by the Animal Ethics Commission, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia, under Ethical Clearance No. 1.KEH.017.01.2024. The study was conducted in accordance with the institutional guidelines and accepted principles for the ethical care, housing, handling, and use of animals in research. The experimental protocol involved 80 one-day-old male broiler chickens allocated to four treatment groups, including an experimental challenge with APEC, administration of indigenous Lacticaseibacillus paracasei, and comparison with zinc bacitracin. Throughout the experimental period, appropriate husbandry and biosecurity practices were maintained, and feed and drinking water were provided ad libitum. Measures were taken to minimize animal stress, pain, discomfort, and unnecessary suffering during housing, APEC challenge, treatment administration, handling, blood collection, and other experimental procedures. Birds were monitored for clinical manifestations following the APEC challenge, including changes in appetite, activity, and other signs associated with infection. Blood sampling was performed from the brachial vein at 35 days of age using appropriate handling and sample-collection procedures. All animal procedures were performed only to the extent necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the study, with due consideration given to animal welfare and the principles of responsible use of animals in biomedical and veterinary research.

Study period and location

The study was conducted between June and October 2024 at the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia. The experimental challenge used APEC strain O-78 [46] at 1.5 × 10⁸ colony-forming units [CFU]/mL and indigenous L. paracasei 153 Vi at 1.2 × 10⁹ CFU/mL. The study utilized commercial broiler feed (CP-511; PT Charoen Pokphand Indonesia Tbk., Jakarta, Indonesia), zinc bacitracin (Rojo Koyo Group, Kediri, Indonesia), male broiler chickens, battery cages (35 × 20 × 45 cm), and digital weighing scales for feed and body weight measurements.

Study design

A total of 80 one-day-old male broiler chicks were used in this study. The experiment followed a completely randomized design with four treatment groups, five replicates per treatment, and four birds per replicate. The experimental equipment included 1- and 15-mL syringes, modified 1.5-L drinking bottles, masks, gloves, labels, hand sprayers, feed and water containers, cage sanitation equipment, garbage bags, a Gasolec™ S8 heating system (Gasolec B.V., Abbekerk, the Netherlands), postal cages (250 × 200 × 200 cm) for brooding, battery cages (35 × 20 × 45 cm), and digital weighing scales, which were also used during the experiment.

The treatments were designed to evaluate the efficacy of indigenous L. paracasei administered through drinking water compared with AGP supplementation through feed under APEC challenge. The treatment groups were as follows:

1. T0 = Negative control (uninfected and untreated)

2. T1 = Positive control (APEC-infected without treatment)

3. T2 = AGP (zinc bacitracin, 1 g/kg feed, APEC-infected)

4. T3 = Probiotic (L. paracasei, 5 mL/L drinking water, APEC-infected)

Broiler chicks were obtained from a certified commercial hatchery (MB-202; PT Japfa Comfeed Indonesia Tbk., Sidoarjo, Indonesia). Birds were reared in postal cages from 1 to 14 days of age and had received routine vaccinations from the hatchery before arrival. At 14 days of age, the birds were transferred to battery cages and maintained under identical management conditions until the experiment was completed.

Feeding and drinking management

Broilers were fed twice daily at 08:00 and 15:00 h. The commercial broiler diet (CP-511; PT Charoen Pokphand Indonesia Tbk., Jakarta, Indonesia) contained 85.51% dry matter, 6.90% ash, 20.69% crude protein, 6.87% crude fat, 1.85% crude fiber, 49.19% nitrogen-free extract, and 2,998.04 kcal/kg metabolizable energy. Feed and drinking water were provided ad libitum throughout the experimental period. Probiotic supplementation was administered through the drinking water of birds assigned to T3.

Administration of APEC, probiotic, and AGP

At 21 days of age, broilers in the infected groups were orally challenged with 0.5 mL of the APEC suspension per bird. Successful infection was confirmed clinically by the appearance of characteristic signs, including pallor of the comb and face, sneezing, reduced appetite, weakness, and diarrhea in the infected birds.

The probiotic culture was propagated in de Man, Rogosa, and Sharpe (MRS) broth (Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany; Cat. No. 1.10661.0500) at 37°C for 24 h. Bacterial cells were harvested and adjusted to a final concentration of 1.2 × 10⁹ CFU/mL using the plate-counting method. The probiotic suspension was administered through drinking water at a dose of 5 mL/L [21]. Based on average daily water consumption, probiotic intake was estimated at approximately 6 × 10⁶-8 × 10⁶ CFU/bird/day. Zinc bacitracin (Rojo Koyo Group, Kediri, Indonesia) was incorporated into the feed at 1 g/kg before feeding.

