\documentclass[english,german]{scrartcl}
\usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
\usepackage{geometry}
\geometry{verbose,a4paper,tmargin=1.75cm,bmargin=2cm,lmargin=2cm,rmargin=2cm,headheight=0.8cm,headsep=0.5cm,footskip=0.5cm}
\usepackage{babel}
\usepackage{url}
\urlstyle{same}
\newcommand\email{\begingroup \urlstyle{same}\Url}\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{units}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{wasysym} % enable use of \permil instead of \textperthousand
\usepackage{marvosym}
\usepackage{arabtex}
\usepackage{hyphenat}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{mdwlist}
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\relax}
\usepackage{index}
\newindex{key}{kdx}{knd}{Keywords}
\newindex{author}{idx}{ind}{Authors}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\pagestyle{fancy}
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}
\fancyfoot{}
\usepackage{ifpdf}
\ifpdf
%\usepackage[activate]{pdfcprot}
%\usepackage[owner=Tapioka, print=true, copy=true, edit=false, annotate=false,set]{pdfcrypt}
%encryption: not supported any more (since pdftex 1.10)
\usepackage[pdftex]{thumbpdf}
\usepackage[pdftex]{hyperref}
\hypersetup{pdftitle={The Effect of Additive and Non Additive Probiotic Feed Supplement (Enteroccus faecium) in the Coccidiostat Group of Birds},pdfauthor={Iyad Badran, Daniela Lekusova},pdfsubject={Tropentag 2018: Abstract},pdfkeywords={ Probiotic, Birds, Coccidiostat, Vaccine},pdfpagemode=None,colorlinks=true}
\else
\usepackage{ae}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\fi
\begin{document}
\ifpdf
\parbox[b]{2.5cm}{\resizebox*{2.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics{dtt2018.jpg}}}
\else
\parbox[b]{2.5cm}{\resizebox*{2.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics{dtt2018.eps}}}
\fi
\hfill
\parbox[b]{13.4cm}{\centering \large{\textbf{Tropentag, September 17-19, 2018, Ghent}}\\[1ex] \Large{``Global food security and food safety:\\The role of universities''\\[2ex]}}
\hspace{0.1cm}
\begin{center}
\Large{\textbf{The Effect of Additive and Non Additive Probiotic Feed Supplement (Enteroccus faecium) in the Coccidiostat Group of Birds\footnote{\textbf{Contact Address:} Iyad Badran, Palestine Technical University Khadoorie, College of Agriculture Science and Technology, Street Khadorie, 00970~Toulkarem, none, \mbox{e-mail}: \email{ebd26@yahoo.com}}\\[0.8ex]}}
\normalsize{\textsc{Iyad Badran$^{1}$, Daniela Lekusova$^{2}$}}
\end{center}
\begin{itemize*}
\item[]{\small{\textit{$^{1}$Palestine Technical University Khadoorie, College of Agriculture Science and Technology, none}}}
\item[]{\small{\textit{$^{2}$Czech University of Life Science Prague, Faculty of Tropical Agrisciences, }}}
\end{itemize*}
\index[author]{Badran, Iyad}
\index[author]{Lekusova, Daniela}
\begin{center}
\vspace{1.1cm}
\textbf{Abstract}
\begin{abstract}
\normalsize{
The effect of additive and non additive probiotic feed supplement (Enteroccus 



 







The effect of additive and non additive probiotic feed supplement (Enteroccus faecium) in the coccidiostat group of birds



Authers



Iyad Badran



Palestine Technical University Khadorie



Email:ebd26@yahoo.com



Daniela Lekusova



Czech University of Life Science Prague



  Abstract  



     One experiment was conducted to study the effect of additive and non additive probiotic feed supplement (Enteroccus faecium) in the coccidiostat group of birds, without coccidiostat or vaccine group of birds (control), and coccidia vaccine group of birds on performance of broilers. One day old broiler chicks, males of the commercial line Ross were used in the trials. A total of 1500 day old commercial broilers were randomly distributed into three tests (A, B, C), each test with 500 chicks with 4 groups, and each group with 125 chicks. ). The data were analysed by ANOVA using the linear models procedures ( kruskal-Wallisuv test) to determine the effect of additive and nonadditive probiotic feed supplement (Enteroccus faecium) on feed intake, weight gain, body weight, feed conversion, mortality and accounting of oocysts. Means of separation were made by using least significant differences (L.S.D) test for all variables at a significance level of $p < 0.05$. The results showed that no significant differences in body weight (BW) in coccidiostat with probiotic and vaccine with probiotic  groups compared to control 1(without coccidiostat without vaccine with probiotic) . Statistic assessment was done by statistic program.In generally coccidiostat with probiotic group was improved performance of broilers compared to control 1, but the vaccine with probiotic failed to affect performance compared to control 1. The results showed that no significant differences in BW in coccidiostat without probiotic and vaccine without probiotic groups compared to control 1(without coccidiostat without vaccine without probiotic). In generally coccidiostat without probiotic group was improved performance of broilers compared to control 2, but the vaccine without probiotic failed to affect performance compared to control 2



Key words: Probiotic, Vaccine, Coccidiostat, Birds











}

\vspace{0.5cm}
\end{abstract}
\end{center}
\noindent \textbf{Keywords:}  Probiotic, Birds, Coccidiostat, Vaccine
\index[key]{ Probiotic}
\index[key]{Birds}
\index[key]{Coccidiostat}
\index[key]{Vaccine}
\end{document}
