The study was carried out to investigate the effects of by-products of herbal medicines on performance, enteric microflora and blood biochemical profiles and immunological parameters in broiler chicks. A total of ninety-six, 3-d-old birds were assigned to a basal diet (CON) or a basal diet supplemented with 0.15 % (HM1), 0.3% (HM2) or 0.5% (HM3) by-products of herbal medicines. There was a significantly (p<0.05) improved feed conversion ratio (FCR) in birds fed diet supplemented with 0.15% by-products of herbal medicines (HM1) compared with the control birds during starter period (3โผ21 days). However, no difference in body weight, feed intake, total gain and FCR among treatment groups was observed during the entire feeding period (3โผ35 days). The colony forming units (CFU) of E. coli and Lactobacilli in the digesta of ileo-cecum was not also affected by dietary treatment. Serum AST (aspartate aminotransferase) and glucose decreased (p<0.05) in birds fed diets supplemented with herbal medicines compared with those fed the basal diet. In particular, the birds fed diets supplemented with herbal medicines showed a significant (p<0.05) increase in blood mean corpuscular volume (MCV) level compared with the control birds. However, the most of blood biochemical and hematological parameters and immunoglobulins (IgG and IgA) were not affected by the dietary treatment. In conclusion, the low level of dietary herbal medicines showed beneficial effects on FCR during starter period and liver functions, suggesting that by-products of herbal medicines may be applicable as functional feed additives in birds.( (Huyghebaert et al., 2011;Jang et al., 2007;Lee et al., 2011;Wenk, 2000 (Gallois et al., 2009;Ilsley et al., 2005;Jang et al., 2013;Kang et al. 2010;Olas et al., 2003). ์ต๊ทผ ๋ฉด์ญ์ฆ๊ฐ์ ๋ก์ ๊ฐ์ฅ ์ฃผ๋ชฉ์ ๋ฐ๊ณ ์๋ ๊ฒ์ ฮฒ-glucan์ผ๋ก ๋์์ธํฌ๋ฅผ ํ์ฑํ์ํค๋ ์์ฉ๊ณผ ๋ฉด์ญ์ธํฌ์ ์์ฉ์ฒด๊ฐ ฮฒ-glucan์ ์ธ์ ํ์ฌ ๋์์ธํฌ์ ๋ฉด์ญ์์ฉ์ ์ฆ๊ฐ์ํจ๋ค (Cox et al. 2010).ํ๋ฐฉ์์ฝ๋ฌผ์ง๋ก์ ๊ฐ์ด, ๊ตฌ๊ธฐ์ ๋ฑ์ ๋ฉด์ญ์ฆ๊ฐ, ํด๋
์์ฉ, ๊ฐ ๊ธฐ๋ฅ์ฆ์ง, ์ฝ๋ ์คํ
๋กค ์ ํ, ํญ์ฐํ ์์ฉ ๋ฑ๊ณผ ๊ฐ์ ๋ค์ ํ ์ฝ๋ฆฌ์์ฉ์ด ๋ณด๊ณ ๋์๋ค (Kim et al., 2015;Lee and Ha, 1994;Vaya et al., 1997 (Table 5).์ก๊ณ ํ์ก์ ์ ํ๊ตฌ ์กฐ์ฑ (Table 6) ๋ฐ ๋ฐฑํ๊ตฌ ๊ฐ๋ณ๊ณ์(์ ๋์ %, differential counts)๋ฅผ ์กฐ์ฌํ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ (Table 7)