Printer Friendly

Impact of adding bioactive mixture composed of lemon, onion and garlic juice on performance, carcass characteristics and some microbiological parameters of rabbits.

INTRODUCTION

Generally, using medicinal herbs and plants with humans has been known since the old civilizations. Old drugs industry depended upon the raw material of medicinal herbs and plants and their extracts, which proved safe. Inversely many synthesized chemicals additives caused many hazards to animal, plants and humans. The world health organization (WHO) encourages using medicinal herbs and plants to substitute or minimize the use of chemicals through the global trend to go back to nature [1].

Feed additive as garlic, onion and lemon juice is experiencing a resurgence in animal health and production too. Meanwhile, the risk of the presence of human health have led to its prohibition for use in animal antibiotic, residues in milk and meat and its effects on feeds [2].

Dietary factors play a key role in the development of various human diseases, including cardiovascular disease. Garlic and its preparations have been widely recognized as agents for prevention and treatment of cardiovascular and other metabolic diseases, atherosclerosis, hyperlipidemia, thrombosis, hypertension and diabetes [3].

The key active ingredient in garlic is a powerful plant chemical called allicin which rapidly decomposes to several volatile organosulphur compounds with bioactivities [4]. Garlic is used both as condiment and medicament, anticoagulant, antioxidant, hypolipidaemic, antihypertensive, antiageing, antiplatelet and heavy metal detoxifier [5, 6].

Lemon (citrus limonum) is a good source of potassium (145 mg per 100 g fruit), bioflavonoid, and vitamin C (40 to 50 mg per 100 g. It contained (61 mg calcium) and considered a good source of vitamins A, B1, B2, and B3. Also, lemon low in calories, containing 27 Kcal per 100 g as reported by [7, 8].

Lemon includes volatile oil (2.5% of the peel), limonene, alpha-terpinene, alpha-pinene, citral, coumarins, mucilage, pectins, and bioflavonoids (mostly from pith and peel as noted by [8-12].

Lemon juice and lemon oil have been evaluated for antimicrobial action. The oil shows some bacteriostatic and antiviral action thought to be due to citral and linalool content [10, 11].

Bioactive ingredients of Turkish and Indian lemon were evaluated by AL-Jabri and Hossain [13] and they found that the essential oil were DL-limonene (78.92%), [alpha]-pinene (5.08%), L-[alpha]-terpineol (4.61%), [beta]- myrcene (1.75%), [beta]-pinene (1.47%) and [beta]-linalool (0.95%) for Turkish lemon. Meanwhile, in Indian lemon, essential oil was DL-limonene (53.57%), L-[alpha]-terpineol (15.15%), [beta]-pinene (7.44%), [alpha]-terpinolene (4.33%), terpinen-4- ol (3.55%), cymene (2.88%) and E-citral (2.38%), respectively.

Lemon also, contained some active antioxidant compounds such as flavonoids, isoflavones, flavones, anthocyanins, coumarins, lignans, catechins and isocatechins as reported by [14, 15].

Antimicrobial compounds produced by microorganisms have long been used in animal diets as growth promoters [16]. However, their use has become highly regulated due to the possible development of drug resistance in human pathogenic bacteria [17].

Garlic (Allium sativum) has been used as spice and folk medicine since antiquity [18]. Bioactive components of garlic, including several sulfur-containing compounds such as alliin, diallylsulfides and allicin, may partly account for some effects of garlic [19]. These components are known to possess antibacterial [20]; antifungal, antiparasitic and antiviral [21]; antioxidant [22], as well as antithrombotic, vasodilatory and anticancer [5] activities.

Garlic (Allium sativum) and onion (Allium cepa) are among the oldest of all cultivated plants. Additionally, both plants have been used as medicinal agents for thousands of years. Both garlic and onion have been shown to have applications as antimicrobial, antithrombotic, antitumor, hypolipidaemic, antiarthritic and hypoglycemic agents. In recent years, extensive research has focused on the beneficial and medicinal properties of garlic and onions. In particular, the use of these agents in the treatment and prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer is an area of considerable investigation and interest [23, 24].