Data collection

Feed intake and nutrient intake: Feed intake was recorded daily by subtracting the remaining feed from the amount offered. Nutrient intake, including dry matter, organic matter, ash, crude protein, crude fat, and crude fiber, was calculated using the corresponding nutrient composition of the commercial diet. Production parameters, including final body weight, carcass weight, feed intake, and carcass percentage, were determined at 35 days of age [22].

SGPT and SGOT analysis: Blood samples were collected from the brachial vein at 35 days of age using non-anticoagulant blood collection tubes. After clot formation, samples were centrifuged at 1,509 × g for 10-15 min to obtain serum. Serum SGPT and SGOT activities were determined using an automated biochemical analyzer (Reflotron® Plus; Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany) with Reflotron GPT test strips (Cat. No. 10745138) and Reflotron GOT test strips (Cat. No. 10745120), according to the method described by Tugiyanti et al. [23].

IOFC: Economic efficiency was evaluated using IOFC, calculated as the difference between revenue generated from broiler sales and the total feed cost incurred during the production period.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 27 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Data normality and homogeneity of variance were assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Levene's tests, respectively. Treatment effects were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Duncan's Multiple Range Test (DMRT). Differences were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05.

SGPT and SGOT activities were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by DMRT. IOFC was similarly compared among treatment groups using one-way ANOVA. Pearson correlation analysis was performed to evaluate associations among probiotic supplementation, feed intake, carcass characteristics, and liver enzyme activities. Effect sizes were expressed as partial eta-squared (η²). Graphical presentations were generated using GraphPad Prism version 9.0 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA).

RESULTS

Feed intake and nutrient intake

The effects of L. paracasei supplementation on feed and nutrient intake are presented in Table 1.

Broilers in the T2 (AGP) group exhibited the highest feed intake (88.50 g/head/day) and dry matter intake (75.67 g/head/day), both of which were significantly higher than those in the T0, T1, and T3 groups (p < 0.05). Similar trends were observed for ash (6.11 g/head/day), organic matter (82.39 g/head/day), crude protein (18.31 g/head/day), crude fat (6.08 g/head/day), and crude fiber (1.64 g/head/day), with T2 consistently recording the greatest nutrient intake (p < 0.05).

Nitrogen-free extract intake was also highest in T2, suggesting greater energy substrate consumption. Although ME intake differed significantly among treatments (p < 0.05), the variation among groups was relatively small. Carbohydrate intake followed a comparable pattern, with broilers receiving AGP supplementation consuming the greatest amount.

Overall, AGP supplementation promoted the highest feed and nutrient intake, whereas L. paracasei supplementation (T3) maintained nutrient intake at levels comparable to or greater than those of the control groups while achieving superior production performance, indicating more efficient nutrient utilization.

Growth performance and carcass traits

The effects of L. paracasei supplementation on growth performance and carcass characteristics are presented in Table 2.

Broilers supplemented with L. paracasei (T3) achieved the greatest final body weight (1,993.00 g), significantly higher than all other treatment groups (p < 0.05). Birds in the T2 (AGP) group exhibited an intermediate final body weight (1,723.00 g), which was significantly greater than that of the infected untreated group (T1) but remained significantly lower than that of T3.

A similar trend was observed for carcass characteristics. The T3 group produced the highest carcass weight (1,337.80 g) and carcass percentage (68.75%), both of which were significantly greater than those recorded in the T0, T1, and T2 groups (p < 0.05). These findings demonstrate that L. paracasei supplementation improved both growth performance and carcass yield more effectively than AGP supplementation.

Direct comparison between the probiotic and AGP treatments further demonstrated the superiority of L. paracasei. Final body weight was significantly greater in T3 than in T2 (p = 0.003), while carcass percentage was also significantly higher in T3 (p = 0.012), indicating improved production performance in probiotic-supplemented broilers.

Liver function

The effects of the treatments on liver function are presented in Table 3. Significant differences in SGPT and SGOT activities were observed among the treatment groups (p < 0.05). The T0 (negative control) group exhibited the lowest SGPT activity (66.91 U/L), consistent with normal liver function. In contrast, broilers in the T1 group (APEC-infected without treatment) showed the highest SGPT activity (159.12 U/L), indicating marked hepatocellular injury. Supplementation with either AGP (T2) or L. paracasei (T3) markedly reduced SGPT activity to 122.56 U/L and 105.07 U/L, respectively, demonstrating attenuation of hepatic damage. The reduction was more pronounced in the probiotic-treated birds than in the AGP-treated birds.

