EFFECT OF HERBAL PREPARATIONS (PHYLLANTHUS EMBLICA,CURCUMA LONGA AND OCIMUM SANCTUM) ON THE PERFORMANCE OF BROILERS E.Tirupati Reddy, P.Sudhakara Reddy, P.V.V.Satyanarayana. Reddy and S.Shakila Department of Poultry Science, College of Veterinary Science Tirupati -517 502 ABSTRACT An experiment was conducted with three types of herbal preparations viz Amla, Turmeric and Tulasi either alone or in combination with nine dietary treatments to study the performance of broilers(n=216). The better body weight gain (P<0.05) and higher feed intake (P<0.01) were significant in 0.25% herbals combination groups compared to control group through out the experimental period. However, the best feed efficiency (P<0.01) was noticed in 0.25% Tulasi leaves powder and 0.25% herbals combination groups compared to control group. The feed cost per kg live weight gain was lowest in the 0.25% herbals combination groups compared to other groups. The different types of herbals either alone or in combinations at 0.25% and 0.5 % levels did not influence the carcass traits, SGOT, SGPT, Serum Cholesterol and Immune response (HI titre to ND Vaccination).It is inferred that supplementation of Tulasi leaves powder or herbals combination at 0.25% level in broiler diets can reduce the cost of production without affecting their performance. Keywords: Performance, Blood constituents, Economics, Herbals, Broiler INTRODUCTION Economical broiler production largely depends on optimum utilization of feed, improved body weight,absence of disease and low mortality. Use of chemical feed additives as growth promoters has criticism due to adverse effects on consumers and so there is a demand for organic meat and eggs. In view of this, herbal and plant derivatives shall be a valuable alternative to promote growth and health in poultry as there is no residual toxicity. But the information regarding the effect of herbals on the broiler performance is scanty. Hence, the present study is proposed to evaluate the efficacy of the herbal preparations like amla, turmeric and tulsi on the performance of broilers. MATERIALS AND METHODS Commercial day- old straight run broiler chicks were randomly distributed into nine groups with four replicates having six chicks each. The chicks were wing banded and weighed individually. Part of M.V.Sc thesis of the first author submitted to Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University, Tirupati. 209
The birds in each group offered at random either with control diet (T1), or control supplemented with amla @ 0.25% or @ 0.50 % (T2&T3,respectively) or control diet supplemented with turmeric @ 0.25% or 0.50 % (T4&T5respectively) or control diet with tulasi @ 0.25% or 0.50 % (T6 & T7,respectively) or control diet with combination of above three herbals @ 0.25% or 0.50 % (T8 & T9 respectively) diets. The experiment was conducted from day old to 42 days of age. All the chicks were housed in well ventilated litter floor pens with paddy husk as litter material. Irrespective of treatments, all the chicks were fed ad lib with respective starter diet from 1-28 days and finisher diet from 29-42days of age (Table 1). Except for feeding experimental diets, other managemental practices were followed uniformly for all the treatments. The individual body weight of broilers was recorded at weekly interval. Feed consumption was recorded replicate wise and the feed efficiency was calculated accordingly. Mortality among the birds during the experimental period was recorded and causes there off were ascertained by detailed autopsy. At the end of sixth week, one bird from each replicate was randomly selected and sacrificed to record ready -to -cook yields, weights of liver, heart, gizzard, spleen