| Literature DB >> 31300024 |
Loredana Maria Pop1, Erzsébet Varga2, Mircea Coroian1, Maria E Nedișan1, Viorica Mircean1, Mirabela Oana Dumitrache1, Lénárd Farczádi3, Ibolya Fülöp4, Mircea Dumitru Croitoru4, Mihaly Fazakas5, Adriana Gyӧrke6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coccidiosis represents a serious threat to the poultry industry, affecting production and causing high morbidity, mortality and significant costs resulting from treatment and prophylaxis. In-feed anticoccidials have been used for decades for managing avian coccidiosis and were very effective until drug resistance emerged. The use of natural remedies has become a promising alternative in combating coccidiosis in chickens. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to assess the efficiency of a commercial herbal formula (H), as oral liquid preparations, in experimental chicken coccidiosis.Entities:
Keywords: Anticoccidial effect; Broiler chickens; Eimeria; Herbal extract; LC-MS/MS; Polyphenols
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31300024 PMCID: PMC6624883 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-019-3595-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Fig. 1Dynamics of mean oocysts number/g of feces in experimental groups of chickens infected with Eimeria spp. (E. acervulina, E. maxima and E. tenella) and treated with the herbal product in different compositions compared with positive and amprolium control groups. a First battery experiment when chickens were infected with 5 × 103 sporulated oocysts of Eimeria spp. and treated with H1 and H2 formulas, 10 ml/l water. b Second battery experiment when chickens were infected with 5 × 104 sporulated oocysts of Eimeria spp. and treated with H3 formula, 5 (ITH3-5) and 10 ml/l water (ITH3-10)
The effect of the herbal product H on lesion score and performance parameters in experimental groups of chickens challenged with Eimeria spp. (E. acervulina, E. maxima and E. tenella) compared with control groups
| Lesion score | BWG | FCR | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Duodenum | Caecum | Total | |||
| BE1 | |||||
| UU1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 55.81 ± 2.54 | 1.97 ± 0.11 |
| IU1 | 0.4 ± 0.2 | 0.5 ± 0.2 | 0.9 ± 0.3 | 54.51 ± 1.55 | 1.77 ± 0.19 |
| ITA1 | 0.1 ± 0.1 | 0.1 ± 0.1 | 0.3 ± 0.2 | 53.57 ± 2.52 | 1.64 ± 0.31 |
| ITH1 | 0 | 0.5 ± 0.2 | 0.5 ± 0.2 | 53.30 ± 0.83 | 1.99 ± 0.30 |
| ITH2 | 0.4 ± 0.2 | 0.1 ± 0.1 | 0.5 ± 0.2 | 47.07 ± 1.74* | 2.24 ± 0.08 |
| BE2 | |||||
| UU2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 46.89 ± 2.68 | 1.58 ± 0.17 |
| IU2 | 1.33 ± 0.56 | 1.0 ± 0.00 | 2.33 ± 0.56 | 34.91 ± 4.39 | 2.04 ± 0.13 |
| ITA2 | 0.00 ± 0.00* | 0.8 ± 0.20 | 0.8 ± 0.20* | 42.36 ± 2.08 | 1.61 ± 0.02 |
| ITH3-5 | 0.83 ± 0.54 | 0.33 ± 0.21* | 1.17 ± 0.65 | 40.57 ± 1.92 | 1.78 ± 0.03 |
| ITH3-10 | 0.83 ± 0.48 | 0.5 ± 0.22 | 1.33 ± 0.42 | 39.80 ± 2.83 | 1.78 ± 0.02 |
*P < 0.05, Mann-Whitney test (independent samples) (MedCalc)
Abbreviations: BE, battery experiment (5 × 103 oocysts/chicken in BE1 and 5 × 104 oocysts/chicken in BE2); UU1, 2, negative control group; IU1, 2, positive control group; ITA1,2, Amprolium® 20% (Romvac Company SA, Voluntari, Ilfov, Romania), soluble powder treated group; ITH1, ITH2, ITH3-5 and ITH3-10, experimental groups treated with the herbal product in different compositions, 10 ml/l water (ITH1, ITH2 and ITH3-10) and 5 ml/l water (ITH3-5); BWG, body weight gain; FCR: feed conversion ratio
Fig. 2Anticoccidial index in experimental groups of chickens infected with Eimeria spp. (E. acervulina, E. maxima and E. tenella) and treated with the herbal product in different compositions compared with control (negative, positive and amprolium) groups. a First battery experiment when chickens were infected with 5 × 103 sporulated oocysts of Eimeria spp. and treated with H1 and H2 formulas, 10 ml/l water. b Second battery experiment when chickens were infected with 5 × 104 sporulated oocysts of Eimeria spp. and treated with H3 formula, 5 (ITH3-5) and 10 ml/l water (ITH310). The line at 120 represents the cut-off value for anticoccidian activity and values under the line means a lack of anticoccidian activity
Concentration of the tested compounds in the H3 formula
| Compound | Concentration (µg/ml) | Amount (µg) in 1 l of water (H3a) | Amount (µg) in 1 l of water (H3b) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apigenin | 1.04 | 10.4 | 5.2 |
| Kaempferol | 0.23 | 2.3 | 1.1 |
| Quercetin | 0.29 | 2.9 | 1.4 |
| Luteolin | 4.93 | 49.3 | 24.6 |
| Quercitrin | 0.62 | 6.2 | 3.1 |
| Chlorogenic acid | 75.87 | 758.7 | 379.3 |
| Caffeic acid | 15.62 | 156.2 | 78.1 |