Poultry feed accounts for 60 to 70% of total cost of production. To increase the efficiency of feed, different types of growth promoter likes enzymes and antibiotics have been used. But long term use of these antibiotics has side effects like antibiotic resistance and drug residues in meat. Many countries are regulating the use of antibiotics in feed and setting up programs to reduce the overall use of antibiotics. The impending ban on antibiotics in animal feed, the current concern over the spread of antibiotic resistance genes, the failure to identify new antibiotics make a compelling cause for developing alternative prophylactics. The use of probiotics and prebiotics is recommended as an alternative to antibiotics as prophylactic, therapeutic and growth-promoting agents in poultry production.

Keeping this thing in view a 28 day long feeding trial was planned. A total of 420 day old Japanese quail chicks were randomly assigned to 7 dietary treatments each having 3 replicates of 20 birds. Seven diets were formulated in such a way that they contained similar levels of CP and ME (24% & 2900 kcal/kg) but different in Probiotics and Prebiotics levels. Diet A was ,in accordance with the nutritional requirements of Japanese quail as specified in NRC (1994) whereas, diets B, C and D contained probiotics 50mg, 75mg and 100mg respectively. Diets E, F and G contained Prebiotics ig, 2g and 3g respectively. Feed consumption, body weight gain, FCR, dressing percentage, giblet weight, plasma calcium magnesium and phosphorus, zinc retention, plasma cholesterol, economics of all experimental rations were the parameters considered. Data thus obtained were subjected to statistical analysis using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Technique. The difference among the treatment means were tested by Duncan's Multiple Range (DMR) Test.

The results of the experiment revealed that body weight gain, feed consumption, FCR, were significantly (pO.O5) difference among all the groups.

Data pertaining to economics of the experiment revealed a considerably low cost of feed/kg of the group B and C. While the group D and prebiotic added groups did not decreased the feed cost.

Conclusion:

o Use of probiotics & prebiotics increased the weight gain but the effect of prohiolics was more pronounced

o Prebiotics increased the Ca absorption

o Probiotics decreased the plasma cholesterol

o Use of probiotics proved to be economical although prebiotics also improved the weight gain and FCR but it is not economical to use it as growth promoter

From the results of above experiment it is concluded that inclusion of prehiotics have no considerable benefits but the use of probiotics at low concentration is useful. This consequently results in considerably improved performance and ultimately higher profitability of the farm.