and bursa and blood was collected. Serum cholesterol, SGOT and SGPT CHOD-POD (Deeg and Ziegenhorn, 1983) and modified IFCC methods ( Thomas,1998) respectively, using diagnostic kits. For estimation of antibody titre for Newcastle disease, blood samples were collected ten days after booster dose from one bird in each replicate and conducted heamaglutination inhibition (HI) test.relative economics was calculated for different dietary treatments. The data pertaining to the various parameters were analysed by using completely randomized design (Snedicor and Cochran, 1994). The means in different treatments were tested for statistical significance using Duncan's multiple range test (Duncan,1955). 210 Tirupati Reddy et.al., RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The body weight gain was significantly (P<0.05) higher in diets with combination of herbal preparations (T8 and T9) compared to control (T1) irrespective of the growth phase during the experimental period. The improvement in body weight gain might be due to the presence of antimicrobial, antioxidant properties and antistress factors in herbal preparations which is in consonance with the findings of kurkure et al (2002),Mehala and Moorthy (2008a). On the contrary Namagirilakshmi (2005) and Varaprasad Reddy et al (2007) were found no significant effect on body weight gain. Significant (P<0.01) differences could be noticed in feed intake among different treatments and found to be higher and lower feed intake in the birds fed with T8 and T5 diets respectively. The results indicated that the broilers obtained higher weight gain had proportionately consumed more feed during the different phases of growth period. This is in agreement with the findings of Kumari et al (1994). On the contrary Al-sultan (2003) and Durrani et al (2006) found non significant effects on feed intake. The feed efficiency was better in broilers fed with herbals either alone or in combination compared to control during starter, finisher and overall growth phases where as Kumari et al (1994) and Pande (2000) were noticed significant (P<0.01) improvement in feed intake with combination of herbals in the diet. The mortality was low in present study and this was not due to supplementation of herbals in the diets as evinced from post mortem findings. Similar finding was also observed by Durrani et al (2006) and Vidhyarthi et al (2008). The feed cost per kg live weight gain was significantly (P<0.01) lower on tulasi and herbals combination compared to other diets and this might be due to higher body weight gain with better feed efficiency compared to other groups. Similar findings were reported by Kumari et a l(1994) and
Namagirilakshmi (2005). Dietary supplementation of herbals either alone or in combination at 0.25and0.50% did not significantly affected the ready- to- cook yields or per cent weights of liver, heart, gizzard, spleen and bursa and this result is in conformity with the findings of Gupta and Charan (2007), whereas Singh et al (2007) reported improved dressing percentage and giblet weights with amla and turmeric and their combination.the SGOT,SGPT and serum Cholesterol levels were not significantly influenced by supplementation of different herbals either alone or in combination. Similar conclusion was drawn by Mehala and Moorthy (2008a). On the contrary, Emadi et al ( 2007) reported significant (P<0.05) increase in serum cholesterol level in male broilers fed diet with turmeric powder. The immunity (HI titre value) to ND vaccination was above protective levels (28 to 211) in all dietary treatments. However, there were no significant differences among the different treatments. Similar response was observed earlier