Effect of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) on histological parameters of small intestin

Journal of Research in Ecology

Journal of Research in Ecology

ISSN No: Print: 2319 –1546; Online: 2319– 1554

An International Scientific Research Journal

Original Research

Effect of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) on histological parameters of small intestinal segments of broiler chickens Authors: ABSTRACT: Abbas AM Al-Abboodi and A study was undertaken to examine the broiler growth performance Hasan SA Jawad effectiveness by daily supplementing H. tuberosus from 1 to 6 week of age. A total of 390 one-day-old broiler chicks were allocated to five treatments, with three replicates Institution: per treatment and 26 birds per replicate. Experimental treatments including 0% (T 1), Department of Animal 0.5% (T2), 1% (T3), 1.5% (T4) and 2% (T5) H. tuberosus powder were used. Three birds Production, Faculty of per treatment at week four and six (3 male and 3 female) at the marketing age were Agriculture, University of isolated based on the mean treatment weight and euthanized to perform the Baghdad, Iraq. necropsy. The birds were slaughtered and the duodenum, jejunum and ilium cross sections were measured by an ocular micrometer after stained by Haematoxylin and Corresponding author: Eosin stain. In comparison with the control group, supplementing 1% H. tuberosus Hasan SA Jawad caused greater (P<0.05) effect on the total duodenum wall thickness at week 4 of age.

Same observation was shown in jejunum wall for T3 and T4. At week 6 of age, partnered significant effect was obtained in all the H. tuberosus treatments. The improvement percentage in the duodenum wall parameters were 7-16% in villi length, 8-15% in crypt depth and 6-15% in the total wall thickness. While in jejunum the improvement percentages were 16-25% in villi length, 1-17% in crypt depth and 1223% in the total wall thickness. Similarly, in ilium the improvement percentages were, 4-33% in villi length, 11-26% in crypt depth and 5-31% in the total wall thickness. This study gives evidence that there is a positive relationship between the developments in the intestinal wall layers and increase the supplementation percentage of H. tuberosus in broiler diet.

Keywords: Jerusalem artichoke, Inulin, Histological parameters, Small intestinal.

Article Citation: Abbas AM Al-abboodi and Hasan SA Jawad Effect of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) on histological parameters of small intestinal segments of broiler chickens Journal of Research in Ecology (2018) 6(2): 1814-1821 Dates: Received: 29 April 2018 Web Address: http://ecologyresearch.info/ documents/EC0588.pdf

Journal of Research in Ecology An International Scientific Research Journal

Accepted: 26 May 2018

Published: 01 Aug 2018

This article is governed by the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0), which gives permission for unrestricted use, non-commercial, distribution and reproduction in all medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1814-1821 | JRE | 2018 | Vol 6 | No 2

www.ecologyresearch.info

Al-Abboodi and Jawad, 2018 cells produce peptidase and lysozyme and may be phag-

INTRODUCTION The Helianthus tuberosus L., (Jerusalem arti-

ocytic. Enteroendocrine cells are also present in the epi-

choke) is an erect, rhizomatous perennial herb, up to

thelium of the intestinal gland. Tunica sub mucosa is

3-4 m height. Though perennial, it is mainly grown as

very thin in chicken with the absence of bronner gland,

an annual and is considered as one of the prebiotic

tunica muscularis is characterized by two layers of

sources (Snel et al., 2002). The dominant prebiotics are

smooth muscle, the inner layer of circular muscle fibers

fructo-oligosaccharide products (FOS, oligofructose,

are surrounded by an outer of longitudinal folds. Myen-

inulin) (Patterson and Burkholder, 2003); gluco-

trice plexus are often present between muscle layers. A

oligosaccharides,

malto-oligosaccharides,

typical tunica serosa lies outside the tunica muscularis

and oligochitosan, and have also been investigated in

as the outermost layer of the organ (Elizabeth and

the broiler chickens (Zhan et al., 2003; Gao and Shan,

Fredric, 2001; Jawad et al., 2016; Naji et al., 2016; Naji

2004; Jiang et al., 2006; Huang et al., 2007). Inulin

et al., 2017; Hasan et al., 2018).

stachyose,

belonged to a class of fructose-based, highly soluble

The current study was aimed to elucidate the

polysaccharides collectively called fructans. Fructans

effect of H. tuberosus on broiler production perfor-

are the major non-structural carbohydrates in many

mance. In a previous reports, it was hypothesized that

plant species, particularly in the prevalent and evolu-

the mechanism resulted in an improvement in the body

tionarily advanced orders of Asterales, Liliales and Poa-

performance of the chicken fed on diet supplemented by

les eg. chicory, onions, wheat (Hendry, 1993).

