Saccharomyces cerevisiae as Natural Growth Promoter in Broilers: Meta-analysis of Performance and Meat Quality

Introduction
The global demand for food and protein is rising day by day, and poultry is one of the most promising industries to meet these demands for food security (Maharjan et al., 2021). In broiler chicken farming, efficiency and optimal performance are highly sought after for the efficient and economic well-being of farmers and consumers simultaneously (Chibanda et al., 2024). Sustainable and stable yield of broilers is attributed to several factors, including breed of broiler, environmental conditions, feed, and management practices. All these factors influence the output of the poultry industry and its profitability, and long-term solutions are always desired for sustainable production (Arikan et al., 2022; Tuncel & Kara, 2022). 
The poultry industry is under various challenges globally, the latest and most challenging of which is the ban on antibiotic growth promoters (AGPs) (Bean-Hodgins & Kiarie, 2021). The AGPs have stood their ground for a long time since their first use for excellent growth and health benefits in broiler chicken, but recent awareness regarding their role for antimicrobial resistance, ethical issues, and raising consumer demands have shifted the focus towards friendly and sustainable alternatives (Adli et al., 2024; Harahap et al., 2024; Choi et al., 2022; Polidoro et al., 2024; Mayahi et al., 2025). Many alternatives have emerged and are under scientific exploration for optimization methods, some of which include the use of herbal compounds and essential oils, as well as the probiotic yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Zhen et al., 2023; Roy & Ray, 2023; Hippenstiel et al., 2011). S. cerevisiae has proven to be a strong alternative to improve feed conversion, increase body weight (BW), promote the colonization of a healthy microbiome, and enhance the physical and chemical quality of broiler meat and large ruminants (Ahmed et al., 2024a; Sun et al., 2021; Dos Santos et al., 2021). However, its applicability and effectiveness are inconclusive, with large variations and fluctuations in the reported findings (Poberezhets et al., 2023a; Lin et al., 2023).
To address these discrepancies and show their true effects, a meta-analysis is urgently needed at this time. This analysis will synthesize literature reports on several parameters and aim to assess the full-scale applicability of using S. cerevisiae in broiler chickens and its effects on performance, feed utilization, and physical and chemical parameters.

Material and Methods
Search strategy
A comprehensive search strategy was employed to retrieve relevant studies from the Scopus and PubMed databases published from 2000 to 2025. The search used a combination of keywords, including “broiler chicken,” broiler, AND/OR (“growth performance” OR “chicken meat”) AND/OR “S cerevisiae” AND/OR “yeast.” Titles and abstracts were screened to remove irrelevant studies, followed by a full-text review of shortlisted articles to confirm eligibility (Figure 1).

Eligibility criteria
The eligibility criteria for this meta-analysis were established to ensure the inclusion of relevant and high-quality studies. Only studies involving broiler chickens as the primary experimental subjects were considered, regardless of breed or strain, while those focusing on other poultry species or mixed populations were excluded. The intervention had to involve the use of S. cerevisiae as a dietary supplement or feed additive in any form, such as live yeast, dried yeast, yeast derivatives, or cell wall components, and the differences in effect among these forms could not be specifically studied due to data availability limitations. Studies using other probiotics or combinations where the specific effects of S. cerevisiae could not be isolated were excluded. Eligible studies were required to include control and experimental groups fed diets without S. cerevisiae supplementation and selected parameters. Studies without quantitative results or unrelated to these outcomes were excluded. Only experimental studies with a clear control-treatment design, such as randomized controlled trials or completely randomized designs, were included. At the same time, reviews, editorials, or conference abstracts without full data were excluded. Furthermore, the analysis was limited to peer-reviewed English-language articles.

Study parameters
The parameters measured in the study include growth feed efficiency and various physical and chemical quality traits for both the control and treatment groups. These parameters include performance parameters such as BW and feed conversion ratio (FCR). The physical and chemical parameters included the meat color, which was assessed (L, a, and b) for the breast meat, pH levels of the breast meat, dressing rate, cooking loss, and drip loss, shear force, and water holding capacity (WHC) were measured. These parameters collectively provide a comprehensive overview of the growth and meat quality characteristics of broiler chickens under S. cerevisiae supplementation.

Data extraction and analysis
The information was extracted and classified in Microsoft Excel sheets; the data included general study details (first author name and publication year). The selected parameters (as mentioned earlier) were used to extract metadata, including frequency, Mean±SD. These data sheets from Microsoft Excel were used to analyze the data in OPENMEE software, Version 2016.07.26 for standard meta-analysis, including the standard mean difference and heterogeneity analysis (Ahmed et al., 2024a).

Results
The main findings of this meta-analysis include the effects of S. cerevisiae supplementation on performance parameters and the chemical quality of meat in broiler chickens. Data from several trials were evaluated, and statistical validation was performed to ensure the meta-analysis’s validity.