A comparable pattern was observed for SGOT activity. Broilers supplemented with L. paracasei exhibited the lowest SGOT activity (59.05 U/L), whereas the untreated infected group recorded the highest value (143.26 U/L), confirming severe hepatic impairment following APEC infection. The T0 and T2 groups exhibited intermediate SGOT activities of 78.31 U/L and 128.91 U/L, respectively.

Interestingly, SGOT activity in T3 was lower than that observed in the uninfected control group (T0). This finding suggests that L. paracasei may exert a pronounced hepatoprotective effect beyond merely preventing APEC-induced liver injury, although the contribution of normal biological variation among individual birds cannot be excluded.

Collectively, these findings indicate that L. paracasei supplementation effectively alleviated hepatic stress associated with APEC infection and provided greater hepatoprotection than AGP supplementation.

Economic performance

The effects of the treatments on economic performance, expressed as IOFC, are presented in Table 4 and Figure 1.

At the experimental scale (10 birds per treatment), the T2 (AGP) group produced the lowest IOFC (Indonesian rupiah [IDR] 3,245.60), indicating the poorest economic efficiency. The untreated infected group (T1) generated a moderate IOFC (IDR 6,960.00), whereas the uninfected control group (T0) achieved a substantially higher IOFC (IDR 11,143.80). In contrast, broilers supplemented with L. paracasei (T3) produced the highest IOFC, which was significantly greater than those of both T2 (p = 0.001) and T1 (p = 0.004), demonstrating the clear economic benefit of probiotic supplementation (Figure 1).

When extrapolated to a commercial production scale of 1,000 birds, the same trend was maintained. The T2 group again generated the lowest IOFC (IDR 324,545.40), followed by T1 (IDR 696,038.00). The T0 group yielded an IOFC of IDR 1,114,418.00, while T3 achieved the highest profitability, with an IOFC of IDR 1,681,235.00.

The absence of mortality throughout the experimental period indicates that differences in IOFC were primarily attributable to improvements in production performance and feed utilization rather than survival rate. Overall, L. paracasei supplementation provided the greatest economic return, outperforming both AGP supplementation and the untreated groups, thereby supporting its potential as a sustainable alternative to AGPs in commercial broiler production.

DISCUSSION

Feed intake and nutrient intake

The present study evaluated the effects of indigenous L. paracasei isolated from dadih on nutrient intake, growth performance, carcass characteristics, liver function, and economic efficiency in broilers challenged with APEC. The findings clearly demonstrate that L. paracasei supplementation provides substantial biological and economic benefits, producing superior outcomes to AGP supplementation under the experimental conditions. These findings support the potential of this indigenous probiotic as a safe, sustainable, and effective alternative to AGPs in commercial broiler production.

Broilers receiving AGP supplementation (T2) exhibited the highest feed and nutrient intake across most measured parameters, including dry matter, crude protein, crude fat, and carbohydrate intake. These findings are consistent with the established role of AGPs in modulating intestinal microbiota, suppressing subclinical bacterial infections, and improving digestive efficiency, thereby stimulating feed consumption [24]. In contrast, broilers supplemented with L. paracasei (T3) maintained a more balanced feed intake while achieving superior production performance, indicating greater nutrient utilization efficiency rather than increased feed consumption [12].

The ability of L. paracasei to stabilize intestinal microbial communities likely contributed to maintaining nutrient digestibility during APEC challenge [25]. LAB produce organic acids, bacteriocins, and digestive enzymes that facilitate feed degradation, inhibit pathogenic colonization, and preserve intestinal integrity [26]. Consequently, the greater feed intake observed in the AGP group, despite its lower growth performance and economic return, may reflect reduced feed utilization efficiency or increased maintenance requirements under pathogen challenge. Although nutrient intake in T3 did not exceed that of T2, the improved production performance achieved with moderate feed consumption indicates enhanced metabolic efficiency [27]. Such improved feed utilization is particularly advantageous in commercial poultry production, where feed represents the largest component of production costs.

