| Literature DB >> 28948048 |
Sahil Kalia1, Vijay K Bharti1, Arup Giri1, Bhuvnesh Kumar2.
Abstract
Extreme climatic conditions and hypobaric hypoxia at high altitude hinders the growth and productivity of chickens. The present study was carried out to examine the effect of aqueous extract of Prunus armeniaca seeds on health, survivability, antioxidants, plasma biochemical parameters, and immune status of broiler chickens at high altitude. Phytochemical analysis of extract revealed the presence of high phenolics, flavonoids, and carotenoids contents. Before the in vivo study, in vitro efficacy evaluation indicated a significant protective effect of the extract in chicken peripheral blood lymphocytes. For in vivo study, experimental groups include control (fed the basal diet), and treatment T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, and T6 which received an aqueous extract of P. armeniaca in drinking water at concentrations of 100, 150, 200, 300, 400, and 800 mg/kg body weight of chicken respectively, along with basal diet for 42 days. Body weight was significantly increased in all treatment groups as compared to control group and the highest body weight was recorded in T3 group. Higher profit was gained in treatment groups due to lesser mortality in chickens. Moreover, chicken in the treatment groups had significantly higher total antioxidant capacity, free radical scavenging activity, interleukin-2, total protein, albumin, globulin level and lower malondialdehyde, interleukin-6, glucose, cholesterol, triglyceride, ALT and AST level as compared to control group. Results suggest that, P. armeniaca extract at 200 mg/kg body weight of chicken, exhibited the beneficial effect on growth performance and survivability rate of broilers and therefore, could be useful as phytogenic feed additive for broiler chickens at high altitude cold desert.Entities:
Keywords: Antioxidant; Broiler chickens; Growth performance; High altitude; Immune responses; Prunus armeniaca
Year: 2017 PMID: 28948048 PMCID: PMC5602479 DOI: 10.1016/j.jare.2017.08.005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Adv Res ISSN: 2090-1224 Impact factor: 10.479
DPPH and ABTS radical scavenging activity of aqueous extract of Prunus armeniaca.
| Inhibition (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DPPH radical scavenging capacity | ABTS radical scavenging capacity | |||
| Concentration (µg/mL) | Ascorbic acid | Ascorbic acid | ||
| 20 | 29.10 ± 0.62 | 39.57 ± 0.76 | 15.32 ± 0.28 | 21.36 ± 1.12 |
| 40 | 30.16 ± 0.66 | 45.40 ± 0.89 | 19.80 ± 0.31 | 29.37 ± 0.45 |
| 60 | 32.51 ± 0.79 | 49.80 ± 0.63 | 25.54 ± 0.41 | 35.86 ± 0.54 |
| 80 | 35.19 ± 0.73 | 53.98 ± 0.57 | 31.10 ± 0.57 | 41.18 ± 0.71 |
| 100 | 40.22 ± 0.85 | 60.59 ± 1.08 | 37.04 ± 0.69 | 55.94 ± 0.96 |
Value are given as mean ± S.E of four replicates.
Total antioxidant capacity, total phenolic, flavonoids and carotenoid content in Prunus armeniaca seed extract.
| Sample | FRAP (µM Fe (II)/g of extract) | Total phenolic (mg GAE/g of extract | Flavonoids (mg QE/g of extract) | Carotenoids (mg/100 g extract) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 409.78 ± 16.61 | 0.68 ± 0.22 | 0.40 ± 0.14 | 0.68 ± 0.31 |
Value are given as mean ± S.E of four replicates.
Fig. 1In vitro efficacy of P. armeniaca extract. (a) Effect of aqueous extract of P. armeniaca on chicken PBL proliferation. Each bar represents the mean ± SE value obtained from four culture wells. Each value was compared with untreated control cells as well as with in different dose concentrations (b) Cytoprotective activity of extract against H2O2 induced toxicity in chicken PBL. Each value was compared with H2O2 stimulated cells as well as with in different dose concentrations. Bars having different superscripts (a, b, c, d, e) differ significantly (P < 0.05) according to Duncan’s multiple range test.