Growth performance
BW 
This primary finding reveals that the supplementation with S. cerevisiae enhances BW. The increase in BW is evident by the standard mean difference (SMD) of 0.446. This difference in SMD indicates a significant increase in the treatment groups relative to the control groups across the selected studies and data points. Also, the heterogeneity value of I2=85.436% indicates uniformity and steadiness in the BW increase across the data points. It suggests a constant elevation in BW (Table 1, Figure 2). 

This finding is strong evidence of the use of S. cerevisiae as an alternative to AGPs.

FCR 
Another noteworthy finding of this meta-analysis is the improved FCR, which is a primary indicator of enhanced feed utilization. The FCR exhibited a very significant improvement, having a P value of 0.001 with an SMD of -0.442 (95% CI, -0.599%, -0.284%) (Table 1, Figure 3).

This outcome specifically shows that S. cerevisiae supplementation improves feed efficiency, lowers production costs, and increases sustainability in the production of broiler chickens. The use as an alternative to traditional AGPs is clearly evident in its effect on FCR. The results’ statistical significance and low heterogeneity (I2=0.001%) support its use as an alternative and suggest that S. cerevisiae consistently improves FCR across studies and data points. 

Meat quality
Breast meat pH
There was a slight (for general pH) but positive (for breast meat pH) shift in the pH of the breast meat. With a P of 0.116 and an SMD of 0.068 (95% CI, -0.017%, 0.152%), the pH change in the breast was not statistically significant (Table 1, Figures 4 and 5).

The lack of statistical significance (for both breast and general pH) suggests that S. cerevisiae supplementation has little effect on the pH of breast meat, even if the result indicates a modestly positive shift in pH in the S. cerevisiae supplemented group.

Cooking loss
Cooking loss is not affected by S. cerevisiae, as evidenced by an SMD of 0.1000 (95% CI) (P=0.439) (Table 1, Figure 6).

The overall result indicates that S. cerevisiae supplementation does not appreciably change cooking loss in broiler chickens. This finding can be a desirable quality in terms of water-retention properties, as it is an indicator of meat juiciness and tenderness.

Drip loss
The SMD for drip loss was 0.111 and its P was 0.190 (95% CI, -0.055%, 0.276%), indicating that S. cerevisiae supplementation had no discernible effect on drip loss (Table 1, Figure 7).

This finding suggests that although drip loss may have decreased in certain individual experiments, the combined data do not demonstrate a meaningful effect. It is a very important indicator of water-holding capacity (WHC) and juiciness.

Shear force
A very high and positive nature effect of S. cerevisiae is observed on the shear force of meat, with SMD of 4.662 and high significance (P=0.001) (Table 1, Figure 8).

Shear force is an indicator of meat softness and tenderness, which is a highly desired quality. 

Dressing rate
S. cerevisiae supplementation had a minor effect on the dressing rate. This effect is shown by a minor SMD of 0.247 (P=0.057) (Table 1, Figure 9).

This finding implies that while S. cerevisiae might have a small impact on the dressing rate, it should not be considered significant in the large. The lack of a substantial effect of S. cerevisiae on the dressing rate, a crucial factor that affects the amount of usable meat, suggests that S. cerevisiae supplementation has little effect on carcass output.

WHC
WHC was slightly positively affected by S. cerevisiae supplementation; however, there was substantial heterogeneity. The slight minor change in WHC is evident by SMD of 0.11 under a confidence interval of 95% and a statistical significance P at 0.190 (Table 1, Figure 10).

The heterogeneity is high, with an I2 value of 73.374%, due to variations in S. cerevisiae dosage, broiler breeds, and study designs. This finding suggests that although S. cerevisiae can occasionally increase water storage capacity, the impact varies depending on the circumstances. Meat’s ability to retain water has a significant impact on its quality. 

Breast meat color (L, a, b)
The meat color (lightness L*, redness a*, and yellowness b*) is not significantly different between treatment and control groups. The results show SMD of 0.053, -0.000, and -0.009 for L*, b*, and a*, respectively, with P 0.809, 0.967, and 0.999 (Table 1, Figures 11, 12, and 13).