Growth performance and carcass traits

Broilers supplemented with L. paracasei (T3) exhibited the greatest improvements in final body weight, carcass weight, and carcass percentage. These findings demonstrate the beneficial effects of L. paracasei on intestinal function, nutrient utilization, and overall metabolism [28]. Previous studies have shown that LAB improve intestinal morphology by increasing villus height, modulating immune responses, and reducing intestinal inflammation, thereby enhancing nutrient absorption and promoting growth [29].

Conversely, broilers in the untreated APEC-infected group (T1) exhibited marked growth suppression, consistent with intestinal inflammation, impaired nutrient absorption, and reduced metabolic efficiency associated with APEC infection [30]. Although AGP supplementation partially restored growth performance, the improvements remained inferior to those achieved with L. paracasei [31]. These observations support accumulating evidence that probiotics can match or even surpass AGPs in promoting broiler growth, particularly under infectious conditions [32].

The superior carcass yield observed in T3 further suggests enhanced protein deposition and more efficient nutrient partitioning [33]. Improved intestinal health reduces the metabolic cost of immune activation and inflammatory responses, allowing a greater proportion of nutrients to be directed toward muscle accretion [34]. Because carcass yield directly influences meat production efficiency and commercial profitability, these improvements provide substantial practical value for poultry producers [35].

Liver function

APEC infection induces systemic inflammation and hepatocellular injury, resulting in elevated SGPT and SGOT activities [5]. This pathological response was clearly demonstrated in the untreated infected group (T1), which exhibited the highest enzyme activities. In contrast, broilers supplemented with L. paracasei (T3) showed markedly reduced SGPT activity and the lowest SGOT activity, indicating substantial hepatoprotection during APEC infection [36].

Several mechanisms may contribute to this protective effect. Probiotics suppress pathogen proliferation, enhance antioxidant defenses, and regulate systemic immune responses [37]. LAB produce bioactive metabolites, including short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) and antioxidant compounds, which reduce oxidative stress and protect hepatic tissues from inflammatory damage [38]. Furthermore, L. paracasei may improve intestinal barrier integrity, reduce endotoxin translocation, and increase SCFA production, thereby attenuating hepatic inflammation and preserving liver function. Probiotics have also been reported to suppress pro-inflammatory cytokine production, thereby reducing hepatic metabolic burden and limiting hepatocellular injury [39]. Although AGP supplementation also reduced liver enzyme activities, its hepatoprotective effects remained less pronounced than those observed with L. paracasei [40].

Collectively, these findings indicate that L. paracasei exerts broader physiological benefits than conventional AGPs by combining antimicrobial activity with immunomodulatory, antioxidant, and metabolic regulatory functions [41].

Economic performance

Economic evaluation demonstrated that L. paracasei supplementation produced the highest IOFC at both the experimental and commercial production scales, whereas AGP supplementation generated the lowest economic return. The superior profitability associated with probiotic supplementation resulted from the combined effects of efficient feed utilization, improved growth performance, enhanced carcass yield, and reduced physiological stress [42].

In contrast, despite exhibiting the highest feed intake, broilers receiving AGP supplementation achieved only moderate body weight gain, resulting in increased feed costs relative to production output [43]. Consequently, AGP supplementation yielded lower IOFC values, illustrating the declining economic benefit of AGPs under modern poultry production systems characterized by increasing antimicrobial restrictions and growing consumer demand for antibiotic-free poultry products [44].

The consistently greater economic performance observed in the probiotic group highlights the commercial value of indigenous L. paracasei as a sustainable feed additive. These findings are particularly relevant to tropical poultry production systems, where locally adapted LAB strains may exhibit enhanced survival, colonization, and functional efficacy under regional environmental conditions [45].

Implications for sustainable poultry production

The present findings demonstrate that indigenous L. paracasei isolated from dadih provides comparable or superior benefits to AGPs in growth performance, liver health, carcass yield, and economic efficiency. Using indigenous probiotic strains also supports the development of region-specific nutritional strategies better adapted to local environmental conditions and microbial ecosystems [46, 47].

Importantly, the present study extends our previous work reported by Lokapirnasari et al. [48]. While the earlier study demonstrated improvements in antioxidant status, lipid metabolism, and hematological parameters using the same L. paracasei isolate, the present investigation provides new evidence regarding nutrient utilization, production performance, hepatoprotection, carcass characteristics, and economic efficiency. Together, these complementary findings provide a more comprehensive understanding of the biological and practical value of this indigenous probiotic in broiler production.