H. tuberosus (Jawad et al., 2017a, b) due to an increase

Small intestine consists of duodenum, jejunum and ileum with no demarcation on gross observation

in the level of benefit bacteria in the gastro-intestinal trunk.

between duodenum and jejunum. While, Mickel diverticulum is often used as a landmark to separate the jeju-

MATERIALS AND METHODS

num and ileum (Dorman and Deans, 2000; Cervantes,

Chicken husbandry and experimental design

2006; Jawad et al., 2015). Furthermore, intestinal wall

This research was conducted in the poultry farm

histologically consist of four layers: mucosa, sub-

of Agricultural Faculty in the University of Baghdad

mucosa, muscularis and serosa. Mucosal layer of small

from 26th November 2017 to 6th January 2018. This

intestine forms villi which project into the lumen and

study consists of 390 Day-Old broiler (Ross 308), floor

greatly increase the overall absorption surface area of

bred. They were randomly assigned to five treatment

the organ. The surface epithelium of the villi is small

groups by 78 birds/ treatment, and each treatment con-

columnar epithelium with numerous goblet cells. Intes-

sisted of three replicates of 26 birds/ replicate. Feed was

tinal absorptive cells have extensive microvilli on its

prepared and offered ad libitum the same diets (1â&#x20AC;&#x201C;10

apical surface. Goblet cells are scattered between the

days: starter; 11-24 days: grower; 24 day-slaughter:

absorptive cells and produce mucous. Intestinal glands

ďŹ nisher) (Table 1) with continuous water. Furthermore,

(Crypts of lieberkuhn) extend from the base of the villi

constant lighting and continuous ventilation were

into the underlying lamina properia. Undifferentiated

provided. All birds were kept under uniform manage-

epithelial cells located in the glands divide and migrate

ment conditions throughout the experimental period of

up to renew the glandular and surface epithelium every

six weeks.

24-48 h. Acidophilic granular cells (paneth cells) are

About 60 kg of H. tuberosus fruits were pur-

present in the epithelium at the base of the gland, these

chased from the market and processed by slicing, drying

1815

Journal of Research in Ecology (2018) 6(2): 1814-1821

Al-Abboodi and Jawad, 2018 Table 1. Composition of the basal diet S. No

Items (%)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Corn Wheat Soybean meal (44%) Protein concentrated Sunflower oil Limestone Dicalcium phosphate Salt Mineral and vitamin premix Total

1

Crude protein (%) Metabolism energy (kilo calorie per kg. diet) Lysine (%) Methionine (%) Cysteine (%) Methionine + Cysteine (%) Arginine (%) Calcium (%) Phosphorus (%)

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Basal diet 1 to 10 d 11 to 24 d 43.8 44.5 14 15.9 32.7 29 5 5 2.2 3.4 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 100 100 Calculated analysis 22.071 20.7685

24 to 42 d 47.6 15 26 5 4.2 1.1 0.6 0.3 0.2 100 19.586

2942.7

3051.224

3131.95

1.24061 0.50298 0.35206 0.85504 1.40152 0.28709 0.40483

1.15031 0.48624 0.33384 0.82008 1.29883 0.27745 0.3973

1.07416 0.47088 0.31728 0.60816 1.21128 0.26892 0.39078

* according to NRC (1977)

and grinding. H. tuberosus powder was supplemented at

ethylic alcohol and in xylol. The histological slides were

levels 0.5%, 1%, 1.5% and 2% to the chicken diet of T 2,

stained by hematoxylin and eosin stain (Munro, 1971;

T3, T4 and T5 respectively. Its worthy to mention that

Jawad et al., 2016). Morphological parameters were

chicken in T1 fed on dry food without supplementation.