Effect of aqueous extract of Prunus armeniaca on growth performance of broiler chickens at high altitude.
| Treatments | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameters | Control | T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | T5 | T6 |
| Initial live body weight (g/chick) | 37.20 ± 0.40 | 37.46 ± 0.55 | 38.00 ± 0.37 | 38.13 ± 0.63 | 37.13 ± 0.52 | 37.60 ± 0.66 | 38.06 ± 0.52 |
| Live weight at 21 day (g/chick) | 184.71 ± 7.69 | 195.46 ± 4.76 | 203.14 ± 8.04 | 209.20 ± 9.46 | 204.28 ± 8.32 | 198.00 ± 3.98 | 200.40 ± 10.78 |
| Live weight at 42 day (g/chick) | 348.53a ± 10.41 | 410.13b ± 8.30 | 417.57b,c ± 9.03 | 450.14d ± 8.59 | 440.28c,d ± 8.70 | 408.80b ± 10.41 | 398.15b ± 8.30 |
| Cumulative feed intake up to 42 day (g/chick) | 1511.21 ± 6.26 | 1514.12 ± 6.00 | 1524.41 ± 5.77 | 1519.33 ± 5.26 | 1519.40 ± 4.80 | 1525.46 ± 4.70 | 1518.48 ± 5.92 |
| Feed conversion ratio at 42 day | 4.86d ± 0.04 | 4.06b ± 0.05 | 4.02b ± 0.06 | 3.69a ± 0.05 | 3.77a ± 0.05 | 4.11b ± 0.04 | 4.22c ± 0.04 |
| Cumulative water intake up to 42 day (mL/chick) | 2245.60 ± 6.27 | 2250.52 ± 5.44 | 2240.84 ± 5.31 | 2255.56 ± 6.72 | 2250.35 ± 5.39 | 2250.19 ± 6.45 | 2240.15 ± 5.59 |
C, T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, and T6 represent groups of chickens received aqueous extract of Prunus armeniaca in drinking water at concentration level of 0, 100, 150, 200, 300, 400, and 800 mg/kg body weight of chicken respectively.
Results are presented as mean ± S.E, n = 15 (3 replicates with 5 chickens each).
Means bearing the different superscripts (a, b, c, d) in a row differ significantly (P < 0.05).
Economics and mortality rate (%) in chicken supplemented with P. armeniaca.
| Description | Control | T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | T5 | T6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total mortality (%) | 20.00 | 6.67 | 6.67 | 0.00 | 6.67 | 0.00 | 6.67 |
| Mortality by ascites (%) | 13.30 | 0.00 | 6.67 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Mortality by coccidiosis (%) | 6.67 | 6.67 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Mortality by other reasons (%) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 6.67 | 0.00 | 6.67 |
| Cost of extract/chicken (Rs.) | Nil | 0.88 | 1.48 | 1.89 | 2.80 | 3.54 | 6.98 |
| Cost of feed/chicken (@25/kg Rs.) | 37.78 | 37.85 | 38.11 | 37.98 | 37.99 | 38.14 | 37.96 |
| Total feed cost/chicken (Rs.) | 37.78 | 38.73 | 39.59 | 39.87 | 40.79 | 41.68 | 44.94 |
| Sale of chicken at 42 day (@Rs. 200/kg live weight) | 69.70 | 82.02 | 83.51 | 90.02 | 88.05 | 81.76 | 79.63 |
| Loss due to mortality (Rs.) | 209.10 | 82.02 | 83.51 | 0.00 | 88.05 | 0.00 | 79.63 |
| Total benefit per group (Rs.) | – | 127.08 | 125.59 | 209.10 | 121.05 | 209.10 | 129.49 |
C, T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, and T6 represent groups of chickens received aqueous extract of P. armeniaca in drinking water at concentration level of 0, 100, 150, 200, 300, 400, and 800 mg/kg body weight of chicken, respectively.
Due to limited availability of fresh chickens at high altitude the rates are very high.
Loss due to mortality = Sale cost per chicken X total mortality.
Total benefit per group = Loss from mortality in control – loss from mortality in treatment.