Discussion
Impact of S. cerevisiae on growth performance and feed efficiency
The BW of broiler chickens is affected by dietary supplementation with S. cerevisiae, with a standardized mean difference of 0.446 (P=0.001). This positive increase in BW and growth performance is consistent across the selected studies (Poberezhets et al., 2023a; Younis et al., 2024). In terms of heterogeneity, there was substantial heterogeneity (I²=85.436%), further suggesting a smooth and consistent positive impact across studies (A Fwaz et al., 2024; Lin et al., 2023; Ismael et al., 2022). Also, the promotion of an improved FCR adds to these findings. These results support and advocate for S. cerevisiae’s role in improving performance and increasing feed utilization, resulting in reduced production costs and benefits to farmers (Lin et al., 2023).
There are a number of ways that S. cerevisiae achieves the reported results: The promotion of a beneficial microbiome, enzymatic action, immune modulation, and anti-pathogenic abilities (Soren et al., 2023; Soren et al., 2023; Attia et al., 2022). The microbiota, such as Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium, are promoted by S. cerevisiae. These microbes function to improve nutrient absorption, intestinal integrity, and overall health (Attia et al., 2023). Along with microbiome promotion, S. cerevisiae produces amylase and protease enzymes that aid in the digestion and breakdown of feed and improve feed utilization (A Fwaz et al., 2024; Ismael et al., 2022). The immune modulation effect and mannan-oligosaccharides (in the cell wall of S. cerevisiae) help reduce inflammation, prevent pathogenic organisms like Clostridium perfringens, and maintain a healthy gut integrity (Faustino et al, 2021; Fornazier et al, 2021; Alqhtani et al, 2024). 

Effects on meat quality parameters
Breast meat pH
A higher pH in post-slaughter broiler chicken indicates a higher WHC, influencing softness or tenderness, and is associated with lower drip loss, influenced by slaughter conditions, stress, and glycolysis rates (Beauclercq et al., 2022; Hoque et al., 2021; Gumus & Gelen, 2023). This condition results in softer, paler coloration, adding to the visual appeal of chicken (Hoque et al., 2021; Gumus & Gelen, 2023). The overall impact of S. cerevisiae on pH is inconsistent when aggregated from the literature. It is speculated to be influenced by variations in S. cerevisiae dosage, broiler breed, study design, slaughter conditions, stress, and glycolysis rate (Beauclercq et al., 2022).

Cooking loss and drip loss
Drip loss and cooking loss are two very important parameters for the physical meat quality of broiler chicken. These two parameters influence the moisture-holding capacity and juiciness of meat and enhance the taste and consumer likeness (Gál et al., 2022; Sun et al., 2024; Dang et al., 2024). In the analysis, some studies report a positive influence and improved water retention, but the substantial variability in the meta-analysis suggests the overall impact is inconsistent and non-significant. Hence, the influence of S. cerevisiae on post-slaughtering water retention is inconclusive. This notion can be further explored by studies focusing on muscle fiber composition and proteolytic enzymatic activity (Barido & Lee 2021a).

Shear force (meat tenderness)
Another important physical quality of meat is shear force, which is a direct measure of the integrity of the muscle fibres and the proteolytic action after slaughter. Shear force of meat is linked to tenderness, protein content, and lowered muscle tension (Gu et al., 2024; Park et al., 2021). The results of the meta-analysis show a standard mean difference of -4.662 (P=0.001), indicating a positive influence on reduced shear force and ultimately improved tenderness and softness of meat. 
The improved tenderness resulting from reduced shear force due to S. cerevisiae supplementation can be attributed to proteolytic enzymatic action (calpains and cathepsins), along with an improved gut microbiome, leading to greater muscle growth and reduced connective tissue development, which causes meat hardness. This action of S. cerevisiae leads to enhanced consumer likeness of meat and a sustainable alternative to AGPs (Barido & Lee, 2021a; Xiang et al., 2024; Barido & Leeb, 2021).

Dressing rate and carcass yield
Dressing percentage (the proportion of edible meat post-processing) is usually influenced by factors, including breed, diet, processing methods, etc. (Kareem-Ibrahim et al., 2021; Zhu et al., 2024; Gumus & Gelen, 2023; Askri et al., 2021). The result of this meta-analysis reports the standard mean difference of 0.247 (P = 0.057), indicating a moderate effect. There is some level of contradiction among the reported studies, leading to minor, significant overall effects.

WHC
WHC is another physical parameter that directly influences meat tenderness, juiciness, the taste of the final product, cooking loss, and drip loss. Under the influence of S. cerevisiae, WHC is positively and moderately influenced, with the standard mean difference of (SMD=0.111) and (P=0.190). The lack of a statistically significant p value is attributed to a lack of study points (I²=73.374%) and context-dependent (Kaewkot et al., 2022; Barido & Lee, 2021a).

Breast meat color (L, a, b*) **
Color is influenced by pH, water content, oxidative stability, and myoglobin contents (Dimitrov et al., 2023; Zhu et al., 2024). The results of this meta-analysis indicate that S. cerevisiae supplementation does not directly affect meat color (L*, a*, b*). This result implies that there is no effect of S. cerevisiae on oxidative stress or on pigment deposition in the muscles of broiler chickens, thereby maintaining their natural pigmentation and oxidative conditions. This non-significant influence suggests that S. cerevisiae maintains the natural coloration and freshness, thereby enhancing consumer appeal (Askri et al., 2021; Ukhro et al., 2021).