measured by a computerized image analyzer (Leica DM

Histometrical assay

LB2, Germany). An ocular micrometer was used to

Three randomly selected birds per treatment

measure the thickness of the intestinal wall layers. Vari-

(one bird/replicate) at week four of age and three males,

ation ration was counted based on the formula which

three females at the marketing age were slaughtered and

were reported by Jawad et al. (2015).

small intestinal organs were collected. It is worthy to

Research design and data analysis

mention that selected birds at week four were within the

This research used one way complete random

average treatments weight, as well as, the selected birds

sampling. The gained data which was resulted were

at week six were within the males and females average

analyzed by one way analysis of variance (ANOVA). If

treatments weight. A 1 cm segment from the midpoint

the treatment significantly affected the chicken, LSD

of the duodenum, jejunum and ileum were immediately

and Duncan’s (1955) Multiple Range would be applied

fixed in formalin (10%) for 24 h. Then, dehydrated with

(DRMT) (Vincent, 1991; Genstat, 2003). Differences

increasing concentration (70-100%) of ethyl alcohol and

between treatments subjects were considered significant

passed into two content of xylol. After that the samples

level at P<0.05.

were embedded in paraffin and sectioned by the rotary microtome at 5 µm. The sections were fixed on the glass

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

slides and remoistening process was done by passing the

The effects of supplementing 0.5, 1, 1.5 and 2 g

sections through decreasing concentration (100-70%) of

of H. tuberosus powder in the chicken diet on the histo-

Journal of Research in Ecology (2018) 6(2): 1814-1821

1816

1817

T2

T3

T4

T5

2

3

4

5

 

Table 2. Effect of H. tuberosus on histometrical parameters of broiler small intestinal organs at four weeks of age Organ VILLI LEB MM TMT SM MA S D 157.07±4.24b 25.87±1.07ab 0.15±0.01 183.08±4.96b 3.67±0.19 15.2±0.6 5.27±0.25 J 98.53±8.58b 20.47±1.62c 0.17±0.01 119.17±10.09b 3.87±0.17 15.13±0.57 5.13±0.22 I 72.87±2.12 20.93±1.01 0.14±0.01 93.94±2.08 3.67±0.19 14±0.28c 5.13±0.19 D 165.07±5.81b 25.4±1.03ab 0.16±0.01 190.63±5.86b 3.73±0.21 14.8±0.6 5.47±0.24 J 96.93±3.28b 21.93±0.62bc 0.17±0.01 119.03±3.7b 3.67±0.21 14.33±0.51 5.4±0.24 I 70.73±2.28 18.73±0.43 0.15±0.01 89.62±2.3 3.73±0.15 15.93±0.75ab 5.73±0.27 D 183.8±6.28a 27.4±0.94a 0.14±0.01 211.34±6.38a 3.73±0.21 14.4±0.4 5.47±0.24 a a J 113.33±2.91 25.33±1.04 0.15±0.01 138.81±3.5a 3.6±0.16 14±0.28 5.27±0.23 I 75.33±2.72 20.2±0.85 0.15±0.01 95.69±3.38 3.53±0.19 14.2±0.46bc 5.27±0.21 D 161.4±3.85b 24.13±0.65b 0.15±0.01 185.69±3.94b 3.6±0.19 14.8±0.57 5.6±0.21 J 119.47±2.92a 24.8±1.23ab 0.17±0.01 144.44±3.5a 3.53±0.19 14.47±0.4 5.2±0.22 I 71.67±2.99 19.47±0.5 0.15±0.01 91.28±2.62 3.67±0.16 15.53±0.65abc 5.53±0.27 D 166±5.89b 24.2±0.51b 0.15±0.01 190.35±6.32b 3.67±0.19 15.6±0.72 5.6±0.29 a abc J 112.87±3.73 23.53±0.51 0.17±0.01 136.57±3.97a 3.6±0.16 13.87±0.24 5.27±0.23 I 69.6±2.65 19.73±0.73 0.15±0.01 89.48±2.2 3.93±0.23 16.4±0.77a 5.4±0.29 Total 207.21±5.38b 143.3±20.36b 116.74±2.11 214.63±5.74b 142.43±3.94b 115.02±2.62 234.94±6.49a 161.68±3.46a 118.69±3.52 209.69±4.07b 167.64±3.6a 116.01±2.87 215.22±6.01b 159.3±3.79ab 115.21±2.44

