Efficacy and Optimal Feeding Level of Rumex Nervosus Leaves on Blood Biochemistry, Carcass Characteristics, Productivity Indices, and Anticoccidial Indicators of Broiler Chickens Infected or Not Infected with Eimeria Tenella

Alqhtani, AH; Qaid, MM; Al-Mufarrej, SI; Al-Garadi, MA; Pokoo-Aikins, A

doi:10.1590/1806-9061-2022-1786

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Original Article • Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 25 (3) • 2023 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9061-2022-1786 copy

Efficacy and Optimal Feeding Level of Rumex Nervosus Leaves on Blood Biochemistry, Carcass Characteristics, Productivity Indices, and Anticoccidial Indicators of Broiler Chickens Infected or Not Infected with Eimeria Tenella

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

The current study investigated the efficacy and optimal feeding level of Rumex nervosus leaves (RNL) in broilers infected and uninfected with Eimeria tenella. In a factorial design of 2 (coccidial challenge or not) 5 (feed treatments), 250-day-old broiler chicks were randomly assigned to one of ten groups and reared for 28 days. Intestinal measurements, carcass traits, serum biochemical indices, leukograms, performance and anticoccidial indicators were investigated. All selected parameters were not significantly (p>0.05) altered by the interactions between the experimental diet and challenge at 7 days post-infection, with the exception of serum levels of albumin and globulin, as well as the anticoccidial index. Infected broilers had a lower performance indicator, poorer production efficiency, poor anticoccidial indices, heavier gizzard, longer and heavier small intestine, shorter cecum, and higher proportion of eosinophils compared with uninfected broilers. The RNL had marked anticoccidial efficacy at a dose of 5 g. The current study found that Rumex nervosus leaf powder had mild to marked, dose-dependent anticoccidial preventive efficacy in broilers. However, further studies are needed to fully understand the anticoccidial mechanisms.

Keywords:
Anticoccidial efficiency, broiler chickens; Rumex nervosus leaves; performance indicators; small intestine

Treatment¹	TP (g/dl)	Albumin (g/dl)	Globulin (g/dl)	A:G ratio	Glucose (mg/dl)	Cholesterol (mg/dl)	Creatinine (mg/dl)	ALT (U/L)	AST (U/L)
Main effects of experimental diet
1 g RNL	2.16^b3	1.04	1.12^b	0.98	247	114	0.456	12.8	126
3 g RNL	2.61^b	1.18	1.43^b	1.09	289	124	0.501	15.2	120
5 g RNL	2.86^b	1.09	1.77^ab	0.95	267	116	0.522	18.7	152
Salinomycin	2.63^b	1.04	1.60^b	0.97	260	120	0.425	11.9	125
Control	3.70^a	1.27	2.43^a	0.65	237	107	0.418	12.3	139
SEM±²	0.288	0.0673	0.276	0.167	17.11	7.94	0.0556	2.02	14.9
Main effects of coccidial challenge
No	2.79	1.11	1.68	0.93	261	121	0.491	13.6	126
Yes	2.79	1.14	1.65	0.92	258	112	0.438	14.8	139
SEM±	0.182	0.0425	0.174	0.106	10.82	5.02	0.0352	1.27	9.41
p-value
Diet	0.01	0.087	0.025	0.422	0.275	0.631	0.61	0.112	0.563
Challenge	0.998	0.624	0.905	0.932	0.86	0.193	0.285	0.509	0.337
Interaction	0.013	0.816	0.008	0.325	0.466	0.061	0.885	0.388	0.188