Because some of the vegetable and fruits entail oils and citric acid that highly inhibitory to some pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms, this may provide alternatives and supplements to conventional antimicrobial additives in foods. Many investigators reported that garlic and onion are highly inhibitory to E. coli and to other bacteria and fungi e.g. antibacterial and antifungal [2, 25, 26], as antifungal [25, 26], as enzyme inhibitory [26]. Activities of garlic and onion have been widely studied; the active inhibitory principle of garlic is allicin or daily thiosolphinic acid [27]. Allicin is enzymatically released from precursor form when the garlic and onion bulbs are crushed.

Garlic, onion and lemon juice is highly inhibitory to molds and fungi [28]. Also, Wangensteen et al. [29]; Khir and Ibrahim [30]; Aiad et al. [31] and Ahmed et al. [32] found that, adding natural additive to feed well increase the antioxidant content and may have potentials a natural antioxidants and thus inhibit unwanted oxidation processes.

Garlic (Allium sativum) has bioactive components like sulfur containing compounds (Alliin, Diallylsulfides and Allicin) that act as antibacterial, antifungal, anti parasite, antiviral, antioxidant, antithrombotic, ant cancerous and vasodilator characteristics [33].

Garlic has been found to inhibit bacterial growth [34], also, garlic as a natural feed additive, improved growth and feed conversion ratio and decreased mortality rate [35]. Improvement of broilers performance and carcass merits can be achieved by supplementation of diets with garlic powder [19, 20, 36, 37].

Onion (Allium cepa L.) bulbs possess numerous organic sulphur compounds including Trans-S-(1-propenyl) cysteine sulfoxide, S-methyl-cysteine sulfoxide, spropylcycteine sulfoxides and cycloallicin, flavinoids, phenolic acids, sterols including cholesterol, stigma sterol, b-sitosterol, saponins, sugars and a trace of volatile oil compounds mainly of sulphur compounds [38]. Most of the plant parts contain compounds with proven antibacterial, antiviral, antiparasitic, antifungal properties and have antihypertensive, hypoglycemic, antithrombotic, antihyperlipidemic, anti inflammatory and antioxidant activity [39].

Rabbit meat is a common food in many Mediterranean countries like, Egypt, Algeria, Cyprus, France, Italy, Spain, and some other European countries such as Belgium, Czech Republic, Luxembourg and Portugal [40, 41].

The antioxidative influence of garlic in meat becomes more imperative in less developed nations, considering storage problems and increasing use of alternative feed resources without due consideration for meat quality [42].

Javandel et al. [43]; Onibi et al. [44] and Senthilkumar et al. [45] reported that garlic supplementation had no significant effects on major carcass components and organ characteristics. Also, Raeesi et al. [46] noted that supplementation of 1% and 3% garlic in the broiler diet had no significant effects on relative weights of carcass, fat pad, or digestive organs among different treatments.

So, this study was carried out to investigate the influence of adding bioactive natural juice composed of lemon, onion and garlic on performance, carcass characteristics and some microbiological parameters in growing rabbits.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present study was carried out at El-Nubaria Experimental and Production Station at El-Imam Malik Village, which belongs to the Animal Production Department, National Research Centre, 33 El-Bohouth Street, Dokki, Giza, Egypt, in cooperation with Regional Centre for Food and Feed, Agriculture Research Centre, Ministry of Agriculture, Giza, Egypt. This study aimed to investigate the influence of adding natural bioactive mixture composed of (juice of lemon, onion and garlic) (LOG) at portions (1.00: 1.00: 0.125/ liter clean water), respectively to rabbit rations on performance, carcass characteristics and some of microbiological parameters using growing New Zealand White rabbits.

Experimental animals and feeds:

In a feeding trial lasted 56 days, forty five growing New Zealand White (NZW) rabbits aged 5 weeks with an average weight 564 [+ or -] 5.81 g were kept under the same managerial and hygienic conditions. Experimental rabbits were randomly divided into 5 equal groups, 9 rabbits for each in 3 replicates and assigned for control ration and 4 experimental rations. The 1st group expressed as (control) and received basal ration while rabbits in 2nd, 3rd, 4* and 5th groups were received the basal ration supplemented with mixture juice of (LOG) at levels (5, 10, 15 and 20 ml/ kg DM intake) (V/W), respectively. The juice was prepared and sprayed on basal diet as description by [31, 32].