Mode of action
The major contribution of S. cerevisiae towards enhancing BW and improving the feed utilization is by modulating the beneficial gut microbiome, enhancing absorption of nutrients, digestibility, enzymatic action, and immune modulation (Sun et al., 2024; Matur et al., 2010; Aluwong et al., 201; Bortoluzzi et al., 2018). S. cerevisiae functions to improve disease resistance by inhibiting pathogenic microbes while simultaneously promoting the beneficial microbiome of the broiler gastrointestinal tract (Bortoluzzi et al., 2018; Ahiwe et al., 2021). This action not only supports proper breakdown of feed by beneficial microbes but also improves intestinal wall integrity and overall immunity, resulting in enhanced nutrient absorption, increased BW gain, and improved feed utilization. Moreover, the stimulation of VFAs production further enhances the effects by providing a quick and sustainable source of energy to the intestinal wall, resulting in improved immunity and integrity (Elghandour et al., 2020; Luquetti et al., 2012).
The oxidative balance offered by S. cerevisiae results in sustained pH, which is desired and favoured by consumers (Aluwong et al., 2013; Elbaz et al., 2025; Shareef et al., 2023). The WHC improvement results in improved tenderness and softness, thereby reducing drip and cooking losses and ultimately making the meat more juicy. In terms of shear force, S. cerevisiae works through its enzymatic action to enhance protein metabolism and reduce connective tissue buildup, making the meat more tender and smooth (Aristides et al., 2018; Dávila-Ramírez, 2020; Poberezhets et al., 2023a). The pigmentation is left in its natural state, as desired by consumers, and is unaffected by supplementation of S. cerevisiae across the treatment groups, through improved oxidative stability and pigment retention (Qui, 2023; Grigore et al., 2023). 
S. cerevisiae works by modulating gut microbiota, improving nutrient digestibility, enhancing enzymatic activity, modulating immune function, influencing meat pigmentation, and improving oxidative stability (Elbaz et al., 2025; Dávila-Ramírez, 2020; Grigore et al., 2023). Overall, S. cerevisiae functions as a natural growth promoter, enhancing broiler productivity and meat quality while serving as a promising alternative to AGPs.

Conclusion
This meta-analysis confirms that S. cerevisiae as a probiotic supplement significantly improves broiler growth performance and feed efficiency while maintaining several key meat quality parameters at natural levels (pH, cooking loss, and WHC) and coloration at consumer-desired levels. A notable reduction in shear force indicates improved meat tenderness. S. cerevisiae supplementation emerges as a potential alternative to AGPs, offering a natural, safe, and sustainable strategy for poultry production. Future research should focus on dose optimization, strain selection, formulations, and mechanistic studies to fully understand S. cerevisiae’s functional benefits. As the poultry industry moves toward antibiotic-free production, S. cerevisiae represents a promising tool for sustainably enhancing broiler health, performance, and meat quality.

Ethical Considerations
Compliance with ethical guidelines
This article is a meta-analysis with no human or animal sample.

Funding
This study was supported by a research through the World Class Research University Program at Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang, Indonesia (Code: 80/UN7.A/HK/IV/2024).

Authors' contributions
Conceptualization and supervision: Sugiharto Sugiharto and Mo-hammad Miftakhus Sholikin; Data collection: Muhammad Rizwan Yousaf, Bi-lal Ahmed, Shinta Pandupuspitasari Nuruliarizki, and Hasliza Abu Hassim; Data analysis and writing the original draft: Muhammad Rizwan Yousaf and Bilal Ah-med; Review and editing: Asep Setiaji, Faheem Ahmed Khan, Dela Ayu Lestari, Azhar Ali, Muhammad Asif Raza, Ikania Agusetyaningsih, and Rahmeen Ajaz.

Conflict of interest
The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their gratitude to all authors whose studies were included in the meta-analysis.