Treatment¹	Heterophil	Lymphocytes	Eosinophil	Basophil	Monocytes	Heterophil: Lymphocyte ratio
Main effects of experimental diet
1 g RNL	31.70^c3	58.7	3.60^b	1.6	4.3	0.55^b
3 g RNL	33.40^bc	57.5	3.80^b	1.2	4.1	0.59^ab
5 g RNL	34.40^abc	54.6	5.40^a	1.4	4.4	0.63^ab
Salinomycin	36.20^ab	55.6	2.20^c	1.5	4.5	0.66^a
Control	36.40^a	55.2	4.00^b	1.3	3.3	0.67^a
SEM±²	0.937	1.253	0.418	0.322	0.348	0.03
Main effects of coccidial challenge
No	34.56	57.04	2.96	1.44	4.12	0.61
Yes	34.28	55.6	4.64	1.36	4.12	0.62
SEM±	0.593	0.792	0.265	0.204	0.22	0.019
p-value
Diet	0.005	0.133	<0.001	0.914	0.126	0.035
Challenge	0.74	0.206	<0.001	0.783	1.00	0.832
Interaction	0.632	0.874	0.098	0.294	0.344	0.736

		Carcass components and lymphoid organ weights relative to dressed carcass weight (% DCW)
Treatment¹	DCW	Heart	Liver	Proventriculus	Gizzard	Bursa	Spleen	Thymus	Breast	Leg	FAT	Pancreas
Main effects of experimental diet
1 g RNL	670³	0.78	3.18	0.67	3.66	0.35	0.16	0.62	40.4^ab	28.97	0.86	0.43
3 g RNL	659	0.74	3.28	0.71	3.53	0.31	0.18	0.54	37.4^b	29.28	1.22	0.40
5 g RNL	619	0.73	3.21	0.69	3.76	0.29	0.15	0.69	38.2^ab	30.02	1.06	0.76
Salinomycin	694	0.75	2.80	0.59	3.54	0.29	0.14	0.63	40.6^ab	30.34	1.13	0.36
Control	711	0.70	3.10	0.61	3.60	0.27	0.12	0.55	41.6^a	29.54	0.73	0.41
SEM±²	15.775	0.013	0.084	0.023	0.042	0.014	0.010	0.028	0.788	0.247	0.090	0.073
Main effects of coccidial challenge
No	708^a	0.77	3.03	0.65	3.38^b	0.31	0.15	0.63	40.0	30.22	1.13	0.55
Yes	633^b	0.71	3.19	0.65	3.85^a	0.29	0.15	0.58	39.3	29.04	0.87	0.39
SEM±	14.37	0.016	0.060	0.015	0.083	0.014	0.008	0.025	0.455	0.309	0.078	0.078
p-value
Diet	0.246	0.648	0.095	0.050	0.873	0.422	0.134	0.358	0.014	0.636	0.255	0.493
Challenge	0.008	0.064	0.167	0.925	0.004	0.537	0.951	0.380	0.366	0.065	0.088	0.312
Interaction	0.493	0.804	0.474	0.060	0.105	0.287	0.710	0.822	0.576	0.683	0.640	0.544

	Total	Total	Length (%)				Weight (%)				IRW
Treatment¹	Length (cm)	Weight (g)	Duodenum	Jejunum	Ileum	Ceca	Duodenum	Jejunum	Ileum	Ceca	% DW^#	% BW^¥
Main effects of experimental diet
1 g RNL	152.80^a	33.75³	15.75	41.99	42.25	20.11^a	20.66	45.01^a	34.32^b	19.86	5.14	3.24
3 g RNL	148.10^a	35.45	15.60	41.57	42.83	20.93^a	18.96	43.05^ab	37.99^ab	25.33	5.51	3.52
5 g RNL	152.34^a	34.30	14.95	41.55	43.50	19.63^ab	19.05	40.83^b	40.12^a	24.80	5.67	3.56
Salinomycin	134.75^b	28.44	16.41	42.62	40.97	16.92^b	19.30	45.62^a	35.08^b	25.34	4.25	2.75
Control	153.72^a	33.64	15.80	42.46	41.74	18.23^ab	18.87	44.74^a	36.40^b	23.42	4.78	3.13
SEM±²	3.583	1.262	0.283	0.271	0.486	0.762	0.381	0.917	1.092	1.084	0.306	0.197
Main effects of coccidial challenge
No	140.40^b	30.30^b	16.41^a	41.99	41.60	20.13^a	19.48	44.50	36.02	25.63	4.41^b	2.84^b
Yes	156.28^a	35.93^a	15.00^b	42.09	42.92	18.20^b	19.25	43.20	37.55	21.87	5.74^a	3.64^a
SEM±	2.414	1.047	0.336	0.318	0.339	0.517	0.365	0.561	0.594	1.069	0.203	0.121
p-value
Diet	0.011	0.184	0.761	0.730	0.154	0.044	0.540	0.035	0.012	0.432	0.061	0.082
Challenge	<0.001	0.005	0.038	0.879	0.051	0.050	0.793	0.212	0.166	0.108	0.001	0.001
Interaction	0.303	0.356	0.104	0.058	0.860	0.067	0.631	0.280	0.671	0.823	0.070	0.097