Rabbits were stayed in galvanized wire batteries contained stainless steel nipples for automatically drinking; also feeders were supplied for each cage.

Experimental rations (on pellets form) and fresh water were available all times ad lib. during the feeding trial. Live body weight of rabbits and feed consumption were weekly recorded and feed conversion ratio was calculated as (g DM intake/ g gain).

Slaughter trials:

After 56 days of feeding rabbits on different tested rations, five representative rabbits from each group were randomly chosen and fasted for 12 hours before slaughtering according to Blasco et al. [47] to evaluate the carcass characteristics of rabbits. Edible offal's (Giblets) included (heart, lungs, liver, testes, spleen, kidneys) were removed and individually weighed. Digestive tract was separated into stomach, small and large intestine, where full and empty weights were recorded. Weights of carcass, giblets and external offal's were calculated as percentages of body weight at slaughtering (SW). Hot carcass was weighed and half of rabbit carcass divided into three parts (fore, middle and hind parts) to determine carcass cuts. Weights of carcass cuts were expressed as percentages of carcass weight (CW).

Dressing percentages calculated as (Carcass weight/slaughter weight x 100).

Dressing percentages calculated as (Carcass weight/empty body weight x 100).

Dietary microbiological evaluation:

Appropriate dilutions prepared from each sample were used for inoculating different nutrient and selective media. The microbial determinations were applied as follows:

Total aerobic viable counts:

Aerobic bacterial counts were estimated on glucose yeast extract nutrient agar medium as the method reported by [48] using pouring plate technique. Suitable plates were counted after incubation at 37[degrees]C for 48 hours.

Coliform and feacal coliform:

Coliform and feacal coliform counts were estimated on Macconkey agar as described by [48] using pouring plate technique. Suitable plates were counted after 24 hours at 37[degrees]C and 44.5[degrees]C for total coliform and feacal coliform counts, respectively.

Yeast count:

Total counts of yeast were determined on Ruse-bengl chloramphenicol agar according to the methods described in Oxpoid Manual [49]. Plates were incubated at 22-25[degrees]C for 7 days.

Detection of salmonella:

The methods of Georgala and Boothroyd [50] and Khan and McCaskey [51] was applied by adding 225 ml peptone water as pre enrichment medium to twenty-five g. of each sample and incubated at 37[degrees]C for 24 hours. After incubation the culture was streaked on difco brilliant green agar plates and examined after 25-28 hours (on this medium presumptive salmonella appears as pink colonies surrounded by bright red medium).

Enumeration of escherichia coli 0157:H7:

Culture media and imurogenetic separation reagents, the enrichment medium was modified tryptone soya broth (mTSB = N) containing novobiocin solution 20 mg/liter of (mTSB) [52, 53] and the subculture on medium sorbitol macconkey agar [54] containing defixime 1ml/liter and potassium telluride 1ml/ liter of sorbitol Macconkey agar [Cefixime etllurite sorbitol Macconkey agar] (CT-SMAC) as described by [55].

Analytical procedures:

Chemical analysis of tested rations was analyzed according to AOAC [56] methods.

The formula of experimental rations is presented in Table (1) that formulated to cover the requirements of rabbits according to NRC [57].

Statistical analysis:

Collected data of DM intake, live weight, average daily gain, feed conversion and carcass data were subjected to statistical analysis as one way analysis of variance using the general linear model procedure of SPSS [58]. Duncan's Multiple Range Test [59] was used to separate means when the dietary treatment effect was significant according to the following model: [Y.sub.ij] = [mu] + [T.sub.i] + [e.sub.ij] Where: [Y.sub.ij] = observation, p = the overall mean, [T.sub.i] = the effect of treatment levels for i = 1 to 5 and [e.sub.ij] = the experimental error.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Formula and chemical analysis of the experimental rations:

Formula and chemical analysis of the experimental rations are presented in Tables 1 and 2. It showed that composition of experimental rations formulated to cover the requirements of rabbits according to NRC [57]. Crude protein was ranged from 18.11% to 18.33%, while EE content was ranged from 2.72% to 2.90% for the five experimental rations. On the other hand, CF content was ranged from 13.00 to 13.80%; meanwhile NFE content was ranged from 55.57 to 56.57% for the same five experimental rations.