Given the increasing global restrictions on AGP use, LAB-based probiotics represent an effective strategy for maintaining poultry health, improving production efficiency, and enhancing food safety [49]. Furthermore, utilizing indigenous probiotic strains supports sustainable livestock production by reducing dependence on imported feed additives while promoting the conservation and application of local microbial biodiversity [50].

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrated that supplementation with indigenous L. paracasei isolated from dadih effectively improved broiler performance during APEC challenge. Although AGP supplementation resulted in the highest feed and nutrient intake, L. paracasei achieved superior nutrient utilization efficiency, as reflected by the greatest final body weight, carcass weight, carcass percentage, and IOFC. Furthermore, probiotic supplementation markedly reduced SGPT and SGOT activities compared with the untreated infected group and provided greater hepatoprotection than AGP supplementation, indicating its ability to alleviate hepatic damage associated with APEC infection.

From a practical perspective, these findings demonstrate that indigenous L. paracasei can serve as an effective and economically viable alternative to AGPs in broiler production. Improved growth performance, enhanced carcass yield, better liver health, and increased profitability collectively support its application in commercial poultry production, particularly in tropical regions where locally adapted probiotic strains may exhibit superior functionality. The use of indigenous probiotics also aligns with current global efforts to reduce antibiotic use and promote sustainable, antibiotic-free poultry production.

A major strength of this study is the comprehensive evaluation of biological and economic responses under an experimentally induced APEC challenge. By integrating nutrient intake, growth performance, carcass characteristics, liver function, and economic efficiency, the study provides a broader assessment of the production value of indigenous L. paracasei. Moreover, the findings complement the authors' previous work by extending the evidence beyond antioxidant status and hematological responses to include production-related and hepatoprotective outcomes.

Nevertheless, this study has several limitations. The experiment evaluated only a single probiotic strain and dosage under controlled experimental conditions and did not investigate changes in intestinal microbiota composition, intestinal morphology, immune responses, oxidative stress biomarkers, or molecular mechanisms underlying the observed hepatoprotective effects. In addition, the relatively short production period limits assessment of the long-term persistence of probiotic benefits.

Future studies should investigate different supplementation levels and administration strategies of indigenous L. paracasei under commercial farming conditions involving larger bird populations and diverse management systems. Further research integrating gut microbiome analysis, intestinal histomorphology, immune and inflammatory biomarkers, antioxidant status, and molecular pathways would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms responsible for the probiotic's beneficial effects. Comparative studies involving multiple indigenous probiotic strains and combinations with other non-antibiotic feed additives may also facilitate the development of optimized antibiotic-free feeding strategies.

In conclusion, indigenous L. paracasei isolated from dadih represents a promising, safe, and sustainable probiotic that improves production performance, supports liver health, and enhances economic returns in APEC-challenged broilers. These findings provide strong scientific evidence supporting the use of locally derived probiotics as practical alternatives to AGPs for sustainable commercial poultry production.

DATA AVAILABILITY

All data generated and analyzed during this study are included in the published article. Additional data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

GENERATIVE AI DECLARATION

The authors declare that generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools were used solely to improve language, grammar, and readability during manuscript preparation. All scientific content, data analysis, interpretation of results, and conclusions were developed and verified by the authors. The authors take full responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the work presented, and no AI tool was listed as an author.

AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS

WPL, LM, and ABY: Conceptualization, study design, supervision, project administration, and writing—original draft preparation. ALS, ER, and MAF: Data curation, investigation, formal analysis, and methodology. ZNAR and ARK: Investigation, data curation, visualization, and validation. EFL and ZAB: Methodology, investigation, and validation. HIS and TDM: Validation, formal analysis, and data interpretation. SR and MS: Methodology, investigation, data interpretation, supervision, writing—review and editing, critical revision of the manuscript, and final approval of the version to be published. All authors contributed to the study, participated in drafting or critically revising the manuscript, approved the final version, and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

COMPETING INTERESTS

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

PUBLISHER’S NOTE

Veterinary World remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in the published institutional affiliations.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the Directorate of Research, Technology, and Community Service (DRTPM), Ministry of Higher Education, Science, and Technology, Indonesia, under Rector of Universitas Airlangga Decree No. 0459/E5/PG.02.00/2024 and Contract Nos. 040/E5/PG.02.00. PL/2024 and 1715/B/UN3.LPPM/PT.01.03/2024. The authors also sincerely thank the Head of the Institute for Research and Community Service (LPPM), Universitas Airlangga, and the Dean of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, for their administrative support and facilities that contributed to the successful completion of this study.

