2015
DOI: 10.1155/2015/970398
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Competing Role of Bioactive Constituents inMoringa oleiferaExtract and Conventional Nutrition Feed on the Performance of Cobb 500 Broilers

Abstract: The influence of Moringa oleifera (MO) leaf extract as a dietary supplement on the growth performance and antioxidant parameters was evaluated on broiler meat and the compounds responsible for the corresponding antioxidant activity were identified. 0.5%, 1.0%, and 1.5% w/v of MO leaf aqueous extracts (MOLE) were prepared, and nutritional feed supplemented with 0%, 0.5%, 1.0%, and 1.5% w/w of MO leaf meal (MOLM) extracts were also prepared and analysed for their in vitro antioxidant potential. Furthermore, the … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
16
0
6

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 38 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
6
16
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…The remaining compounds (peaks 1 Al , 2 Al , 4 Al , 5 Al , and 7 Al ) corresponded to flavone derivatives, in which peak 2 Al (luteolin-7-O-glucoside) was positively identified in comparison with the commercial standard. Two apigenin derivatives were found in the extracts, peak 1 Al ([M-H] − m/z 593) corresponded to a C-glycoside due to its characteristic losses of 90 and 30 u moieties, being tentatively identified as apigenin-6,8-C-diglucoside, as previously described by Makita, Chimuka, Steenkamp, Cukrowska, and Madala (2016) and Karthivashan, Arulselvan, Alimon, Ismail, and Fakurazi (2015). Peak 7 Al ([M-H] − m/z 473) presented one MS 2 fragment at 269, corresponding to apigenin aglycone with the loss of 42 u + 162 u (acetyl and hexosyl moieties), therefore being tentatively identified as apigenin-O-(acetyl-hexoside).…”
Section: Phenolic Profiling By Hplc-dad-esi/mssupporting
confidence: 56%
“…The remaining compounds (peaks 1 Al , 2 Al , 4 Al , 5 Al , and 7 Al ) corresponded to flavone derivatives, in which peak 2 Al (luteolin-7-O-glucoside) was positively identified in comparison with the commercial standard. Two apigenin derivatives were found in the extracts, peak 1 Al ([M-H] − m/z 593) corresponded to a C-glycoside due to its characteristic losses of 90 and 30 u moieties, being tentatively identified as apigenin-6,8-C-diglucoside, as previously described by Makita, Chimuka, Steenkamp, Cukrowska, and Madala (2016) and Karthivashan, Arulselvan, Alimon, Ismail, and Fakurazi (2015). Peak 7 Al ([M-H] − m/z 473) presented one MS 2 fragment at 269, corresponding to apigenin aglycone with the loss of 42 u + 162 u (acetyl and hexosyl moieties), therefore being tentatively identified as apigenin-O-(acetyl-hexoside).…”
Section: Phenolic Profiling By Hplc-dad-esi/mssupporting
confidence: 56%
“…This study demonstrated the effects of MOLP supplementation on meat quality and morphometric features of tibia bone in broilers. Water holding capacity (WHC) and meat pH are crucial qualitative traits of broiler meat which affect the appearance of the products as well as their juiciness, cooking losses (Karthivashan et al, 2015) and meat tenderness, a quality which mainly determines consumer preference (Lomiwes et al, 2014). Our results revealed that breast muscles of the birds receiving MOLP supplementation had higher pH values and those receiving 9 and 15g of MOLP were presented with higher WHC of muscles when compared to the non-supplemented group.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 70%
“…Chicks fed MH had the highest LBW. Along the same line, Karthivashan et al (2015) showed that fed on 0.5%, 1.0% and 1.5% of MOLM extracts significantly (P<0.05) enhanced weight gain compared to control group, while there were no significant differences in weight gain for the dietary treatments with MOLM. On the contrary, Makanjuola et al, (2014) pointed that adding 0.2, 0.4 and 0.6% of MOLM to the feed, lasted 28 days, had no adverse influence on final weight and BWG in broiler chicken.…”
Section: Live Body Weightmentioning
confidence: 65%