T1

T2

T3

T4

T5

1

2

3

4

5

Table 3. Effect of Helianthus tuberosus on histometrical parameters of broiler duodenum at six weeks of age SEX VILLI LEB MM TMT SM MA S M 157.87±2.8c 31±1.37 0.15±0.01 189.02±3.86c 3.47±0.13 15.6±0.72 5.47±0.24 F 176.53±8.35 32.93±1.22 0.15±0.01 209.61±8.09b 3.53±0.13 14.53±0.52 5.07±0.28 c b M+F 167.2±4.66 31.97±0.92 0.15±0.01 199.32±4.8c 3.5±0.09 15.07±0.45 5.27±0.19 M 180.27±4.03ab 32.33±0.92 0.15±0.01 212.75±4.04b 3.6±0.16 14.33±0.43 5.4±0.25 F 179±6.54 31.67±0.54 0.15±0.01 210.81±6.64b 3.87±0.22 14±0.28 5.53±0.31 M+F 179.63±3.77b 32±0.53b 0.15±0.01 211.78±3.82b 3.73±0.14 14.17±0.25 5.47±0.2 b M 195.47±5.04 35.93±1.23 0.16±0.01 231.56±5.72a 3.6±0.16 14±0.28 5.6±0.27 F 180.67±3.03 33.07±0.9 0.15±0.01 213.89±2.94b 3.53±0.19 15.53±0.65 5.47±0.27 M+F 188.07±3.2ab 34.5±0.8a 0.15±0.01 222.72±3.56ab 3.57±0.12 14.77±0.37 5.53±0.19 b M 189.2±7.06 35.93±0.92 0.17±0.01 225.3±6.97ab 3.47±0.13 15.6±0.72 5.73±0.27 F 198±5.76 35.47±1.07 0.15±0.01 233.61±4.87a 3.6±0.19 14.13±0.31 5.27±0.25 M+F 193.6±4.55a 35.7±0.7a 0.16±0.01 229.46±4.25a 3.53±0.11 14.87±0.41 5.5±0.18 M 187.67±6.29a 40.4±1.63 0.16±0.01 228.23±6.69ab 3.67±0.21 15.47±0.73 5.67±0.32 F 185.33±4.24 33.27±0.83 0.15±0.01 218.75±4.1ab 3.6±0.19 14.8±0.57 5.2±0.22 ab a M+F 186.5±3.73 36.83±0.4 0.15±0.01 223.49±3.96ab 3.63±0.14 15.13±0.46 5.43±0.2

Total 213.55±4.12c 232.75±8.22b 223.15±4.85c 236.09±4.05b 234.21±6.71b 235.15±3.86b 254.76±5.75a 238.42±2.93b 246.59±3.51b 250.1±6.92ab 256.61±4.9a 253.36±4.21a 253.07±6.79a 242.35±4.44ab 247.69±4.11a

Mean values with (a, b, c) common superscript in column differ significantly (P<0.05). M, F and M+F compared separately between TRT. TRT: Treatment; M: Male; F: Female; D: Duodenum; J: Jejunum; I: Ileum; Vl: Villi Length; DL: Depth of Crypts of Lieberkuhn; MM: Muscularis Mucosa; TMT: Total Mucosa thickness (VL+DL+MM); SM: submucosa; MA: muscularis; S: serosa; TWT: total wall thickness (TMT+SM+MA+S)

TRT

S. No

Mean values with (a, b, c) common superscript in column differ significantly (P<0.05). D, J and I compared separately between TRT. TRT: treatment; D: duodenum; J: jejunum; I: ileum; Vl: villi length; DL: Depth of Crypts of Lieberkuhn; MM: Muscularis Mucosa; TMT: Total Mucosa Thickness (VL+DL+MM); SM: Submucosa; MA: Muscularis; S: Serosa; TWT: Total Wall Thickness (TMT+SM+MA+S).

