Control of ascites mortality and improved performance and meat shelf-life in broilers using feed adjuncts with presumed antioxidant activity

Four hundred 1-d old male broilers were assigned to five experimental groups, including: 1 – Control, 2 – Vitamin E (100mg/kg), 3 – Aspirin (2000mg/kg), 4 – Synthetic antioxidant (125mg/kg, Loxidan TD 30), 5 – Pomegranate peel (15,000mg/kg). Ascites was induced by providing broilers water containing...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Animal feed science and technology 2011, Vol.170 (3-4), p.239-245
Main Authors: Rajani, J, Karimi Torshizi, M.A, Rahimi, Sh
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Antioxidant
antioxidant activity
antioxidants
ascites
Ascites syndrome
aspirin
Biological and medical sciences
birds
Broiler
erythrocytes
feed additives
Feed and pet food industries
Food industries
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Lipid oxidation
malondialdehyde
meat
Meat and meat product industries
membrane fluidity
mortality
nutritional intervention
pomegranates
shelf life
sodium chloride
vitamin E
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Four hundred 1-d old male broilers were assigned to five experimental groups, including: 1 – Control, 2 – Vitamin E (100mg/kg), 3 – Aspirin (2000mg/kg), 4 – Synthetic antioxidant (125mg/kg, Loxidan TD 30), 5 – Pomegranate peel (15,000mg/kg). Ascites was induced by providing broilers water containing 0.15g/L NaCl from 6 to 12 d. Blood samples were drawn from 12 birds per experimental group at the end of experiment (42d). Malondialdehyde (MDA) concentration in meat samples was determined. Erythrocyte osmotic fragility (EOF) was determined in whole blood as a criterion of erythrocyte membrane fluidity. Right ventricular weight ratio (RV/TV) was determined in all birds. Supplementation of diets by antioxidant feed additives reduced the experimental induced ascites mortality in comparison to control group (P
ISSN:0377-8401
1873-2216
DOI:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.09.001