REFERENCES

1. Khairullah AR, Afnani DA, Riwu KHP, Widodo A, Yanestria SM, Moses IB. Avian pathogenic Escherichia coli: epidemiology, virulence and pathogenesis, diagnosis, pathophysiology, transmission, vaccination, and control. Vet World 2024;17(12):2747-2762. [Google Scholar]
2. Hu J, Afayibo DJA, Zhang B, Zhu H, Yao L, Guo W. Characteristics, pathogenic mechanism, zoonotic potential, drug resistance, and prevention of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC). Front Microbiol 2022;13:1049391. [Google Scholar]
3. Chen M, He Y, Jia Y, Wu L, Zhao R. Liver transcriptome response to avian pathogenic Escherichia coli infection in broilers with corticosterone treatment. Poult Sci 2025;104(5):105020. [Google Scholar]
4. Kathayat D, Lokesh D, Ranjit S, Rajashekara G. Avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC): an overview of virulence and pathogenesis factors, zoonotic potential, and control strategies. Pathogens 2021;10(4):467. [Google Scholar]
5. Ye X, Hsu CY, Jia L, Zhang X, Magee C, Whitham S. Dynamic immune response to avian pathogenic Escherichia coli infection in broiler chickens: insights into pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokine regulation. Poult Sci 2025;104(6):105029. [Google Scholar]
6. Abreu R, Semedo-Lemsaddek T, Cunha E, Tavares L, Oliveira M. Antimicrobial drug resistance in poultry production: current status and innovative strategies for bacterial control. Microorganisms 2023;11(4):953. [Google Scholar]
7. Abou-Jaoudeh C, Andary J, Abou-Khalil R. Antibiotic residues in poultry products and bacterial resistance: a review in developing countries. J Infect Public Health 2024;17(12):102592. [Google Scholar]
8. Myers J, Hennessey M, Arnold JC, McCubbin KD, Lembo T, Mateus A. Crossover use of human antibiotics in livestock in agricultural communities: a qualitative cross-country comparison between Uganda, Tanzania and India. Antibiotics (Basel) 2022;11(10):1342. [Google Scholar]
9. Vieco-Saiz N, Belguesmia Y, Raspoet R, Auclair E, Gancel F, Kempf I. Benefits and inputs from lactic acid bacteria and their bacteriocins as alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters during food-animal production. Front Microbiol 2019;10:57. [Google Scholar]
10. Loo JS, Oslan SNH, Mokshin NAS, Othman R, Amin Z, Dejtisakdi W. Comprehensive review of strategies for lactic acid bacteria production and metabolite enhancement in probiotic cultures: multifunctional applications in functional foods. Fermentation 2025;11(5):241. [Google Scholar]
11. Latif A, Shehzad A, Niazi S, Zahid A, Ashraf W, Iqbal MW. Probiotics: mechanism of action, health benefits and their application in food industries. Front Microbiol 2023;14:1216674. [Google Scholar]
12. Naeem M, Bourassa D. Probiotics in poultry: unlocking productivity through microbiome modulation and gut health. Microorganisms 2025;13(2):257. [Google Scholar]
13. Lokapirnasari WP, Maslachah L, Saputro AL, Rokana E, Yulianto AB, Rosyada ZNA. Potency of Lacticaseibacillus paracasei as an alternative to antibiotic growth promoter in broiler chicken challenged with avian pathogenic Escherichia coli. Vet World 2025;18(5):1180-1189. [Google Scholar]
14. Arnold M, Rajagukguk YV, Gramza-Michałowska A. Characterization of dadih: traditional fermented buffalo milk of Minangkabau. Beverages 2021;7(3):60. [Google Scholar]
15. Ginting N, Mirwandhono E, Ketaren NB, Lin YY. Innovative use of indigenous dadih probiotics to enhance feed intake, digestibility, growth performance, and health in heat-stressed Sapera goats. Vet World 2025;18(5):1224-1233. [Google Scholar]
16. Yuliana T, Tyano FN, Harlina PW, Cahyana Y, Marta H, Krama A. Characterizing probiotic lactic acid bacteria from buffalo milk fermentation (dadih) for beef biopreservation. Appl Sci 2023;13(24):13089. [Google Scholar]
17. Wang L, Lin Z, Ali M, Zhu X, Zhang Y, Li S. Effects of lactic acid bacteria isolated from Tibetan chickens on the growth performance and gut microbiota of broilers. Front Microbiol 2023;14:1171074. [Google Scholar]