by Kumari et al (1994) and Pande (2000). The results obtained in the present study revealed that supplementation of either tulasi leaves powder alone or with combination of amla and turmeric each at 0.25% level can be used in the diets for economical production of broilers. REFERENCES Al- Sultan S I ( 2003). The effects of Curcuma longa (turmaric) on overall performance of broiler chickens. International Journal of poultry Science 2: 354-353. AOAC (2000).Official methods of analysis.17 th edn. Association of official analytical chemists, Washington DC,USA. BIS (1992). Bureau of Indian Standards.Requirements for chicken feeds. IS: 1374-1992.Manak Bhavan,9, Bhadurshah Zafar Marg, NewDelhi. Effect of herbal... Durrani F R Mohammad Ismail,Asad Sultan, Suhail SM, Naila Chand and Durrani Z ( 2006). Effects of different levels of feed added turmeric (Curcuma longa) on the performance of broiler chicks. Journal of Agricultural Biology Science 1:9-11 Deeg R and Ziegenhorn J( 1983). Kinetic enzymatics method for automated determination of total cholesterol in serum. Clin.Chem. 29: 1798-1802. Duncan, D B (1995). Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics,11:1-42 Emadi M, Kermanshahi H and Maroufyan E 2007. Effects of varying lavels of turmeric rhizome powder on some blood parameters of broiler chickens fed corn-soybean meal based diets. Int. J. Poult.Sci.6:345-348. Gupta G and Charan S (2007). Exploring the potentials of Ocimum sanctum ( Shyma tulsi) as a feed supplement for irs growth promoter activity in broiler chickens. Indian Journal of Poultry Science.42(2) : 140-143. Kumari P, Gupta MK, Ranjan R, Singh KK and Yadava R( 1994 ). Curcuma longa as feed additive in broiler birds and ots pathophysiological effects. Natl.Toxicol.Program Tech Rep.Ser.435: 1-288 Kurkure NV, Kalorey DR and Ali MH ( 2002.) Herbal Nutraceuticals: An alternative to antibiotic growth promoters.poultry Fortune,August 31-32. Mehala C and Moorthy M (2008a). Production performance of broilers fed with of Aloe vera and Curcuma longa (Turmeric). International Journal of Poultry Science 7(9) : 852-856. Mehala C and Moorthy M ( 2008b ). Effects of Aloe vaera and Curcuma longa (Turmeric) on carcass characteristics and biochemical parameters of broilers. International Journal of Poultry Science 7(9) : 857-861. 211
Namagirilakshmi S (2005).Turmeric ( Curcuma longa) as nutraceutical to improve broiler performance. M.V.Sc., Thesis submitted to Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Science University,Chennai. Pande CB (2000). Zeestress -A promising adaptogenic,antistress and immunomodulatora review.pasudan 15 (12): 4 Singh N, Singh JP and Singh V 2007. Effects of dietary supplementation of herbal formulation on dressing percentage and mortality in broiler chicks. Indian J of Field Veterinarians 2: 22-24. Snedecor GW and Cochran WG (1994). Statistical methods (8th edn). Oxford and IBH Publishing Company,Calcutta. Table 1 Thomas L ( 1998). Alanine aminotranferase (ALT) Asparate aminoranferase (AST) Clinical laboratory Diagnostics, Ist Edition. Varaprasad Reddy L S S, Thangavel A, Leela Vand Narayana Raju K V S( 2007). Effect of dietary supplementation of Tulasi (Ocimum sanctum) and selenium on lipid peroxides levels and growth rate in broiler chickens. Tamil Nadu Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences 3: 144-149. Vidhyarthi VK, Nring K and Sharma VB (2008). Effect of herbal growth promoters on the performance and economics of rearing broiler chicken. Indian J of Poultry Science 43 (3): 297-300. Ingredients and nutrient composition of broiler experimental diets Ingredients Tirupati Reddy et.al., Composition of experimental diets (%) Starter Finisher Maize 56.5 65 Soybean meal 30.5 22 Fish meal 10 10 Mineral Mixture # 3 3 Feed Additives * + + Nutrient composition (%) Crude protein 23.21 20.21 Crude fibre 6.78 6.35 Calcium 1.1 0.94 Phosphorus 0.69 0.62 Lysine* * 1.32 1.14 Methionine ** 0.45 0.41 ME.