| Literature DB >> 31440002 |
Hesham Attia Shedeed1, Bahaa Farrag1, Eman Ali Elwakeel2, Ibrahim Samir Abd El-Hamid1, Muhammed Ahmed-Hilmy El-Rayes1.
Abstract
AIM: The present study was conducted to study the effect of propolis administration on bio-hematological parameters, antioxidant enzyme activities, and productivity of Barki ewes during late pregnancy and lactation under the arid conditions.Entities:
Keywords: Chinese propolis; antioxidants; immunoglobulin; productivity; sheep; thermorespiratory responses
Year: 2019 PMID: 31440002 PMCID: PMC6661492 DOI: 10.14202/vetworld.2019.834-843
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vet World ISSN: 0972-8988
Ingredients and chemical composition of concentrate mixture and berseem hay.
| Ingredients of concentrate mixture | g/kg | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yellow corn | 250 | |||
| Cottonseed meal | 169.7 | |||
| Wheat bran | 300 | |||
| Sunflower meal | 250 | |||
| NaCl | 10 | |||
| Limestone | 20 | |||
| Trace minerals | 0.3 | |||
| Organic matter | 940 | 858 | ||
| Ash | 060 | 142 | ||
| Crude protein | 148 | 154 | ||
| Ether extract | 055 | 013 | ||
| Neutral detergent fiber | 534 | 486 | ||
| Acid detergent fiber | 369 | 352 | ||
| Hemicellulose | 165 | 134 | ||
ME=843±25.2 kJ/kg0.75,
trace minerals ontained (g/kg): Manganese sulphate 12.58, zinc sulfate 9.3, copper sulfate 3.2, ferrous sulfate 16.67 calcium iodate 0.081, sodium selenite 0.4, magnesium oxide 9.4, cobalt sulfate 0.2, sodium chloride added to kg. (Dyno Vet Company, Alexandria, Egypt)
Figure-1Chemical analysis of drinking water in Siwa Oasis.
Figure-2Changes in mean ambient temperature (°C) and relative humidity (%) and temperature-humidity index percentage throughout the experimental period.
Changes in plasma Igs (IgG, IgM, and IgA) in Barki ewes fed a basic diet or a diet supplemented with propolis during late pregnancy to early lactation.
| Item | Treat. | Days | Overall | SEM | p-value | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −30 | −15 | 0 | 15 | 30 | T | D | T×D | ||||
| IgG, (mg/mL) | Control | 2.49 | 2.46 | 2.45 | 2.45 | 2.45 | 2.46 | 0.02 | 0.08 | 0.51 | 0.97 |
| Propolis | 2.45 | 2.42 | 2.43 | 2.43 | 2.41 | 2.43 | 0.02 | ||||
| IgM, (mg/mL) | Control | 0.36 | 0.43 | 0.42 | 0.52 | 0.51 | 0.45[ | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.53 | 0.87 |
| Propolis | 0.57 | 0.44 | 0.50 | 0.58 | 0.65 | 0.55[ | 0.01 | ||||
| IgA, (mg/mL) | Control | 0.26 | 0.26 | 0.30 | 0.29 | 0.32 | 0.28[ | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.22 | 0.39 |
| Propolis | 0.35 | 0.32 | 0.31 | 0.35 | 0.36 | 0.34[ | 0.02 | ||||
Values within the same column with different letters differ significantly. Days −30 and −15: Days of late pregnancy, Day 0: Day of parturition. Days 15 and 30: Days of early lactation. IgG=Immunoglobulin G, IgA=Immunoglobulin A, IgM=Immunoglobulin M, SEM=Standard error of the mean
Changes in plasma antioxidant enzyme activities in Barki ewes fed a basic diet or a diet supplemented with propolis during late pregnancy and early lactation.
| Items | Treat. | Days | Overall | SEM | p-value | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −30 | −15 | 0 | 15 | 30 | T | D | T×D | ||||
| MDA (nM/mL) | Control | 6.19 | 7.64 | 7.14 | 6.14 | 5.51 | 6.52[ | 0.59 | 0.05 | 0.25 | 0.54 |
| Propolis | 6.04 | 5.96 | 5.84 | 5.74 | 5.52 | 5.82[ | 0.59 | ||||
| SOD (U/mL) | Control | 6.67 | 9.36 | 6.13 | 3.17 | 5.03 | 6.07[ | 1.99 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.93 |
| Propolis | 5.19 | 6.65 | 1.87 | 0.89 | 1.68 | 3.25[ | 2.02 | ||||
| HP (mM/mL) | Control | 0.48 | 0.48 | 0.45 | 0.46 | 0.45 | 0.46[ | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.63 | 0.87 |
| Propolis | 0.43 | 0.42 | 0.43 | 0.42 | 0.41 | 0.42[ | 0.02 | ||||
| NO (mM/L) | Control | 44.67 | 40.7 | 39.5 | 39.2 | 45.4 | 41.88[ | 0.79 | 0.05 | 0.25 | 0.44 |
| Propolis | 13.12 | 16.3 | 15.8 | 18.2 | 29.2 | 18.52[ | 0.79 | ||||
Values within the same column with different letters differ significantly (p<0.05). Days −30 and−15: Days of late pregnancy, day 0: Day of parturition. Days 15 and 30: Days of early lactation. MDA=Malondialdehyde, SOD=Superoxide dismutase, HP=Horse radish peroxidase, NO=Nitric oxide, SEM=Standard error of the mean
Changes in plasma triiodothyronine (T3) and thyroxin (T4) concentrations in Barki ewes fed a basic diet or supplemented with propolis during late pregnancy and early lactation period.