References
Adli, D. N., Sholikin, M. M., Ujilestari, T., Ahmed, B., Sadiqqua, A., & Harahap, M. A., et al. (2024). Effect of fermentation of herbal products on growth performance, breast meat quality, and intestinal morphology of broiler chickens: A meta-analysis. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 23(1), 734-750. [DOI:10.1080/1828051X.2024.2351441]
Ahmed, B., Khan, F. A., Nuruliarizki, S. P., Yousaf, M. R., & Setiaji, A. (2024). Methane emissions and dry matter intake under impact of Saccharomyces cerevisiae supplementation on dairy cow. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research, 37(3), 260-266. [DOI:10.17582/journal.pjar/2024/37.3.260.266]
Ahmed, B., Setiaji, A., Praharani, L., Khan, F. A., Pandupuspitasari, N. S., & Sholikin, M. M., et al. (2024). Unlocking insights into Saccharomyces cerevisiae and milk yields: A meta-analysis. Advances in Animal and Veterinary Sciences, 12(8), 1517-1524. [DOI:10.17582/journal.aavs/2024/12.8.1517.1524]
Ahiwe, E. U., Dos Santos, T. T., Graham, H., & Iji, P. A. (2021). Can probiotic or prebiotic yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) serve as alternatives to in-feed antibiotics for healthy or disease-challenged broiler chickens? A review. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 30(3), 100164. [DOI:10.1016/j.japr.2021.100164]
Alqhtani, A. H., Al Sulaiman, A. R., Alharthi, A. S., & Abudabos, A. E. (2024). Dietary supplementation of prebiotic yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae cell wall promotes growth performance and intestinal health in broiler chickens challenged with Clostridium perfringens. British Poultry Science, 65(2), 129-136. [DOI:10.1080/00071668.2023.2296938] [PMID]
Aluwong, T., Kawu, M., Raji, M., Dzenda, T., Govwang, F., & Sinkalu, V., et al. (2013). Effect of yeast probiotic on growth, antioxidant enzyme activities and malondialdehyde concentration of broiler chickens. Antioxidants, 2(4), 326-339. [DOI:10.3390/antiox2040326] [PMID] 
Amir Shareef, M., Al-Rawi, F. T., Kareem, J. A. M., Thabit Jassim Alrawi, S., Omar, A. A., & Muneeb Alrawi, H. (2023). Effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Fortified with Selenium on the Hematological and Some Biochemical Traits of Local Iraqi Goat. Archives of Razi Institute, 78(4), 1213–1216. [DOI:10.32592/ARI.2023.78.4.1213] [PMID]
Arikan, M. S., Çevrimli, M. B., Polat, M., Mat, B., Akin, A. C., & Özel, Z., et al. (2022). Analyzing the factors affecting the price of broiler chicken in Turkey using the boosting regression method. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science, 24(4), eRBCA-2021 [DOI:10.1590/1806-9061-2021-1618]
Aristides, L. G. A., Venancio, E. J., Alfieri, A. A., Otonel, R. A. A., Frank, W. J., & Oba, A. (2018). Carcass characteristics and meat quality of broilers fed with different levels of Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product. Poultry Science, 97(9), 3337–3342. [DOI:10.3382/ps/pey174] [PMID]
Askri, A., Raach-Moujahed, A., M’Hamdi, N., Maalaoui, Z., & Debbabi, H. (2021). Saccharomyces cerevisiae-derived prebiotic as a sustainable bioactive substance for improving broiler meat quality. Large Animal Review, 27(2), 97-101. [Link]
Attia, Y. A., Al-Khalaifah, H., Abd El-Hamid, H. S., Al-Harthi, M. A., Alyileili, S. R., & El-Shafey, A. A. (2022). Antioxidant Status, Blood Constituents and Immune Response of Broiler Chickens Fed Two Types of Diets with or without Different Concentrations of Active Yeast. Animals: An Open Access Journal from MDPI, 12(4), 453. [DOI:10.3390/ani12040453] [PMID] 
Attia, Y. A., Basiouni, S., Abdulsalam, N. M., Bovera, F., Aboshok, A. A., & Shehata, A. A., et al. (2023). Alternative to antibiotic growth promoters: beneficial effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and/or Lactobacillus acidophilus supplementation on the growth performance and sustainability of broilers’ production. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 10, 1259426. [DOI:10.3389/fvets.2023.1259426] [PMID] 
Barido, F. H., & Lee, S. K. (2021). Changes in proteolytic enzyme activities, tenderness-related traits, and quality properties of spent hen meat affected by adenosine 5′-monophosphate during cold storage Poultry Science, 100(5), 101056. [DOI:10.1016/j.psj.2021.101056] [PMID] 
Barido, F. H., & Lee, S. K. (2021). Tenderness-related index and proteolytic enzyme response to the marination of spent hen breast by a protease extracted from Cordyceps militaris mushroom. Animal Bioscience, 34(11), 1859-1869. [DOI:10.5713/ab.20.0831] [PMID] 