18. Sulaiman AS, Hussaini BA, Uyanga VA. Effects of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics on the growth performance, biochemical indexes, and gut morphometry of turkeys. Front Physiol 2025;16:1703083. [Google Scholar]
19. Sabirin F, Lim SM, Neoh CF, Ramasamy K. Hepatoprotection of probiotics against non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in vivo: a systematic review. Front Nutr 2022;9:844374. [Google Scholar]
20. Bach A, Terré M, Vidal M. Symposium review: decomposing efficiency of milk production and maximizing profit. J Dairy Sci 2020;103(6):5709-5725. [Google Scholar]
21. Lokapirnasari WP, Al-Arif MA, Hidayatik N, Safiranisa A, Arumdani DF, Zahirah AI. Effect of probiotics and acidifiers on feed intake, egg mass, production performance, and egg yolk chemical composition in late-laying quails. Vet World 2024;17(2):462-469. [Google Scholar]
22. Agustono B, AbidahAlfirdausy S, Warsito SH, Yunita MN, Lokapirnasari WP, Purnama MTE. Influence of Mauritia flexuosa L. on broiler carcass mass and digestive organs temperature-exposed body mass. Ind Vet J 2024;101(2):10-14. [Google Scholar]
23. Tugiyanti E, Susanti E, Heriyanto S. Effectiveness of various feed supplements on villi characteristics, feed digestibility, and liver-kidney function of broiler chickens. Bulg J Agric Sci 2022;28(5):911-917. [Google Scholar]
24. Ibeagha-Awemu EM, Omonijo FA, Piché LC, Vincent AT. Alternatives to antibiotics for sustainable livestock production in the context of the One Health approach: tackling a common foe. Front Vet Sci 2025;12:1605215. [Google Scholar]
25. Luangphiphat W, Prombutara P, Jamjuree P, Chantarangkul C, Vitheejongjaroen P, Muennarong C. The efficacy of Lacticaseibacillus paracasei MSMC39-1 and Bifidobacterium animalis TA-1 probiotics in modulating gut microbiota and reducing the risk of metabolic syndrome characteristics: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. PLoS One 2025;20(1):e0317202. [Google Scholar]
26. Darbandi A, Asadi A, Ari MM, Ohadi E, Talebi M, Zadeh MH. Bacteriocins: properties and potential use as antimicrobials. J Clin Lab Anal 2022;36(1):e24093. [Google Scholar]
27. Shehata AI, Soliman AA, Ahmed HA, Gewaily MS, Amer AA, Shukry M. Evaluation of different probiotics on growth, body composition, antioxidant capacity, and histoarchitecture of Mugil capito. Sci Rep 2024;14(1):7379. [Google Scholar]
28. Zhang H, Xu Y, Li M, Chen Z, Wang Y, Yang R. The effect of probiotics on the improvement of body weight and fat. Food Sci Nutr 2025;13(8):e70728. [Google Scholar]
29. Liu W, Cheng H, Zhang H, Liu G, Yin X, Zhang C. Effect of Lactobacillus paracasei LK01 on growth performance, antioxidant capacity, immunity, intestinal health, and serum biochemical indices in broilers. Animals (Basel) 2024;14(23):3474. [Google Scholar]
30. Wei L, Liu X, Tan Z, Zhang B, Wen C, Tang Z. Chlorogenic acid mitigates avian pathogenic Escherichia coli-induced intestinal barrier damage in broiler chickens via anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects. Poult Sci 2025;104(5):105005. [Google Scholar]
31. Pihurov M, Cotârleț M, Borda D, Bahrim GE. The effects of non-viable probiotic Lactobacillus paracasei on the biotechnological properties of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl Sci 2025;15(16):9221. [Google Scholar]
32. Chuang LC, Huang CS, Ou-Yang LW, Lin SY. Probiotic Lactobacillus paracasei effect on cariogenic bacterial flora. Clin Oral Investig 2011;15(4):471-476. [Google Scholar]
33. Cediel-Devia DC, Schaitz LH, da Silva FF, Santos LV, da Silva APG, Santos MDC. Performance, carcass traits, and meat fatty acid profile of post-weaning and finishing Zebu steers on tropical pasture with three low-intake supplementation strategies. Animals 2024;14(17):2486. [Google Scholar]
