2008
DOI: 10.3923/ijps.2008.872.879
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of Some Natural Feed Additive in Growing Chicks Diets

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

11
32
2

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 58 publications
(52 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
11
32
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The average values of the breast meat crude fat content showed the signifi cant highest value (P < 0.05) in group T3 compared with group T2, but the diff erences were insignifi cant as compared to the control group. This is in agreement with fi ndings by Abaza, et al, 2008.…”
Section: Breastsupporting
confidence: 94%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The average values of the breast meat crude fat content showed the signifi cant highest value (P < 0.05) in group T3 compared with group T2, but the diff erences were insignifi cant as compared to the control group. This is in agreement with fi ndings by Abaza, et al, 2008.…”
Section: Breastsupporting
confidence: 94%
“…Mahmood et al (2005) reported that the analysis of varian ce showed no signifi cant diff erence in crude protein percentage of meat of broiler chicks between the control group and the treatment groups. The chemical analyses of breast meat indicated that moisture, protein, fat and ash percentages were not signifi cantly infl uenced (P > 0.05) by feed addi-tives supplementation in all the experimental diets (Abaza, et al, 2008). Lactobacillus bacteria did not adversely aff ect the breast chemical composition of the breast meat (Brzośka et al, 2007).…”
mentioning
confidence: 87%
“…The forage is fed to supply high quality dry matter, and animal productivity obtained with C. intybus is comparable to that with legumes and superior to solely grass-based pastures (Shad et al, 2013). Moreover, C. intybus plant has been recently used as a natural feed additive in poultry diets (Abaza et al, 2008).…”
Section: The Effect Of Cichorium Intybus L Ethanol Extraction On Thementioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has been thought that AGPs reduce toxin levels (Feighner & Dashkevicz, 1987) and growth-depressing metabolites (Niewold, 2007) produced by the bacteria of gastrointestinal tract (GIT) and thus promote growth and feed efficiency. It is well known that AGP usage with beneficial effects has also created potential problems, such as the resistance of pathogens to certain recommended AGPs, which ultimately causes severe human health problems (Abaza et al, 2008;Attia et al, 2012). Regarding health issues, the prophylactic usage of the AGP remained under severe scientific and public scrutiny (Roe & Pillai, 2003), until the European Union imposed bans on sub-therapeutic usage of AGPs in animal production in 2006 (Burch, 2006;Castanon, 2007).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%