Bean-Hodgins, L., & Kiarie, E. G. (2021). Mandated restrictions on the use of medically important antibiotics in broiler chicken production in Canada: Implications, emerging challenges, and opportunities for bolstering gastrointestinal function and health-a review. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 101(4), 602-629. [DOI:10.1139/cjas-2021-0015]
Beauclercq, S., Mignon-Grasteau, S., Petit, A., Berger, Q., Lefèvre, A., & Métayer-Coustard, S., et al. (2022). A divergent selection on breast meat ultimate pH, a key factor for chicken meat quality, is associated with different circulating lipid profiles. Frontiers in Physiology, 13, 935868. [DOI:10.3389/fphys.2022.935868] [PMID] 
Bortoluzzi, C., Barbosa, J. G. M., Pereira, R., Fagundes, N. S., Rafael, J. M., & Moreira Rafael, J. (2018). Autolyzed yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) supplementation improves performance while modulating the intestinal immune-system and microbiology of broiler chickens. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 2, 85. [DOI:10.3389/fsufs.2018.00085]
Chibanda, C., Thobe, P., Almadani, M. I., van Horne, P., Deblitz, C., & Wieck, C. (2024). Improving broiler farm competitiveness in Ghana and Senegal: insights from comparative analysis with Germany and the Netherlands. Agriculture & Food Security, 13, 65. [DOI:10.1186/s40066-024-00519-8]
Choi, J., Singh, A. K., Chen, X., Lv, J., & Kim, W. K. (2022). Application of organic acids and essential oils as alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters in broiler chickens. Animals, 12(17), 2178. [DOI:10.3390/ani12172178] [PMID]
Dang, D. X., Han, K. D., Park, J. H., & Kim, I. H. (2024). Effects of dietary supplementation of live Saccharomyces cerevisiae on growth performance, apparent nutrient digestibility, caecal bacteria count, meat quality, relative weight of organs, and excreta gas emission in broiler chicks. European Poultry Science, 88, 1-12. [DOI:10.1399/eps.2024.406]
Dávila-Ramírez, J. L., Carvajal-Nolazco, M. R., López-Millanes, M. J., González-Ríos, H., Celaya-Michel, H., & Sosa-Castañeda, J., et al. (2020). Effect of yeast culture (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) supplementation on growth performance, blood metabolites, carcass traits, quality, and sensorial traits of meat from pigs under heat stress. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 267, 114573. [DOI:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2020.114573]
Dimitrov, N., Miteva, D., Dimov, K., Petkov, E., & Popova, T. (2023). Changes in Colour and Myoglobin Oxidation in Chicken Meat as Affected by Antioxidants during storage. Proceedings of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 76(12), 1942-1950. [DOI:10.7546/CRABS.2023.12.18]
dos Santos V. M., Oliveira G. S., de Lima C. A. R., & Curvello, F. A. (2021). Broiler chick performance using Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast cell wall as an anti-mycotoxin additive. Czech Journal of Animal Science, 66(2), 65-72. [DOI:10.17221/237/2020-CJAS]
Elbaz, A., Ashmawy, E. S., Ali, S., Gad, G., & Sallam, M. (2025). Effects of Adding Different Levels of Selenium-Enriched Saccharomyces cerevisiae on Productive Performance. Antioxidative Capacity, and Cecal Microbiota of Heat-Stress broilers. Egyptian Journal of Veterinary Sciences, 1-9. [DOI:10.21608/ejvs.2025.330828.2450]
Elghandour, M. M. Y., Tan, Z. L., Abu Hafsa, S. H., Adegbeye, M. J., Greiner, R., & Ugbogu, E. A., et al. (2020). Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a probiotic feed additive to non and pseudo-ruminant feeding: A review. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 128(3), 658–674. [DOI:10.1111/jam.14416] [PMID]
Faustino, M., Durão, J., Pereira, C. F., Pintado, M. E., & Carvalho, A. P. (2021). Mannans and mannan oligosaccharides (MOS) from Saccharomyces cerevisiae-A sustainable source of functional ingredients. Carbohydrate Polymers, 272, 118467. [DOI:10.1016/j.carbpol.2021.118467] [PMID]
Fornazier, R., Ribeiro Junior, V., Albino, L. F. T., Tavernari, F. D. C., Feddern, V., & Silva, D. L. D., et al. (2024). Prebiotic composed of yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) cell wall improves performance in broiler diets. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 53, e20230162. [DOI:10.37496/rbz5320230162]
Fwaz, M. A., Nabil, R., Asman, A. S., Mehani, G. M., & Mousa, A. M. (2024). Appraisal of addition of Bacillus subtilis and Saccharomyces cerevisiae to Japanese quail diet on growth performance, biochemical parameters, and digestive enzymes. International Journal of Comprehensive Veterinary Research, 2(1), 21-31. [DOI:10.21608/ijcvr.2024.353386]