34. Mohr AE, Mach N, Pugh J, Grosicki GJ, Allen JM, Karl JP. Mechanisms underlying alterations of the gut microbiota by exercise and their role in shaping ecological resilience. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2025;49(1):fuaf037. [Google Scholar]
35. Mârza SM, Munteanu C, Papuc I, Radu L, Purdoiu RC. The role of probiotics in enhancing animal health: mechanisms, benefits, and applications in livestock and companion animals. Animals 2025;15(20):2986. [Google Scholar]
36. Dehkohneh A, Jafari P, Fahimi H. Effects of probiotic Lactobacillus paracasei TD3 on moderation of cholesterol biosynthesis pathway in rats. Iran J Basic Med Sci 2019;22(9):1004-1009. [Google Scholar]
37. Costa DL, Amaral EP, Andrade BB, Sher A. Modulation of inflammation and immune responses by heme oxygenase-1: implications for infection with intracellular pathogens. Antioxidants (Basel) 2020;9(12):1205. [Google Scholar]
38. Aguirre-Garcia YL, Cerda-Alvarez NC, Santiago-Santiago RM, Chantre-López AR, Rangel-Ortega SDC, Rodríguez-Herrera R. The metabolites produced by lactic acid bacteria and their role in the microbiota–gut–brain axis. Fermentation 2025;11(7):378. [Google Scholar]
39. Bernhardt GV, Shivappa P, Pinto JR, KS R, Pillai JR, Srinivasamurthy SK. Probiotics-role in alleviating the impact of alcohol liver disease and alcohol deaddiction: a systematic review. Front Nutr 2024;11:1372755. [Google Scholar]
40. Imari ZK, Alnajm HR, Zamil SJ. Impact of different levels of probiotic on productive performance, nutrient retention of broiler chickens fed low protein diets. J Adv Vet Anim Res 2023;10(3):395-402. [Google Scholar]
41. Fijan S, Fijan T. Current trends in the applications of probiotics and other beneficial microbes: expanding horizons. Appl Microbiol 2025;5(4):103. [Google Scholar]
42. Lokapirnasari WP, Dewi AR, Fathinah A, Hidanah S, Harijani N. Effect of probiotic supplementation on organic feed to alternative antibiotic growth promoter on production performance and economics analysis of quail. Vet World 2017;10(12):1508-1514. [Google Scholar]
43. El-Fateh M, Bilal M, Zhao X. Effect of antibiotic growth promoters (AGPs) on feed conversion ratio (FCR) of broiler chickens: a meta-analysis. Poult Sci 2024;103(12):104472. [Google Scholar]
44. Cardinal KM, Kipper M, Andretta I, Ribeiro AML. Withdrawal of antibiotic growth promoters from broiler diets: performance indexes and economic impact. Poult Sci 2019;98(12):6659-6667. [Google Scholar]
45. Moračanin SV, Danilović B, Milijašević M, Milijašević JB, Tambur Z, Moračanin M. Probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics for combating antimicrobial resistance in the food chain. Processes 2025;13(11):3483. [Google Scholar]
46. Lisnanti EF, Lokapirnasari WP, Al-Arif MA, Hestianah EP, Hidanah S, Moses IB. The ameliorative effects of Myrmecodia sp. as an antibiotic growth promoter in broiler chicken with avian pathogenic Escherichia coli infection. Open Vet J 2025;15(11):5858-5871. [Google Scholar]
47. Firdaus MA, Soeharsono S, Lokaprinasari WP, Hidanah S, Kusnoto K, Safitri E. Probiotic Lactobacillus sp. as a substitute for growth antibiotic (AGP): its effects on production performance and contribution margin value in broilers infected with Escherichia coli. Indones J Anim Sci 2024;34(3):299-308. [Google Scholar]
48. Silfia HI, Warsito SH, Hidanah S, Lokapirnasari WP, Yudaniayanti I. The effect of acidifier on production performance and business analysis of broiler chickens infected with avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC). Nutr Feed Technol J 2024;22(3):144-150. [Google Scholar]
49. Liu H, Pan S, Wang C, Yang W, Wei X, He Y. Review of respiratory syndromes in poultry: pathogens, prevention, and control measures. Vet Res 2025;56(1):101. [Google Scholar]
50. Zaki RS, Elbarbary NK, Mahmoud MA, Bekhit MM, Salem MM, Darweish M. Avian pathogenic Escherichia coli and ostriches: a deep dive into pathological and microbiological investigation. Am J Vet Res 2025;86(2):1-10. [Google Scholar]