T1

1

 

TRT

S. No

Al-Abboodi and Jawad, 2018

Journal of Research in Ecology (2018) 6(2): 1814-1821

Journal of Research in Ecology (2018) 6(2): 1814-1821

 

 

T1

T2

T3

T4

T5

1

2

3

4

5

Table 4. Effect of Helianthus tuberosus on histometrical parameters of broiler jejunum at six weeks of age Sex VILLI LEB MM TMT SUB MUSC SER M 89.33±3.14c 32.4±0.67b 0.15±0.01 121.89±3.26c 3.8±0.17 14.8±0.55 5.6±0.29 F 76.07±2.86 29.33±0.96b 0.15±0.01 105.55±2.78b 3.87±0.19 15.73±0.69 5.47±0.29 b M+F 82.7±2.42 30.87±0.64b 0.15±0.01 113.72±2.59b 3.83±0.13 15.27±0.44 5.53±0.2 M 103.87±6.86bc 32.27±0.53b 0.16±0.01 136.29±6.56bc 3.8±0.2 14.13±0.31 5.6±0.21 F 87.8±5.04 30.2±0.95b 0.17±0.01 118.17±4.39a 3.53±0.13 15.2±0.71 5.93±0.27 M+F 95.83±4.44a 31.23±0.57b 0.17±0.01 127.23±4.23a 3.67±0.12 14.67±0.39 5.77±0.17 ab b M 108±3.31 33.33±0.48 0.18±0.01 141.51±3.15b 3.53±0.17 14.67±0.6 5.4±0.27 F 87.8±3.98 34.13±1.18a 0.16±0.01 122.09±4.31a 3.67±0.19 15.47±0.68 5.47±0.24 M+F 97.9±3.16a 33.73±0.63a 0.17±0.01 131.8±3.18a 3.6±0.12 15.07±0.45 5.43±0.18 ab b M 112.67±7.42 33.73±0.89 0.18±0.01 146.58±8.02ab 3.8±0.22 15.6±0.72 5.13±0.19 F 93.33±6.3 34.93±0.76a 0.14±0.01 128.41±6.39a 3.8±0.17 14.8±0.6 5.27±0.23 M+F 103±5.11a 34.33±0.58a 0.16±0.01 137.49±5.31a 3.8±0.14 15.2±0.47 5.2±0.15 M 121.33±4.89a 38.33±2.57a 0.13±0.01 159.8±5.28a 3.6±0.16 14.8±0.6 5.4±0.25 F 85.2±2.73 34.07±1.13a 0.15±0.01 119.42±2.21a 4.07±0.21 15.27±0.6 5.33±0.23 M+F 103.27±4.34a 36.2±1.43a 0.14±0.01 139.61±4.69a 3.83±0.14 15.03±0.42 5.37±0.17 Total 146.09±3.26c 130.62±2.69b 138.35±2.53b 159.83±6.57bc 142.84±4.75ab 151.33±4.28a 165.11±3.54b 146.69±4.11a 155.9±3.17a 171.11±8.31ab 152.27±6.55a 161.69±5.49a 183.6±5.57a 144.09±2.4a 163.84±4.73a