Gál, R., Kameník, J., Salek, R. N., Polášek, Z., Macharáčková, B., & Valenta, T., et al. (2022). Research Note: Impact of applied thermal treatment on textural, and sensory properties and cooking loss of selected chicken and turkey cuts as affected by cooking technique. Poultry Science, 101(7), 101923. [DOI:10.1016/j.psj.2022.101923] [PMID] 
Grigore, D. M., Mironeasa, S., Ciurescu, G., Ungureanu-Iuga, M., Batariuc, A., & Babeanu, N. E. (2023). Carcass yield and meat quality of broiler chicks supplemented with yeasts bioproducts. Applied Sciences, 13(3), 1607. [DOI:10.3390/app13031607]
Gu, S., Gao, J., Li, Z., Zhang, S., Wen, C., & Sun, C., et al. (2024). Comparative analysis of myofiber characteristics, shear force, and amino acid contents in slow- and fast-growing broilers. Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 13(24), 3997. [DOI:10.3390/foods13243997] [PMID] 
Gumus, R., & Gelen, S. U. (2023). Effects of dietary thyme and rosemary essential oils on performance parameters with lipid oxidation, water activity, pH, colour and microbial quality of breast and drumstick meats in broiler chickens. Archives Animal Breeding, 66(1), 17-29. [DOI:10.5194/aab-66-17-2023] [PMID] 
Harahap, M. A., Widodo, S., Handayani, U. F., Altandjung, R. I., Wulandari, Sakti, A. A., & Atmoko, B. A., et al. (2024). Examining performance, milk, and meat in ruminants fed with macroalgae and microalgae: A meta-analysis perspective. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 56(7), 243. [DOI:10.1007/s11250-024-04080-1] [PMID]
Hippenstiel, F., Abdel-Wareth, A. A. A., Kehraus, S., & Südekum, K. H. (2011). Effects of selected herbs and essential oils, and their active components on feed intake and performance of broilers-a review. European Poultry Science, 75(4), 226-234. [DOI:10.1016/S0003-9098(25)00780-5]
Hoque, M. R., Jung, H. I., & Kim, I. H. (2021). Effect of yeast culture (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) supplementation on growth performance, excreta microbes, noxious gas, nutrient utilization, and meat quality of broiler chicken. The Journal of Poultry Science, 58(4), 216-221. [DOI:10.2141/jpsa.0190144] [PMID] 
Ismael, E., Ismail, E. M., Khalefa, H. S., Elleithy, E. M., Elmosalamy, S. H., & Marouf, S., et al. (2022). Evaluation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast fermentate and xylanase in reduced energy diet fed to broiler chicken. International Journal of Veterinary Science, 11(2),141-150. [DOI:10.47278/journal.ijvs/2021.096]
Kaewkot, C., Hung, Y. H., & Tan, F. J. (2022). Effect of freeze-thaw cycles on the physicochemical properties, water‐holding status, and nutritional values of broiler chicken drumstick. Animal Science Journal, 93(1), e13742. [DOI:10.1111/asj.13742] [PMID]
Kareem-Ibrahim, K. O., Abanikannda, O. T. F., Nwadialo, S., & Ayinde, H. T. (2021). Influence of breed, sex and their interaction on liveweight, dressed weight and dressing percentage of broiler chicken. Nigerian Journal of Animal Production, 48(6), 391-400. [DOI:10.51791/njap.v48i6.3331]
Lin, J., Comi, M., Vera, P., Alessandro, A., Qiu, K., & Wang, J., et al. (2023). Effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae hydrolysate on growth performance, immunity function, and intestinal health in broilers. Poultry Science, 102(1), 102237.[DOI:10.1016/j.psj.2022.102237] [PMID] 
Luquetti, B. C., Furlan, R. L., Alarcon, M. F. F., & Macari, M. (2012). Saccharomyces cerevisiae cell wall dietary supplementation on the performance and intestinal mucosa development and integrity of broiler chickens vaccinated against coccidiosis. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science, 14, 89-95. [DOI:10.1590/S1516-635X2012000200002]
Maharjan, P., Martinez, D. A., Weil, J., Suesuttajit, N., Umberson, C., & Mullenix, G., et al. (2021). Physiological growth trend of current meat broilers and dietary protein and energy management approaches for sustainable broiler production. Animal, 15 (Suppl 1), 100284. [DOI:10.1016/j.animal.2021.100284] [PMID]
Matur, E., Ergul, E., Akyazi, I., Eraslan, E., & Cirakli, Z. T. (2010). The effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae extract on the weight of some organs, liver, and pancreatic digestive enzyme activity in breeder hens fed diets contaminated with aflatoxins. Poultry Science, 89(10), 2213-2220. [DOI:10.3382/ps.2010-00821] [PMID]
