Dietary Citric Acid on Broiler Diet: Production Efficiency, Carcass Characteristics and Economic Viability

The increasing use of antibiotic in broiler diet is major concern in recent times. The application of antibiotic in the diet for broiler chickens is controversial to consumers. In spite of the numerous advantages associated with broiler meat, which is abundant in high-quality protein, low in fat content, and rich in essential vitamins such as B, as well as iron and selenium. Broiler meat also enhances muscle growth and repair, assists in effective weight management, and significantly contributes to cardiovascular and skeletal health. Young children and seniors effortlessly digest the broiler meat. But consumers still scared to consumes broiler meat due to incorporation of antibiotic growth promoters. Poultry Scientist is thinking alternatives of antibiotic growth promoter. Gunal et al. (2006), stated that citric acid (CA) are thought to be substitutes for antibiotic growth promoter.

It is widely recognized that citric acid act as an alternative to antibiotic, enhancing nutrient digestibility, being rich in antioxidants, and significantly contributing to body weight gain. Several studies have indicated that that citric acid included into broiler diet improve feed efficiency, production performances and immune responses (Chowdhury et al., 2009). Citric acid has been incorporated in diets improved growth rate and resistant against diseases (Islam et al., 2008). Among different organic acid citric acid is one of them which enhance growth rate, lower FCR, improve immunity and gut health of broiler. But more studies are needed to established to determine the inclusion level of citric acid in broiler ration. This study aimed to determine the effect of different dietary inclusion levels of citric acid on growth performance, feed conversion ratio (FCR), gut health markers, and economic consideration in broiler chickens.

The feeding trail was conducted at the Mirsarai Upazila of Chittagong district in Bangladesh.

Eighty four (84) day old chicks (DOC) of Ross 308 have been reared for 35 days to find out the result. The experiment was allocated with four (4) dietary treatments with three replication having seven (7) birds per replication with 21 birds per treatment groups. The treatments were indicated as T0 = Control or basal diet (without CA supplementation) T1 = 0.50% Citric Acid, T2= 0.75% Citric Acid and T3= 1.00% citric acid supplementation.

Table 1 showed the formulated diet for the experimental birds. Raw materials of the diets were supplied from a renowned company CP Bangladesh Company limited. Diets were formulated in C.P. Bangladesh Company Limited Laboratory and Animal Health and Technical Services Office (AHTSO) Laboratories according to treatment wise where nutrient density will lower in accordance with increase the percentage of citric acid. Feeds were stored in plastic buckets in treatment wise in cool, dry place. Citric acid was supplied with drinking water (liquid form) according to experimental design.

Table 1: Experimental diets ingredients composition.

Treatment wise formulated feed was supplied each bird on every replicated group. During the whole experimental periods. Water was added with percentage of different ratio of dietary supplementation of citric acid. A strict bio-security was maintained during experimental period. On the day of 4th birds were vaccinated against ND and Gumboro on 11th day. A booster vaccination against ND was done at 20th days of age.

All data like body weight, body weight gain, feed conversion ratio (FCR), feed intake were recorded weekly except carcass characteristics (dressed weight, breast weight, thigh weight etc.) which were recorded at the end day of trial to statistically analyze. After completing the experiment economic analysis was done to calculate the cost benefit ratio.

All measurable data were recorded and analyzed statistically using IBM SPSS version 20. Completely Randomized Design (CRD) Design was used with Duncan multiple range test to analyze the differences among the treatments. Means and standard error was calculated where p<0.05 is indicated the level of significances.

Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5 indicates body weight, body weight gain, feed intake and FCR of the broiler. The result showed significance differences among the dietary treatments groups.

Table 2: Weekly body weight of broiler chicken.

Table 3: Body weight gain of broiler chicken.

Table 4: Feed intake (g) of broiler chicken.

Table 5: FCR of broiler chicken.

Table 6: Dressed weight of broiler from different dietary treatment groups.

Table 7: Economic consideration of broiler chicken in different treatment groups.

The result is agreed with Abdel-Fattah et al. (2008) who demonstrated that citric acid included in diet improved the live body weight and body weight gain of broiler. Islam et al. (2008) showed that feed consumption of birds was higher due to incorporation of citric acid in broiler diet. Chowdhury et al. (2009) found that citric acid and avilamycin supplementation can individually increase feed intake of broiler chicken. Afsharmanesh et al. (2005) found higher feed conversion of birds with feeding dietary citric acid in poultry. Denil et al. (2003) found better feed conversion in broiler supplementing acidifier diet. Hassan et al. (2010) stated that organic acids improved feed conversion ratio of broiler.

The dressing percentage of broilers with different supplements groups are shown in Table 6. All dietary treatments groups showed significance differences among the parameter. The dressing results showed significance performances than other dietary groups.

This findings is comparable with the results of Sohail et al. (2015) who find that dressing percentage of birds were improve due to addition of citric acid on diet.

Table 7 demonstrated that the profit of production per kg broiler was found most cost effective in 0.750% supplemented groups. Tanzin et al. (2015) was found more profit in 0.50% citric acid group. But in current the study 0.750% citric acid on diet showed profit per birds. The result indicates that incorporation of citric acid in diet of broiler is profitable business and ensuring better performances of birds. From the above results and discussion it can be concluded that diet containing low protein and energy than standard with addition of 0.750% citric acid can be profitable for broiler rearing.

After completing the study showed that 0.750% citric acid supplementation group showed better result than other groups. Finally it can be it may be concluded that 0.750% citric acid diet can improve the production performance of broiler. Therefore, it may be recommended to use 0.750% citric acid on broiler diet for better growth, production performances and carcass quality.

This work was funded and supported by CP Bangladesh Company Limited. Authors are grateful to all the stuffs involved to conduct the study.

Although citric acid has been investigated as a feed additive in broiler chickens, previous several studies have reported variable effects on growth performances, carcass characteristics, and economic ooutcomes, but limited information is available on its practical application under local production conditions. The novelty of the present study lies in the evaluation of dietary citric acid in broilers by simultaneously assessing production effeciency, carcass characteristics, and economic viability. By examine the responses within a practical broiler production system, this study provides evidence not only on the biological effects of citric acid supplementation but also on its potential economic value as a dietary feed additive.

Rakibul Hasan conducted the experiment, analyzed the data, and wrote the draft of the manuscript. Faisal Kabir supervised and critically reviewed. Mahbuba Sultana wrote the final draft, reviewed and edited the manuscript.

The experimental procedures of this study were approved by the university of Patuakhali Science and Technology University. The approval number was PSTU/IEC/2025/30(i) Dated 25/09/2025.

The authors declare that no generative AI and AI assisted technology was used in the creation of this manuscript.

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.