Plasma total protein, albumin, globulin, and glucose values of broilers supplemented with aqueous extract of Prunus armeniaca.
| Groups | 0 day | 21st day | 42nd day |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 3.86 ± 0.09 | 4.11a ± 0.15 | 4.15a ± 0.21 |
| T1 | 3.87 ± 0.13 | 4.60bc ± 0.17 | 5.33c ± 0.19 |
| T2 | 3.80 ± 0.10 | 4.54b ± 0.14 | 5.22b ± 0.17 |
| T3 | 3.81 ± 0.13 | 4.76d ± 0.19 | 5.51d ± 0.20 |
| T4 | 3.84 ± 0.08 | 4.64c ± 0.16 | 5.40cd ± 0.23 |
| T5 | 3.80 ± 0.05 | 4.47b ± 0.14 | 5.16b ± 0.18 |
| T6 | 3.81 ± 0.07 | 4.51b ± 0.15 | 5.28bc ± 0.16 |
| Control | 2.14 ± 0.06 | 2.17a ± 0.10 | 2.23a ± 0.15 |
| T1 | 2.15 ± 0.04 | 2.61c ± 0.13 | 3.16b ± 0.21 |
| T2 | 2.14 ± 0.06 | 2.53bc ± 0.09 | 3.14b ± 0.18 |
| T3 | 2.10 ± 0.08 | 2.68d ± 0.15 | 3.21b ± 0.20 |
| T4 | 2.11 ± 0.10 | 2.59c ± 0.14 | 3.20b ± 0.23 |
| T5 | 2.10 ± 0.08 | 2.41b ± 0.10 | 3.12b ± 0.18 |
| T6 | 2.11 ± 0.11 | 2.45b ± 0.12 | 3.17b ± 0.20 |
| Control | 1.72 ± 0.08 | 1.94 ± 0.11 | 1.92a ± 0.09 |
| T1 | 1.72 ± 0.08 | 1.99 ± 0.16 | 2.17c ± 0.14 |
| T2 | 1.66 ± 0.06 | 2.01 ± 0.14 | 2.08b ± 0.17 |
| T3 | 1.71 ± 0.09 | 2.08 ± 0.19 | 2.30d ± 0.21 |
| T4 | 1.73 ± 0.10 | 2.05 ± 0.15 | 2.20c ± 0.16 |
| T5 | 1.70 ± 0.06 | 2.06 ± 0.21 | 2.04b ± 0.13 |
| T6 | 1.70 ± 0.06 | 2.06 ± 0.20 | 2.11bc ± 0.15 |
| Control | 316.25 ± 7.85 | 323.25c ± 5.37 | 308.25d ± 6.68 |
| T1 | 316.00 ± 6.67 | 282.25a ± 7.92 | 257.00a ± 5.95 |
| T2 | 316.75 ± 9.53 | 309.00b ± 6.45 | 293.25c ± 4.78 |
| T3 | 314.50 ± 7.92 | 285.25a ± 6.20 | 261.50a ± 4.29 |
| T4 | 314.25 ± 9.62 | 310.75b ± 5.97 | 289.00c ± 9.85 |
| T5 | 318.75 ± 5.54 | 313.00b ± 4.60 | 301.50cd ± 7.59 |
| T6 | 315.50 ± 7.59 | 289.40a ± 6.70 | 272.75b ± 4.87 |
C, T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, and T6 represent groups of chickens received aqueous extract of Prunus armeniaca in drinking water at concentration level of 0, 100, 150, 200, 300, 400, and 800 mg/kg body weight of chicken, respectively.
Results are presented as mean ± S.E, n = 8.
Means bearing the different superscripts (a, b, c, d) in a columns differ significantly (P < 0.05).
Plasma cholesterol, triglyceride, HDL, and LDL values of broilers supplemented with aqueous extract of Prunus armeniaca.
