4.7 Article

Anticoccidial and antioxidant effects of plants derived polyphenol in broilers exposed to induced coccidiosis

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 26, 期 14, 页码 14194-14199

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-019-04615-2

关键词

Chickens; Coccidia; Natural product; Amelioration

资金

  1. Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University [NFG-7-18-03-03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The comparative anticoccidial effects of herbal products with a standard synthetic anticoccidial drug on the production performance, intestinal histology, and some blood biochemical parameters in broilers exposed to experimental coccidiosis was investigated. One-day-old broiler chicks (n=336) were randomly distributed into six groups. One group served as a control, the second was treated with the coccidial infection, the third was treated with synthetic anticoccidial drug (Elancoban), the fourth group was treated with an herbal product (Cozante), the fifth group of birds was treated with Norponin, and the sixth group was treated with Emanox. The results indicated that BWG, BW, FCR, and PEF decreased significantly (P<0.05) in the positive control. Body weight gain, BW, and PEF were significantly (P<0.01) high in Elancoban-treated birds. On day 25, lesion score was significantly (P<0.01) low in duodenum, jejunum, and ceca in Elancoban-treated birds control. On day 30, lesion score was significantly (P<0.05) low in Emanox-treated birds as compared with the positive control. Albumin concentration was significantly (P<0.01) low in Emanox while glucose concentration was significantly (P<0.01) high in all the treated groups compared with the positive control birds. The total antioxidant capacity was significantly (P<0.05) high in Emanox on day 15 and 30 as compared with the positive control. The results showed that birds exposed to the natural anticoccidial products showed improved villi and total antioxidant capacity. We concluded that herbal products performed better than the positive control group.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据