T1

T2

T3

T4

T5

1

2

3

4

5

Table 5. Effect of Helianthus tuberosus on histometrical parameters of broiler ilium at six weeks of age Sex VILLI LEB MM TMT SUB MUSC SER M 86.8±2.86b 29.13±0.54d 0.15±0.01 116.09±2.74b 3.6±0.19 14.27±0.43 5.6±0.29 F 81.53±1.32b 28.87±0.69c 0.14±0.01 110.54±1.78b 3.8±0.2 14.93±0.57 5.4±0.27 c c M+F 81.53±0.92 28.87±0.48 0.14±0.01 110.54±1.24c 3.8±0.14 14.93±0.4 5.4±0.19 M 86.33±1.86b 31.73±1.51cd 0.17±0.01 118.21±1.09b 3.93±0.21 14.13±0.31 5.2±0.22 F 83.33±3.02b 33.27±1.1ab 0.15±0.01 116.75±3.35b 3.53±0.17 14.73±0.5 5.4±0.24 M+F 84.83±1.76c 32.5±0.93b 0.15±0.01 117.48±1.74c 3.73±0.14 14.43±0.29 5.3±0.16 M 85.13±1.44b 33±0.92bc 0.15±0.01 118.29±1.68b 3.8±0.17 15.47±0.68 5.4±0.27 F 82.67±1.46b 31.33±0.56bc 0.15±0.01 114.15±1.59b 3.8±0.2 14.13±0.24 5.47±0.26 M+F 83.9±1.03c 32.17±0.55b 0.15±0.01 116.22±1.2c 3.8±0.13 14.8±0.37 5.43±0.18 a ab M 108.07±0.69 35.93±1.53 0.15±0.01 144.15±1.84a 3.73±0.21 14.8±0.57 5.6±0.29 F 109.47±6.01a 34.8±1.85a 0.16±0.01 144.43±6.23a 3.47±0.13 15.2±0.6 5.2±0.24 M+F 108.77±3.38a 36.37±1.22a 0.16±0.01 145.29±3.8a 3.67±0.13 15±0.41 5.27±0.19 M 108.07±3.34a 37.93±1.54a 0.15±0.01 146.15±4.58a 3.87±0.22 14.8±0.57 5.33±0.29 b c F 80.73±3.49 28.73±0.56 0.14±0.01 109.61±3.73b 3.8±0.17 15.47±0.73 5.6±0.25 M+F 94.4±3.47b 33.33±1.17b 0.15±0.01 127.88±4.46b 3.83±0.14 15.13±0.46 5.47±0.19

Total 139.55±2.75b 134.67±1.74b 134.67±1.21c 141.48±1.03b 140.41±3.45b 140.95±1.77c 142.95±1.63b 137.55±1.74b 140.25±1.27c 168.29±1.91a 168.29±6.46a 169.22±3.99a 170.15±4.91a 134.47±3.93b 152.31±4.53b

Mean values with (a, b, c) common superscript in column differ significantly (P<0.05). M, F and M+F compared separately between TRT. TRT: Treatment; M: Male; F: Female; D: Duodenum; J: Jejunum; I: Ileum; VL: Villi Length; DL: Depth of Crypts of Lieberkuhn; MM: Muscularis Mucosa; TMT: Total Mucosa thickness (VL+DL+MM); SM: Submucosa; MA: Muscularis; S: Serosa; TWT: Total Wall Thickness (TMT+SM+MA+S)

TRT

S. No

Mean values with (a, b, c) common superscript in column differ significantly (P<0.05). M, F and M+F compared separately between TRT. TRT: Treatment; M: Male; F: Female; D: Duodenum; J: Jejunum; I: Ileum; VL: Villi Length; DL: Depth of Crypts of Lieberkuhn; MM: Muscularis Mucosa; TMT: Total Mucosa thickness (VL+DL+MM); SM: Submucosa; MA: Muscularis; S: serosa; TWT: Total Wall Thickness (TMT+SM+MA+S)

TRT

S. No

Al-Abboodi and Jawad, 2018

1818

Al-Abboodi and Jawad, 2018 logical parameters of small intestine segments at week 4

Table 5 present the difference between the histo-

of age are presented in Table 2. The duodenum wall of

logical measurements in the ilium wall layers between

the chicken in the third treatment was significantly

H. tuberosus treatments and control group at the mar-

(P<0.05) higher in thickness compared with other treat-

keting age. Overall, birds in T4 reported significantly

ments. That take place because of increase the villi

(P<0.05) higher improvement in the ilium wall thick-

length (17%) and total mucosa thickness (15%) than the

ness and followed by T5 with 31 and 16% variation ratio

control group. Furthermore, 4% improvement percent-

respectively. In the same regard, males in T 5, T4 and T4

age in the duodenum thickness was reported for T 2 and

in females showed significant (P<0.05) superiority in

T5.

the measurements of ilium wall layers. The increasing 17, 13 and 11% significant improvement was

the length of villi and depth of lubricant were behind the

shown in the jejunum wall thickness for T 4, T3 and T5

improvement in the total ilium wall thickness in

based on the improvement of mucosal layer, especially

H. tuberosus treatments.

villi length and depth of lubricant. The variation ratios

The results of present research is constant with

of the villi length of these treatments were 21, 15 and

Rehman et al. (2007) observation that supplementing

15% and in the depth of lubricant were 21, 24 and 15%

1% inulin in broiler diet notically improved the intesti-

respectively. While, non-significant effects were report-

nal villi height and crypt depth. Whereas, Rebole et al.

ed between all the treated chickens ilium wall thickness.