Treatment¹	Performance productivity indicators²
Treatment¹	BW (kg)	BWG (g)	FI (g)	FCR (g:g)	PEF
Main effects of experimental diet
1 g RNL	1.228	70.1	108.3	1.57	294.4
3 g RNL	1.206	65.7	108.0	1.66	272.1
5 g RNL	1.214	66.6	109.4	1.67	275.2
Salinomycin	1.271	70.0	114.5	1.68	288.2
Control	1.197	70.0	108.3	1.61	283.4
SEM±³	0.031	2.78	3.02	0.061	14.88
Main effects of coccidial challenge
No	1.282^a	80.14^a	120.21^a	1.516^a	318.95^a
Yes	1.164^b	56.82^b	99.17^b	1.7596^b	246.36^b
SEM	0.019	1.756	1.909	0.0385	9.41
p-value
Diet	0.486	0.661	0.519	0.671	0.822
Challenge	0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001
Interaction	0.31	0.882	0.972	0.664	0.562

Treatment¹	Anticoccidial indicators
Treatment¹	Log₁₀/g excreta	Relative ratio of BW gain	Survival rate	Lesion score	Oocyst value	Anticoccidial index (ACI)
Main effects of experimental diet
1 g RNL	3.4	93	100	0.9	25.6	166^b	Moderate
3 g RNL	3.3	91	100	0.8	19.0	171^ab	Marked
5 g RNL	3.2	94	100	0.7	12.0	181^a	Excellent
Salinomycin	3.2	96	100	0.4	12.5	184^a	Excellent
Control	3.5	88	98.3	1.3	50.0	135^c	Slight
SEM±²	0.07	1.48	0.75	0.13	5.86	8.76
Main effects of coccidial challenge
No	0.0^b	101^a	100^a	0.0^b	0.0^b	200.7^a	Excellent
Yes	6.6^a	84^b	99.3^b	1.6^a	47.6^a	133.7^b	In active
SEM	0.05	8.54	0.472	0.085	3.704	6.7
p-value
Diet	0.486	0.661	0.519	0.671	0.822	0.015
Challenge	0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.02
Interaction	0.31	0.882	0.972	0.664	0.562	0.035

Ingredient	Period
Ingredient	Starter	Finisher
Yellow corn	53.218	58.09
Soybean meal	37.85	32.15
Wheat bran	2.00	2.2
Corn gluten meal	1.4	0
Choline chloride CL 60	0.05	0.05
Corn oil	1.5	4.2
Dicalcuim phosphate DCP	1.98	1.615
Ground limestone	0.9	0.79
Salt	0.400	0.30
DL-methionine	0.292	0.25
Lysine-HCL	0.21	0.105
Vitamin-mineral premix¹	0.200	0.200
Total	100	100
Metabolic energy, kcal/kg	3000	3200
Crude protein, %	23.0	20.0
Non phytate P, %	0.48	0.405
Calcium, %	0.96	0.81
d-lysine, %	1.28	1.06
Sulfur amino acids, %	0.95	0.83
Threonine, %	0.86	0.71

Fundação de Apoio à Ciência e Tecnologia Avicolas Rua Barão de Paranapanema, 146 - Sala 72, Bloco A, Bosque, Campinas, SP - 13026-010. Tel.: 19 3255-8500 - Campinas - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revista@facta.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Corresponding author e-mail address Dr. Mohammed M. Qaid King Saud University - Riyadh Riyadh - 145111 - Saudi Arabia. Phone: 00966509844024 Email: mqaid@ksu.edu.sa