Khalaf, S. R., Mayahi, M., Boroomand, Z., Ghorbani, M. R., & Zakair Al-Zamily, K. Y. (2025). Effect of Purslane Powder on the Performance and Immunity System of Broiler Chickens. Archives of Razi Institute, 80(1), 179–184. [PMID]
Park, S. Y., Byeon, D. S., Kim, G. W., & Kim, H. Y. (2021). Carcass and retail meat cuts quality properties of broiler chicken meat based on the slaughter age. Journal of Animal Science and Technology, 63(1), 180–190. [DOI:10.5187/jast.2021.e2] [PMID] 
Poberezhets, J. M., Chudak, R. A., Razanova, O. P., Skoromna, O. I., Farionik, T. V., & Ohorodnichuk, G. M., et al. (2023). Effect of dry extract from Saccharomyces cerevisiae culture with selenium-containing amino acids on the productivity and chemical composition of meat of broiler chickens. Regulatory Mechanisms in Biosystems, 14(2), 161-164. [Link] 
Poberezhets, J. M., Yaropud, V. M., Kupchuk, I. M., Kolechko, A. V., Rutkevych, V. S., & Hraniak, V. F., et al. (2024). Efficiency of a food supplement containing Saccharomyces cerevisiae culture in the diet of broiler chickens. Regulatory Mechanisms in Biosystems, 14(3), 354-357. [Link]
Polidoro, B. R., de Oliveira, M. J. K., Braga, F. D. S. C., & Polycarpo, G. D. V. (2024). Mannan oligosaccharide as an alternative to infeed antibiotics to improve growth performance of broilers: A meta-analysis. British Poultry Science, 66(1), 98–106. [DOI:10.1080/00071668.2024.2391764] [PMID]
Qui, N. H. (2023). Baker’s Yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) and its application on poultry’s production and health: A review. Iraqi Journal of Veterinary Sciences, 37(1), 213-221. [DOI:10.33899/ijvs.2022.132912.2146]
Roy, B. C., & Ray, B. C. (2023). Potentiality of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in replacing antibiotic growth promoters on growth, gut microbiology, histology, and serum antibody titers of commercial broilers. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 32(3), 100352. [DOI:10.1016/j.japr.2023.100352]
Soren, S., Mandal, G. P., Mondal, S., Pradhan, S., Mukherjee, J., & Banerjee, D., et al. (2024). Efficacy of saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product and probiotic supplementation on growth performance, gut microflora and immunity of broiler chickens. Animals: An Open Access Journal from MDPI, 14(6), 866. [DOI:10.3390/ani14060866] [PMID] 
Sun, H., Yan, X., Wang, L., Zhu, R., Chen, M., & Yin, J., et al. (2024). Insights into the mechanism of L-malic acid on drip loss of chicken meat under commercial conditions. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, 15(1), 14. [DOI:10.1186/s40104-023-00987-1] [PMID] 
Sun, Z., Zhen, Y., Li, T., Aschalew, N. D., Wang, T., & Chen, X., et al. (2021). Yeast culture (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) and its active metabolites affect the cecal microbiome of broilers. South African Journal of Animal Science, 51(6), 678-688. [DOI:10.4314/sajas.v51i6.1]
Tuncel, S., & Kara, E. K. (2022). Determination of factors affecting profit by quantitative methods in broiler enterprises. Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, 74(03), 549-558. [DOI:10.1590/1678-4162-12599]
Ukhro, L. Z., Sugiharto, S., Sarjana, T. A., Yudiarti, T., Widiastuti, E., & Wahyuni, H. I., et al. (2021). Single and combined effects of formic acid and Saccharomyces cerevisiae on breast meat quality of the Indonesian indigenous crossbred chickens. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 803(1), 012064. [Link]
Xiang, X., Yan, N., Wang, Y., Jia, M., Feng, X., & Chen, L. (2024). Mitochondrial and endoplasmic reticulum stress pathways regulate tenderness of post-mortem chicken muscle. Food Bioscience, 60, 104321. [DOI:10.1016/j.fbio.2024.104321]
Younis, J. H., Karadas, F., & Beski, S. (2024). The Effects of Different Level of Synbiotic Supplementation in Diet of Broiler on Growth Performance, Intestinal Histology and Microbial Colony. Archives of Razi Institute, 79(6), 1227-1234. [DOI:10.32592/ARI.2024.79.6.1227] [PMID] 
Zhen, W., Zhu, T., Wang, P., Guo, F., Zhang, K., & Zhang, T., et al. (2023). Effect of dietary Saccharomyces-derived prebiotic refined functional carbohydrates as antibiotic alternative on growth performance and intestinal health of broiler chickens reared in a commercial farm. Poultry Science, 102(6), 102671. [DOI:10.1016/j.psj.2023.102671] [PMID] 
Zhu, W., Han, M., Bu, Y., Li, X., Yi, S., & Xu, Y., et al. (2024). Plant polyphenols regulating myoglobin oxidation and color stability in red meat and certain fish: A review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 64(8), 2276-2288. [DOI:10.1080/10408398.2022.2122922] [PMID]