4.6 Article

Influence of hot red pepper oil in broiler diets on blood, antioxidant, immunological parameters and intestinal bacteria counts

期刊

ANIMAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 34, 期 4, 页码 1295-1304

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10495398.2021.2020132

关键词

Hot red pepper oil; hematology; blood biochemical; Cecal microbiota count; broiler chicks

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study investigated the effects of supplementing hot red pepper oil to broiler diets, and found that it positively influenced blood parameters, liver function, and cecal microbiota count in the broiler chicks.
The present study aimed to examine the impacts of supplementing hot red pepper oil (HRPO) to broiler diets. One hundred and twenty Arbor Acres chicks were divided randomly into four experimental groups as three supplementation levels of HRPO (0.25, 0.5 and 1.0 mL/kg diet) and the control group. Results showed that HRPO supplementation exhibited significantly (p < 0.001) higher red blood cells (RBCs) count, hemoglobin (Hb) and packed cells volume (PCV) percentage, while insignificant effects were shown for white blood cells (WBCs) count or its differentiation. Diets supplemented with different levels of HRPO influenced significantly (p < 0.001) the total protein (TP), albumin (Alb) and glucose (Glo) values of the studied birds. Results also indicated that different levels of HRPO supplementations significantly (p < 0.01) decreased total lipid, triglycerides (Trig), cholesterol (Cho) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL), but did not affect high density lipoprotein (HDL) values. Data revealed that supplementing broiler diets with different levels of HRPO enhanced their liver function. The bactericidal activity index was significantly increased (p < 0.02) compared with control. HRPO supplemented groups had beneficial effects (p < 0.02) on cecal microbiota count. It could be concluded that dietary HRPO supplementation could improve the general internal health status of Arbor Acres broiler chicks.

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

4.6
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