Growth performance of the experimental rations:

Data of Table (3) cleared that dietary treatment had no significant effect on DM intake; the results might indicate that adding bioactive natural mixture (LOG) to rabbit rations at the experimental levels used had no adverse effect on palatability. Also, the corresponding value of DM intake ranged from 106 to 112 g/head/day. Rabbits fed 5 ml LOG/kg containing ration ([R.sub.2]) recorded the highest DM intake in comparison with the other groups. These results are harmony agreement with those found by [1, 32, 60-62].

Supplementation bioactive natural mixture (LOG) improved final weight, total body weight gain and average daily gain. Rabbits fed ration contained 10 ml or 15 ml LOG/kg ([R.sub.3] and [R.sub.4]) significantly increased (P < 0.05) final weight, total body weight gain and average daily gain compared to the control group; however, there were no significant effect occurred between [R.sub.3] and [R.sub.4].

Data of Table (3) showed that average daily gain was improved by 19.98%, 28.99%, 36.08% and 19.30% for ([R.sub.2], [R.sub.3], [R.sub.4] and [R.sub.5], respectively) compared to control ([R.sub.1]). These results were in agreement with those reported by Ahmed et al. [32] who noticed that average daily gain was increased by 4.8% in growing buffalo calves fed diet contained 2.5% the same bioactive mixture (LOG) that used in the present study. Meanwhile, the same authors noted that average daily gain was significantly (P < 0.05) decreased with the higher levels of natural additive (LOG) 5 and 7.5 % compared to 2.5% LOG and insignificantly comparing with the control group calves. Also, the present results in agreement with those noted by Zaki et al. [60]; El-Ashry et al. [61]; El-Ashry et al. [1] and Aiad et al. [31].

On the other hand, Ibrahim et al. [63] found that dietary supplementation with 0.5% oregano extract significantly increased live body weight and average daily gain compared to a control group. Meanwhile, Cardinali et al. [41] found that feeding New Zealand White rabbits on rations contained 0.2% oregano (Origanum vulgare) aqueous extract or 0.1% oregano extract +0.1% rosemary extract in significantly (P > 0.05) improved final body weight, average daily gain and feed conversion. Contrarily, Chrastionva et al. [64] observed a significant improvement in feed conversion ratio with oregano dietary supplementation.

The present results showed that incorporation LOG in rabbit rations significantly (P < 0.05) improved feed conversion which expressed as (g DM intake/g gain) in comparison with control (Table 3). These results might be due to the effective to improve immunity and decrease debility incidence, which agree with the findings of Nadi [65]; Aboul-Fotouh et al. [66]; Aboul-Fotouh et al. [67] and Ahmed et al. [32], who recorded that nutrition plays important role in diminishing growth rate.

Also, Eid et al. [68] noted that feeding growing Californian rabbits ration contained 0.50% green tea significantly (P < 0.05) improved feed conversion compared to control ration, corresponding values were (3.07 vs. 3.21 g feed intake/g gain) for 0.50% green tea and control rations, respectively.

Also, Hassan and Abdel-Raheem [69] noted that dry matter intake, final weight, weight gain and feed conversion were slightly improved in calves fed garlic as natural feed additive.