| Groups | 0 day | 21st day | 42nd day |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 184.50 ± 10.50 | 193.00c ± 06.09 | 189.75c ± 10.54 |
| T1 | 184.75 ± 09.19 | 175.25ab ± 05.55 | 159.25b ± 04.84 |
| T2 | 185.25 ± 11.03 | 174.75ab ± 13.13 | 153.25ab ± 04.58 |
| T3 | 186.50 ± 09.57 | 166.75a ± 05.46 | 147.00a ± 07.22 |
| T4 | 184.25 ± 11.50 | 175.25ab ± 15.63 | 166.25b ± 05.02 |
| T5 | 186.25 ± 10.75 | 173.00ab ± 15.86 | 168.75b ± 04.05 |
| T6 | 185.75 ± 10.15 | 179.75b ± 10.11 | 169.25b ± 04.78 |
| Control | 124.50 ± 2.50 | 126.50b ± 2.21 | 121.50b ± 1.25 |
| T1 | 125.75 ± 3.27 | 123.75ab ± 2.46 | 116.25ab ± 2.17 |
| T2 | 124.25 ± 3.27 | 124.50ab ± 3.12 | 120.75b ± 1.25 |
| T3 | 123.50 ± 2.59 | 118.25a ± 1.03 | 111.50a ± 1.84 |
| T4 | 124.75 ± 1.10 | 122.75ab ± 1.25 | 115.75ab ± 2.32 |
| T5 | 123.25 ± 1.25 | 122.25ab ± 1.43 | 120.00b ± 1.47 |
| T6 | 124.50 ± 2.50 | 126.50b ± 2.21 | 121.50b ± 1.25 |
| Control | 18.26 ± 0.40 | 21.81 ± 0.44 | 23.45 ± 0.51 |
| T1 | 18.52 ± 0.51 | 22.27 ± 0.47 | 24.12 ± 0.49 |
| T2 | 17.84 ± 0.49 | 22.90 ± 0.55 | 23.81 ± 0.60 |
| T3 | 18.90 ± 0.46 | 23.04 ± 0.51 | 25.19 ± 0.58 |
| T4 | 17.89 ± 0.42 | 22.10 ± 0.55 | 24.33 ± 0.60 |
| T5 | 18.12 ± 0.50 | 22.65 ± 0.57 | 25.00 ± 0.62 |
| T6 | 18.55 ± 0.40 | 22.37 ± 0.38 | 24.26 ± 0.55 |
| Control | 45.19 ± 0.79 | 41.32 ± 0.76 | 40.11 ± 0.84 |
| T1 | 46.11 ± 0.82 | 40.16 ± 0.90 | 39.85 ± 0.82 |
| T2 | 45.80 ± 0.85 | 41.03 ± 0.90 | 40.10 ± 0.78 |
| T3 | 46.31 ± 0.91 | 39.56 ± 0.95 | 38.83 ± 0.90 |
| T4 | 45.21 ± 0.90 | 40.76 ± 0.92 | 40.21 ± 0.89 |
| T5 | 46.07 ± 0.87 | 41.09 ± 0.90 | 39.74 ± 0.92 |
| T6 | 45.89 ± 0.91 | 40.70 ± 0.95 | 39.45 ± 0.93 |
C, T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, and T6 represent groups of chickens received aqueous extract of Prunus armeniaca in drinking water at concentration level of 0, 100, 150, 200, 300, 400, and 800 mg/kg body weight of chicken, respectively.
Results are presented as mean ± S.E, n = 8.
Means bearing the different superscripts (a, b, c) in a columns differ significantly (P < 0.05).
Plasma creatinine, uric acid, ALT, and AST values of broilers supplemented with aqueous extract of Prunus armeniaca.
