4.7 Article

A comparison of the immune response of a 2001 commercial broiler with a 1957 randombred broiler strain when fed representative 1957 and 2001 broiler diets

Journal

POULTRY SCIENCE
Volume 82, Issue 10, Pages 1519-1529

Publisher

POULTRY SCIENCE ASSOC INC
DOI: 10.1093/ps/82.10.1519

Keywords

broiler; diet; genetic change; immunocompetence; sex

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Immunocompetence of the 2001 Ross 308 broiler strain and the 1957 Athens Canadian Randombred Control (ACRBC) strain was compared when they were given diets representative of those that were being used in 1957 and 2001. Antibody response against SRBC, in vivo lymphoproliferation against Phytohemagglutinin-P (PHA-P), and inflammatory and phagocytic responses of the macrophages were measured. The Ross 308 strain on the 2001 diet had higher BW at 24 d of age (P = 0.0001), whereas the ACRBC had greater lymphoid organ weights (except thymus) relative to BW (P less than or equal to 0.003). The ACRBC strain showed greater antibody responses against SRBC than the 2001 Ross 308 birds for much of the trial (P less than or equal to 0.0362). However, the Ross 308 broilers had greater PHAP-induced toe-web swelling response (P less than or equal to 0.0129). Inflammatory exudate cell numbers were higher in the Ross 308 broilers than in the ACRBC birds (P = 0.0261). The percentage of macrophages, that phagocytized SRBC was comparable between the two strains, but the number of SRBC phagocytized by individual macrophages, was higher (P = 0.0122) in the Ross 308 broiler than in the ACRBC chickens. Nitrite production by macrophages following lipopolysacharide stimulation was comparable between the two strains. Interactions of diet, strain, and sex were inconsistent among all parameters tested. In conclusion, the current study suggested that genetic selection for improved broiler performance has resulted in a decrease in the adaptive arm of the immune response but an increase in the cell-mediated and inflammatory responses.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available