(2010) found that inclusion of 10, 20 g/kg inulin did not

Table 3 express the histological comparative of the duo-

affect the jejunal histomorphology measured in broilers

denum wall layers of males and females at week six of

at 35 d of age, especially, villus height and crypt depth

age. Overall, supplementing H. tuberosus caused signif-

or microvillus length, width, density and amplification

icant improvement (P<0.05) in the duodenal layers

factor. However, a significant increase in the villus

thickness, especially in males. Higher values were re-

height: crypt depth ratio could be observed in the group

ported in T4 and T5 (15, 12%) followed by T3 and T2

receiving the diet containing 10 g of inulin/kg. Further-

(12, 6%). In males, higher duodenum wall thickness

more, Konosonoka et al. (2015) reported that adding 0.5

was shown in T3, T5, T4 and T2 and the variation ratios

and 1% H. tuberosus in broiler diet did not significantly

were 19, 18, 17 and 11% compared with the control

effect on the villi length in duodenum and ilium while

group. Whereas, T4 in females had significantly

increased the depth of the crypt. In the same regard,

(P<0.05) higher duodenum wall thickness (10%) com-

Nabizadeh (2012) found that 0.5 and 1% inulin had no

pared with the other H. tuberosus treatments and control

impact on histological structure of broiler duodenum

group.

and ilium, but increase the height of villi in jejunum.

Table 4 shows the histological measurements of

the jejunum wall layers of the birds in the treatments at

CONCLUSION

week six of age. All the H. tuberosus treatments report-

Daily supplementation of 1, 1.5 and 2% Jerusa-

ed significant increase (P<0.05) in the total jejunum

lem artichoke had significant effect on the total duode-

wall thickness and the variation ratio was 23, 21, 16 and

num and jejunum wall thickness at four weeks of age.

12% in T5, T4, T3 and T2 respectively. Furthermore, it

Furthermore, all the supplemented percentage of Jerusa-

was 26, 17, 13, 9% in males and 12, 10, 17, 9% in fe-

lem artichoke caused improvement impacts in most of

males.

the studied parameters at six weeks of age. Best results were reported in the fifth treatment when 2% Jerusalem

1819

Journal of Research in Ecology (2018) 6(2): 1814-1821

Al-Abboodi and Jawad, 2018 artichoke was supplemented in the broiler diet.

Jawad HS, Lokman IH, Zuki ABZ and Kassim AB. 2016. Partial ablation of uropygial gland effects on

REFERENCES

growth hormone concentration and digestive system

Cervantes H. 2006. Banning antibiotic growth promot-

histometrical aspect of akar putra chicken. Poultry

ers: learning from the European experience. Poultry

Science, 95(4): 966-973.

International, 45(7): 10-14.

Jawad HS, Idris LHB, Bakar MB and Kassim AB.

Dorman HJD and Deans SG. 2000. Antimicrobial

2015. Anatomical changes of akar putra chicken diges-

agent from plants: antibacterial activity of plant volatile

tive system after partial ablation of uropygial gland.

oils. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 88(2): 303-316.

American Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences,

Duncan DB. 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests.

Biometrics, 11(1): 1-42.

Elizabeth and Fredric. 2001. Comparative veterinary histology with clinical correlates, 1 ed. Manson publishing, The veterinary press, London.

Gao Y and Shan AS. 2004. Effects of different oligosaccharides on performance and availability of nutrients in broilers. Journal of Northeast Agricultural University, 11: 37-41.

Genstat. 2003. Genstat 5.0 Release 4.23DE. Lawes Agric, Trust, Rothamsted Exp. Stn., UK. Huang RL, Deng ZY, Yang C, Yin YL, Xie MY, Wu GY, Li TJ, Li LL, Tang ZR, Kang P, Hou ZP, Deng D, Xiang H, Kong XF and Guo YM. 2007. Dietary oligochitosan supplementation enhances immune status of broilers. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 87(1): 153-159.