| Groups | 0 day | 21 day | 42 day | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 0.87 ± 0.13 | 1.25 ± 0.06 | 1.22 ± 0.12 | |
| T1 | 0.90 ± 0.11 | 1.27 ± 0.04 | 1.22 ± 0.06 | |
| T2 | 0.92 ± 0.12 | 1.22 ± 0.20 | 1.20 ± 0.05 | |
| T3 | 0.87 ± 0.12 | 1.22 ± 0.07 | 1.18 ± 0.07 | |
| T4 | 0.95 ± 0.09 | 1.22 ± 0.16 | 1.32 ± 0.12 | |
| T5 | 0.90 ± 0.09 | 1.20 ± 0.04 | 1.22 ± 0.04 | |
| T6 | 0.92 ± 0.13 | 1.21 ± 0.05 | 1.30 ± 0.10 | |
| Control | 5.02 ± 0.14 | 5.38 ± 0.16 | 6.18 ± 0.22 | |
| T1 | 5.01 ± 0.18 | 5.41 ± 0.24 | 6.18 ± 0.26 | |
| T2 | 5.01 ± 0.17 | 5.37 ± 0.21 | 6.15 ± 0.23 | |
| T3 | 5.06 ± 0.11 | 5.42 ± 0.26 | 6.17 ± 0.25 | |
| T4 | 5.02 ± 0.16 | 5.44 ± 0.19 | 6.10 ± 0.23 | |
| T5 | 5.02 ± 0.14 | 5.44 ± 0.21 | 6.12 ± 0.27 | |
| T6 | 5.01 ± 0.15 | 5.37 ± 0.22 | 6.15 ± 0.24 | |
| Control | 98.50 ± 2.10 | 89.75d ± 1.31 | 84.00c ± 3.24 | |
| T1 | 97.25 ± 3.19 | 68.50b ± 3.40 | 56.25a ± 2.32 | |
| T2 | 97.00 ± 3.89 | 64.00b ± 2.16 | 57.75a ± 2.56 | |
| T3 | 97.25 ± 1.65 | 57.00a ± 1.82 | 54.75a ± 1.49 | |
| T4 | 98.25 ± 0.85 | 72.75bc ± 2.92 | 57.25a ± 1.93 | |
| T5 | 98.50 ± 2.95 | 79.75c ± 1.49 | 68.75b ± 1.79 | |
| T6 | 98.00 ± 1.29 | 68.00b ± 3.58 | 61.00a ± 1.47 | |
| Control | 23.50 ± 2.10 | 19.25b ± 1.49 | 18.50c ± 1.32 | |
| T1 | 22.50 ± 2.10 | 18.50b ± 1.19 | 14.50b ± 1.75 | |
| T2 | 23.75 ± 1.65 | 16.25ab ± 1.31 | 12.75b ± 1.31 | |
| T3 | 23.00 ± 2.79 | 13.75a ± 1.37 | 08.50a ± 0.64 | |
| T4 | 22.50 ± 1.32 | 17.25ab ± 1.10 | 14.75b ± 1.31 | |
| T5 | 22.75 ± 1.97 | 19.00b ± 1.29 | 13.75b ± 1.32 | |
| 23.00 ± 0.91 | 16.75ab ± 1.25 | 12.50b ± 0.95 | ||
C, T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, and T6 represent groups of chickens received aqueous extract of Prunus armeniaca in drinking water at concentration level of 0, 100, 150, 200, 300, 400, and 800 mg/kg body weight of chicken, respectively.
Results are presented as mean ± S.E, n = 8.
Means bearing the different superscripts (a, b, c, d) in a columns differ significantly (P < 0.05).
Effect of Prunus armeniaca on MDA, TAC, and free radical-scavenging activity of broiler chickens.
| Groups | 0 day | 21st day | 42nd day | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 8.41 ± 0.29 | 8.06d ± 0.18 | 8.13e ± 0.19 | |
| T1 | 8.38 ± 0.31 | 6.47b ± 0.24 | 4.43b ± 0.17 | |
| T2 | 8.48 ± 0.36 | 6.60b ± 0.21 | 5.13c ± 0.16 | |
| T3 | 8.37 ± 0.27 | 6.07a ± 0.15 | 4.08a ± 0.18 | |
| T4 | 8.46 ± 0.40 | 6.84c ± 0.19 | 4.52b ± 0.08 | |
| T5 | 8.51 ± 0.40 | 7.02c ± 0.23 | 5.16c ± 0.09 | |
| T6 | 8.43 ± 0.33 | 6.90c ± 0.18 | 5.65d ± 0.15 | |
| Control | 1098.26 ± 11.21 | 1189.04a ± 14.63 | 1167.57a ± 16.87 | |
| T1 | 1098.53 ± 10.06 | 1313.78c ± 17.48 | 1686.24c ± 17.61 | |
| T2 | 1097.33 ± 07.78 | 1392.45d ± 17.36 | 1487.58b ± 18.24 | |
| T3 | 1098.24 ± 07.92 | 1496.98e ± 15.47 | 1785.26e ± 18.08 | |
| T4 | 1096.34 ± 07.56 | 1380.01d ± 14.63 | 1741.18d ± 15.86 | |
| T5 | 1096.26 ± 07.60 | 1300.53c ± 19.58 | 1668.17c ± 17.29 | |
| T6 | 1097.31 ± 09.94 | 1224.30b ± 20.03 | 1474.65b ± 15.83 | |
| Control | 41.92 ± 0.21 | 43.14a ± 1.37 | 42.87a ± 2.11 | |
| T1 | 41.52 ± 0.40 | 55.94c ± 0.87 | 64.30c ± 1.87 | |
| T2 | 41.65 ± 0.47 | 49.26b ± 0.85 | 63.03c ± 1.41 | |
| T3 | 41.96 ± 0.27 | 59.61d ± 0.78 | 66.13d ± 0.63 | |
| T4 | 41.43 ± 0.48 | 56.67c ± 2.43 | 61.94bc ± 0.82 | |
| T5 | 41.91 ± 0.12 | 52.48bc ± 1.23 | 58.86b ± 2.93 | |
| T6 | 42.03 ± 0.16 | 48.13b ± 1.03 | 57.16b ± 1.82 | |
C, T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, and T6 represent groups of chickens received aqueous extract of Prunus armeniaca in drinking water at concentration level of 0, 100, 150, 200, 300, 400, and 800 mg/kg body weight of chicken, respectively.