(k.cal/kg)** 2818 2904 # Contained Ca, 32%; P, 6%; NaCl, 2.5%; Fe, 0.35%; Cu, 100 ppm; Mn, 200 ppm; Co, 50 ppm; Zn, 50 ppm and I, 100 ppm. * Cosmodot @ 50 g/100 kg : 3-5 Dinitro-O-Tolunamide; 25 per cent W/W * Meriplex DS @10g/100kg : Vit B1 8 mg, B6 16 mg, B12 80 mcg, Vit E 80 mg, Niacin 120 mg and Ca 88mg * Hyblend - AB2D3K @ 10g/100 kg: Vit A 82,500 IU, Vit B2-50 mg, Vit D3 12,000 IU, Vit K 10mg * Neftin - 200 (SKF) 30g/100 kg: Furazolidone (20 per cent W/W) * DL Methionine@50g/100 kg(only in starter diets as per BIS(1992) ** calculated values 212
Effect of herbal... Table 2 Effect of herbal preparations either alone or in combination on performance of broilers Treatment T 1 T 2 T 3 T 4 T 5 Body weight gain (g) (Days) Feed intake (g/bird ) (Days) Feed efficiency (Days) 0-28 * 29-42 * 0-42 * 0-28 * 29-42** 0-42** 0-28 29-42 0-42 885.0 a ± 31.40 903.0 a ± 30.06 942.0 ab ± 31.48 890.0 a ± 32.53 900.0 a ± 34.35 923.0a ± 38.43 978.0ab ± 33.30 944.0a ± 42.60 933.0a ± 32.40 934.0a ± 38.53 1808.0a ± 53.27 1881.0a ± 57.25 1886.0a ± 60.28 1823.0a ± 52.20 1834.0a ± 63.31 1503ab ± 16.50 1489a ± 23.57 1583c ± 18.68 1435a ± 47.41 1440a ± 11.87 2079a ± 25.69 2181ab ± 24.89 2124a ± 33.86 2100a ± 41.39 2060a ± 30.76 3582ab ± 22.17 3670ab ± 14.28 3707b ± 16.74 3535a ± 18.26 3500a ± 12.30 1.70 ± 0.012 1.65 0.005 1.68 ± 0.009 1.61 ± 0.017 1.60 ± 0.016 2.25 ± 0.024 2.23 ± 0.014 2.25 2.25 2.20 ± 0.025 1.98 ± 0.033 1.95 ± 0.012 1.96 ± 0.008 1.94 ± 0.016 1.91 ± 0.034 T 6 T 7 T 8 T 9 939.0 ab ± 33.20 896.0 a ± 32.47 1020.0 b ± 31.48 1010.0 b ± 32.56 987.0ab ± 32.45 993.0ab ± 47.21 1069.0b ± 48.70 1056.0b ± 36.40 1926.0ab ± 64.19 1889.0a ± 52.19 2089.0b ± 56.50 2060.0b ± 57.40 1503ab ± 39.35 1434a ± 46.41 1592c ± 45.14 1576bc ± 38.13 2104a ± 26.54 2086a ± 36.13 2298b ± 40.39 2264b ± 32.54 3607ab ± 33.45 3520a ± 22.71 3890c ± 28.40 3840bc ± 27.84 1.60 1.60 ± 0.008 1.56 0.002 1.56 2.13 ± 0.023 2.10 ± 0.018 2.15 ± 0.017 2.16 ± 0.019 1.87 ± 0.033 1.86 ± 0.012 1.86 ± 0.037 1.86 ± 0.035 Means within each column bearing at least one common superscript do not differ significantly * : (P< 0.05) ** : (P< 0.01) Feed cost /kg live weight gain (Rs) ** 31.46abc ±0.24 31.72bc ±0.18 32.69c ±0.15 31.57abc ±0.21 31.83bc ±0.13 30.27a ±0.28 30.64ab ±0.31 30.22a ±0.24 30.91ab ±0.26 213
Tirupati Reddy et.al., Table 3 Effect of herbal preparations either alone or in combination on carcass traits (% live weight),blood constitutents and HI titre Treatment Liver Heart Gizzard Spleen Bursa T1 2.57 T2 2.63 ± 0.12 T3 2.67 T4 2.61 ± 0.07 T5 2.58 T6 2.60 ± 0.06 T7 2.62 ± 0.03 T8 2.63 ± 0.10 T9 2.61 ± 0.06 0.55 0.53 ±0.03 0.59 ± 0.01 0.57 ± 0.02 0.58 0.54 0.59 ± 0.02 0.57 0.55 2.29 ± 0.20 2.15 ± 0.24 2.24 ± 0.18 2.35 ± 0.19 2.47 ± 0.15 2.36 ± 0.32 2.50 2.45 ± 0.30 2.38 ± 0.25 0.12 0.13 ± 0.006 0.12 0.13 0.004 ± 0.003 0.15 ± 0.002 0.11 ± 0.003 0.15 ± 0.006 0.12 ± 0.002 ± 0.011 0.13 ± 0.009 0.15 ± 0.007 0.17 0.16 ± 0.003 Ready- tocook yield 70.15 ± 0.17 71.65 ± 0.24 70.05 ± 0.17 71.25 70.53 ± 0.35 71.18 ± 0.24 71.05 71.31 ± 0.28 71.04 SGOT (IU/L) 171.12 ± 2.04 170.32 ± 1.85 169.43 ± 1.98 168.25 ± 2.06 167.53 ± 2.14 166.24 ± 1.96 172.03 ± 2.13 170.25 ± 1.98 170.20 ± 2.41 SGPT (IU/L) 10.95 ± 0.12 10.89 ± 0.23 10.92 ± 0.17 10.86 ± 0.30 10.80 ± 0.23 10.76 ± 0.28 11.33 ± 0.92 11.21 ± 0.73 11.05 ± 0.08 Serum Cholesterol (mg/dl) 106.63 ± 4.84 106.29 ± 4.64 106.62 ± 5.26 105.89 ± 4.78 106.44 ± 5.60 105.76 ± 5.61 107.34 ± 4.84 105.46 ± 5.60 104.94 ± 2.43 HI titre 2 8 Not Significant (P>0.05) 214