Hendry GA. 1993. Evolutionary origins and natural functions of fructans–a climatological, biogeographic and mechanistic appraisal. New Phytologist, 123(1): 03-14.‫‏‬ Hasan L, Jawad SA and Ali Al-Yasiry RM. 2017.

Effects of frankincense on broiler production and histometerical parameters of small intestine. Current Science, 114(7):‫‏‬

Journal of Research in Ecology (2018) 6(2): 1814-1821

10(4): 217-229.

Jawad HS and Al-Abboodi AA. 2017a. Helianthus tuberosus L. as a phytobiotic. Journal of Dairy and Veterinary Sciences, 3(2): 01-02. ID.555610.

Jawad HS and Al-Abboodi AA. 2017b. Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) use in the poultry farms. Journal of Nutraceuticals and Food Science, 2 (3): 1-2.

Jiang HQ, Gong LM, Ma YX, He YH, Li DF and Zhai HX. 2006. Effect of stachyose supplementation on growth performance, nutrient digestibility and caeca fermentation characteristics in broilers. British Poultry Science, 47(4): 516-522.

Konosonoka IH, Osmane B, Cerina S, Krastina V, Vitina II and Valdovska A. 2015. Feeding technology impact on broiler productivity and intestinal tract microflora. Engineering for Rural Development, 42(1): 126132.

Munro BH. 1971. Manual of Histologic Staining Methods of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. Pathology, 3(3): 249.

[NRC] National Research Council. 1977. Nutrient Requiremnets of Poultry, 7th rev. ed., Board on Agriculture and Renewable Resources, Committee on Animal Nutrition. Washington, D.C, National Academy of Sciences.

1820

Al-Abboodi and Jawad, 2018 Naji SA, Al-Zamili IFB, Hasan SA and Al-Gharawi

Vincent.

JKM. 2016. The effects of fermented feed on broiler

Penelitian Survey, Tarsito, Bandung.

production

and

intestinal

morphology.

Pertanika

Journal of Tropical Agricultural Science, 39(4): 597607. ‫‏‬ ‫‏‬Naji SA, Al-Gharawi JKM, Jawad HS, Lokman IH

1991.

Teknik

Penarikan

Contohuntuk

Zhan XA, Ch HU and XU ZR. 2003. Effects of fructooligosaccharide on growth performance and intestinal microflora and morphology of broiler chicks. Zhong Guo Shou Yi Xue Bao, 32: 196-198.

and Al-Zamili IFB. 2017. Effects of moist and fermented feed with probiotic displacement levels in broiler nutrition on morphology and histology of the intestine. Transylvanian Review, 25(18): 4786-4792.‫‏‬ Nabizadeh A. 2012. The effect of inulin on broiler chicken intestinal microflora, gut morphology, and performance. Journal of Animal and Feed Science, 21(4): 725-734.‫‏‬ Patterson JA and Burkholder KM. 2003. Application of prebiotics and probiotics in poultry production. Poultry Science, 82(4) : 627-631.

Rehman H, Rosenkranz C, Böhm J and Zentek J. 2007. Dietary inulin affects the morphology but not the sodium-dependent glucose and glutamine transport in the jejunum of broilers. Poultry Science, 86(1): 118122.

Rebole A, Ortiz LT, Rodrıguez ML, Alzueta C, Trevino J and Velasco S. 2010. Effects of inulin and enzyme complex, individually or in combination, on growth performance, intestinal microflora, cecal fermentation characteristics, and jejunal histomorphology in broiler chickens fed a wheat and barley-based diet.

Poultry Science, 89(2): 276-286.

Snel J, Harmsen HJ, Van De Wielen PW and Williams BA. 2002. Dietary strategies to influence the gastrointestinal microflora of young animals, and its potential to improve intestinal health, in: BLOK, M.C. (Ed.)

Submit your articles online at ecologyresearch.info Advantages

     

Easy online submission Complete Peer review Affordable Charges Quick processing Extensive indexing You retain your copyright

Nutrition and health on the gastrointestinal tract, 37-69 p. (Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, Netherlands).

1821

submit@ecologyresearch.info www.ecologyresearch.info/Submit.php.

Journal of Research in Ecology (2018) 6(2): 1814-1821