Results are presented as mean ± S.E, n = 8.
Means bearing the different superscripts (a, b, c, d, e) in a columns differ significantly (P < 0.05).
Plasma IL-1, IL-2, and IL-6 level in broilers supplemented with aqueous extract of Prunus armeniaca.
| Groups | 0 day | 21st day | 42nd day |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 5.45 ± 0.33 | 5.48 ± 0.30 | 5.51 ± 0.34 |
| T1 | 5.43 ± 0.27 | 5.46 ± 0.41 | 5.49 ± 0.38 |
| T2 | 5.45 ± 0.21 | 5.48 ± 0.44 | 5.50 ± 0.49 |
| T3 | 5.46 ± 0.30 | 5.45 ± 0.35 | 5.47 ± 0.42 |
| T4 | 5.44 ± 0.36 | 5.43 ± 0.40 | 5.46 ± 0.50 |
| T5 | 5.45 ± 0.28 | 5.47 ± 0.43 | 5.49 ± 0.46 |
| T6 | 5.43 ± 0.33 | 5.45 ± 0.31 | 5.48 ± 0.40 |
| Control | 8.56 ± 0.44 | 8.59a ± 0.51 | 8.60a ± 0.47 |
| T1 | 8.55 ± 0.49 | 8.80b ± 0.56 | 9.15b ± 0.56 |
| T2 | 8.54 ± 0.38 | 8.80b ± 0.50 | 9.12b ± 0.60 |
| T3 | 8.57 ± 0.45 | 8.93c ± 0.62 | 9.37c ± 0.65 |
| T4 | 8.56 ± 0.44 | 8.90c ± 0.56 | 9.36c ± 0.58 |
| T5 | 8.58 ± 0.33 | 8.82b ± 0.42 | 9.10b ± 0.60 |
| T6 | 8.55 ± 0.36 | 8.83b ± 0.50 | 9.15b ± 0.50 |
| Control | 8.47 ± 0.24 | 8.56b ± 0.45 | 8.61b ± 0.40 |
| T1 | 8.49 ± 0.32 | 8.44a ± 0.26 | 8.39a ± 0.37 |
| T2 | 8.47 ± 0.26 | 8.45a ± 0.30 | 8.39a ± 0.26 |
| T3 | 8.45 ± 0.20 | 8.41a ± 0.28 | 8.35a ± 0.41 |
| T4 | 8.46 ± 0.36 | 8.44a ± 0.23 | 8.37a ± 0.30 |
| T5 | 8.50 ± 0.38 | 8.45a ± 0.37 | 8.37a ± 0.44 |
| T6 | 8.46 ± 0.38 | 8.43a ± 0.40 | 8.34a ± 0.30 |
C, T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, and T6 represent groups of chickens received aqueous extract of Prunus armeniaca in drinking water at concentration level of 0, 100, 150, 200, 300, 400, and 800 mg/kg body weight of chicken, respectively.
Results are presented as mean ± S.E, n = 8.
Means bearing the different superscripts (a, b, c) in a columns differ significantly (P < 0.05).