Production performance, immune response and carcass traits of broiler chickens fed diet incorporated with Kappaphycus alvarezii
This study evaluates the production performance, immune responses and carcass traits in broiler chickens (0 to 42 days) fed diet with incorporated Kappaphycus alvarezii (AF-KWP). Day-old chicks (280) were randomly distributed into 35 groups with 8 chicks in each group (7 dietary treatments × 5 replicates). Seven experimental diets were formulated by adding 0 (control—T1), 0.25 AF-KWP (T2), 0.50 AF-KWP (T3), 0.75 AF-KWP (T4), 1.00 AF-KWP (T5), 1.25 AF-KWP (T6) and 1.50 AF-KWP (T7) respectively. Body weight gain (g) significantly (P < 0.05) improved in the growing phase (21–42 days) and overall value (0–42 days); however, feed intake (g) differed significantly (P < 0.05) in T7 and T6 groups only in the growing (21–42 days) phase, compared to control and other treated groups. Feed conversion ratio (FCR) did not differ significantly (P > 0.05) by the feeding of diets containing different levels of AF-KWP. Haemagglutination (HA) titre and cell-mediated immunity (CMI) were significantly increased (P < 0.05) in AF-KWP supplemented groups as compared to the control group. No significant (P > 0.05) difference was recorded in the percentage of carcass traits and organ weights but significant improvement (P < 0.05) was recorded in cut up parts (percentage of live wt.) between the control and some AF-KWP-supplemented groups. From the results, it may be concluded that K. alvarezii (AF-KWP) can be incorporated at 1.25% level in broiler diets for improved performance, immuno-responsiveness and breast yield in broiler chickens.
KeywordsKappaphycus Rhodophyta Production performance Immunity Carcass trait Chicken
The study was funded by the Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Government of India.
QSSN carried out the animal experiment, AB designed the study and manuscript drafting, ABM carried out the data analysis and final drafting and KM, SR and NAM carried out the animal experiment and conducted the laboratory analysis.
Compliance with ethical standards
All institutional and national guidelines for the care and use of laboratory animals were followed.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Abirami RG, Kowsalya S (2011) Nutrient and nutraceutical potentials of seaweed biomass Ulva lactuca and Kappaphycus alvarezii. J Ag Sci Technol 5:109–115Google Scholar
- Allen VG, Pond KR (2002) Seaweed supplements diet for enhancing immune response in mammals and poultry. Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USAGoogle Scholar
- Jackson ML (1973) Soil chemical analysis. Prentice Hall India, New Delhi, pp 183–347 and 387–408Google Scholar
- Kang HK, Salim HM, Akte RN, Kim DW, Kim JH, Bang HT, Na JC, Hwangbo J, Choi HC, Kim MJ, Suh OS (2013) Effect of various forms of dietary Chlorella supplementation on growth performance, immune characteristics, and intestinal microflora population of broiler chickens. J Appl Poult Res 22:100–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kotrbacek V, Halouzka R, Jurajda V, Knotková Z, Filka J (1994) Increased immune response in broilers after administration of natural food supplements. Vet Med (Praha) 39:321–328Google Scholar
- Kulshreshtha G, Rathgeber B, Stratton G, Thomas N, Evans F, Critchley A, Hafting J, Balakrishnan P (2014) Feed supplementation with red seaweeds, Chondrus crispus and Sarcodiotheca gaudichaudii, affects performance, egg quality, and gut microbiota of layer hens. Poult Sci 93:2991–3001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mariey YA, Samak HR, Ibrahem MA (2014) Effect of using spiruli platensis algae as afeed additive for poultry diets: 1. Productive and reproductive performances of local laying hens. Egypt. Poult Sci 32:201–215Google Scholar
- Shanmugapriya B, Babu S, Hariharan T, Sivaneswaran S, Anusha MB (2015) Dietary administration of Spirulina platensis as probiotics on growth performance and histopathology in broiler chicks. Int J Rec Sci Res 6:2650–2653Google Scholar
- Snedecor GW, Cochran WG (1994) Statistical methods. Iowa State University Press, Ames, pp 215–237Google Scholar