4.4 Article

Electrolysed reduced water decreases reactive oxygen species-induced oxidative damage to skeletal muscle and improves performance in broiler chickens exposed to medium-term chronic heat stress

期刊

BRITISH POULTRY SCIENCE
卷 54, 期 4, 页码 503-509

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00071668.2013.801067

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Science and Culture of Japan [24380147, 22658081]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22658081] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

1. The present study was designed to achieve a reduction of reactive oxygen species (ROS)-induced oxidative damage to skeletal muscle and to improve the performance of broiler chickens exposed to chronic heat stress. 2. Chickens were given a control diet with normal drinking water, or diets supplemented with cashew nut shell liquid (CNSL) or grape seed extract (GSE), or a control diet with electrolysed reduced water (ERW) for 19 d after hatch. Thereafter, chickens were exposed to a temperature of either 34 degrees C continuously for a period of 5 d, or maintained at 24 degrees C, on the same diets. 3. The control broilers exposed to 34 degrees C showed decreased weight gain and feed consumption and slightly increased ROS production and malondialdehyde (MDA) concentrations in skeletal muscle. The chickens exposed to 34 degrees C and supplemented with ERW showed significantly improved growth performance and lower ROS production and MDA contents in tissues than control broilers exposed to 34 degrees C. Following heat exposure, CNSL chickens performed better with respect to weight gain and feed consumption, but still showed elevated ROS production and skeletal muscle oxidative damage. GSE chickens did not exhibit improved performance or reduced skeletal muscle oxidative damage. 4. In conclusion, this study suggests that ERW could partially inhibit ROS-induced oxidative damage to skeletal muscle and improve growth performance in broiler chickens under medium-term chronic heat treatment.

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

4.4
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