| Items | Treat. | Days | Overall | SEM | p-value | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −30 | −15 | 0 | 15 | 30 | T | D | T×D | ||||
| T3, (ng/mL) | Control | 1.51 | 1.56 | 1.35 | 1.47 | 1.53 | 1.48 | 0.08 | 0.54 | 0.01 | 0.37 |
| Propolis | 1.54 | 1.39 | 1.23 | 1.42 | 1.67 | 1.45 | 0.08 | ||||
| T4, (ng/mL) | Control | 7.66 | 5.44 | 5.15 | 8.51 | 8.89 | 7.13 | 0.66 | 0.91 | 0.01 | 0.83 |
| Propolis | 7.70 | 6.16 | 5.34 | 8.05 | 8.16 | 7.08 | 0.66 | ||||
T3=Triiodothyronine, T4=Thyroxin, SEM=Standard error of the mean
Figure-3Changes of some hematological parameters in Barki ewes fed a basic diet or a diet supplemented with propolis during late pregnancy and early lactation under arid conditions. ABLetters among the group differ significantly (p<0.05). Days (−30 and −15) = days of late pregnancy, day 0 = day of parturition, days (15 and 30) = days of early lactation.
Changes in MY and milk composition of Barki ewes in groups during early lactation period.
| Items | Treat. | Weeks | Overall | SEM | p-value | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | T | W | T×W | ||||
| MY, g/day | Control | 90.0 | 87.5 | 220.0 | 122.5 | 130B | 22.5 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.18 |
| Propolis | 112.0 | 170.0 | 284.0 | 108.0 | 168.5A | 22.5 | ||||
| Protein, g/100 mL | Control | 3.42 | 3.51 | 3.43 | 3.58 | 3.48 | 0.12 | 0.19 | 0.38 | 0.94 |
| Propolis | 3.49 | 3.71 | 3.52 | 3.68 | 3.60 | 0.11 | ||||
| Fat, (g/100 mL) | Control | 3.80 | 4.64 | 4.62 | 5.30 | 4.59B | 0.63 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.45 |
| Propolis | 4.66 | 6.05 | 6.14 | 8.09 | 6.23A | 0.56 | ||||
| Lactose, (g/100 mL) | Control | 5.15 | 5.21 | 5.16 | 5.38 | 5.22 | 0.23 | 0.41 | 0.33 | 0.75 |
| Propolis | 5.02 | 5.55 | 5.30 | 5.55 | 5.35 | 0.20 | ||||
| Ash, (g/100 mL) | Control | 0.76 | 0.77 | 0.76 | 0.80 | 0.77 | 0.03 | 0.11 | 0.40 | 0.85 |
| Propolis | 0.77 | 0.83 | 0.80 | 0.83 | 0.80 | 0.02 | ||||
| TS, (g/100 mL) | Control | 12.58 | 14.12 | 14.01 | 15.10 | 13.95B | 0.88 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.51 |
| Propolis | 13.12 | 16.33 | 15.78 | 18.19 | 15.86A | 0.79 | ||||
| SNF, (g/100 mL) | Control | 9.38 | 9.48 | 9.39 | 9.80 | 9.51 | 0.38 | 0.18 | 0.39 | 0.79 |
| Propolis | 9.46 | 10.27 | 9.64 | 10.10 | 9.87 | 0.34 | ||||
Days 15 and 30: Days of early lactation. Days −30 and −15: Days of late pregnancy, Day 0: Day of parturition. MY=Milk yield, TS=Total solid, SNF=Solid not fat
Figure-4Changes of newly born lambs’ body weights (kg) born from Barki ewes fed a basic diet or supplemented with propolis during early lactation period under arid condition. Week 0 = birth weight. Weeks 2-8 = weekly body weights from parturition to weaning (week 8).
Changes in some thermo-cardiorespiratory responses of groups under arid conditions (mean±SE).
| Items | Overall treat. | Overall hours | Overall days | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Propolis | 8:00 AM | 2:00 PM | 30 | 60 | |
| RT (°C) | 42.19±1.64 | 39.02±1.30 | 41.74±1.48 | 39.47±1.48 | 39.14±1.48 | 42.07±1.48 |
| ST (°C) | 36.00±0.21 | 36.32±0.17 | 35.88±0.19 | 36.44±0.19 | 36.46±0.19 | 35.86±0.19 |
| CT (°C) | 33.81±0.37[ | 35.45±0.29[ | 33.60±0.33 | 35.66±0.33 | 34.62±0.33 | 34.64±0.33 |
| RR (rpm) | 47.65±0.90 | 49.09±0.33 | 45.21±0.81 | 51.52±0.81 | 48.81±0.81 | 47.93±0.81 |
| HR (bpm) | 128.25±2.22 | 126.09±1.76 | 124.03±2.0 | 130.30±2.0 | 128.66±2.00 | 125.67±2.0 |
Values within the same row with different letters differ significantly (p<0.05). Propolis lambs: Lambs born for ewes supplemented with propolis; control lambs: Lambs born for control ewes. RT=Rectal temperature, ST=Skin temperature, CT=Coat temperature, RR=Respiration rate, HR=Heart rate, SE=Standard error
Figure-5Changes of some plasma antioxidant enzyme activities in lambs born for Barki ewes fed a basic diet or supplemented with propolis during early lactation period under arid conditions. ABLetters among the group differ significantly (p<0.01).