Carcass characteristics of the experimental rations:

The present results of dressing percentages and carcass cuts are shown in Table (4) cleared that dietary treatments except for adding 20ml LOG/ kg DM intake (R5) in significant (P > 0.05) increased giblets weight, carcass weight without head and giblets ([CW.sub.1]), carcass weight plus head ([CW.sub.2]) and carcass weight plus head plus giblets ([CW.sub.3]) compared to control. Meanwhile, adding 20ml LOG/ kg DM intake ([R.sub.5]) in significant (P > 0.05) decreased the same mentioned parameters in comparison with the control one ([R.sub.1]). Inclusion LOG in rabbit rations had no significant (P > 0.05) effect on dressing percentage, however adding 5ml LOG/kg DM intake recorded the best values of dressing percentages compared to the other groups. This may be related to superior of [R.sub.2] group in carcass weight in comparison with the other groups. There were no significant differences (P > 0.05) among groups for carcass cut weights and carcass cut percentages that expressed as % of carcass weight. However, adding LOG mixture in significantly (P>.05) increased carcass weight.

Our findings are in agreement with those noted by Abd-El-Hady [70] who fed weaned rabbits diets contained 0, 300 and 400 gm digestarom [(contained active components: menthol (3.00% of peppermint), anethol (0.45% of anise, fennel) and carvon (0.035% of caraway)/ton]. He noticed significantly higher weight of pre-slaughter, hot carcass and dressing percentages than control group by (5.2 and 6.3%), (5.1 and 5.9%) and (4.4 and 5.5%), respectively. Also, Eid et al. [68] noted that feeding growing Californian rabbits ration contained 0.50% green tea had no significant effect on dressing percentages. Meanwhile Cardinali et al. [41] noted that feeding New Zealand White rabbits on rations contained 0.2% oregano (Origanum vulgare) aqueous extract or 0.1% oregano extract +0.1% rosemary extract significantly (P < 0.05) increased both carcass weight and carcass yield percentages. The present results are in agreement also with the results obtained by Omer et al. [71] who established that dressing percentages that calculated as carcass weight/ slaughter weight (CW/SW) was not affected by addition 0.5% lemongrass or active dried yeast to rabbit's diet compared to control diet. However, they noticed that adding 0.5% lemongrass significantly (P < 0.05) increase dressing percentages as carcass weight/ empty body weight (CW/ EBW) compared to active dried yeast and control diets. Also, Omer et al. [72] found that feeding rabbits diet containing 1.5% mixture of some medicinal plants composed of (Lupinus albus L, Trigonella foenum-graecum L and Cassia senna L) as feed additives had no significant effect on carcass weight and dressing percentages of rabbits. Also, Omer et al. [73] noted that adding herbal mixture formulation consisting of fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) seeds or oregano leaves (Origanum vulgare L.) and mixture of them had no significant effect on carcass weight and dressing percentages of rabbits.

On the other hand, Javandel et al. [43] and Onibi et al. [44] established that garlic supplementation had no significant effects on major carcass components and organ characteristics of broiler chickens.

Data of Table (5) indicated that adding LOG mixture had no significant effect (P > 0.05) total external offals included blood, fur, legs, ears and tail. The corresponding values ranged from 302 to 357g for the tested five groups.

Also dietary treatments had no significant effect (P > 0.05) on head and giblets weights that included (liver, heart, kidneys, spleen and tests). However inclusion LOG mixture in significantly (P < 0.05) increased liver and kidney weights up to 15ml LOG/ kg DM intake in comparison with control, while adding 20 ml LOG/ kg DM intake in significantly (P < 0.05) decreased both liver and kidney weights.

The present results are in agreement with those recorded by Abd-El-Hady [70] who fed weaned rabbits diets contained 0, 300 and 400 gm digestarom [(contained active components: menthol (3.00% of Peppermint), anethol (0.45% of anise, fennel) and carvon (0.035% of caraway)/ton]. He mentioned that relative weights of liver was significantly increased by increasing the dietary digestarom levels by (8.2 and 15.3%) respectively, compared with the control group. This improvement in relative weights of hot carcass, dressing and liver as a result to the reduction in the alimentary tract percentage may be due to that addition of digestarom resulted in increase in digestibility coefficient of nutrients and maintaining the acidic condition in the hindgut which is optimal for better feed utilization. On the other hand, Eid et al. [68] noted that feeding growing Californian rabbits ration contained 0.50% green tea had no significant effect on head weight, intestinal weight, fur weight. However it significantly (P < 0.05) decreased liver, heart and kidneys weight. In contrast Lambertini et al. [74] noticed that feeding rabbits on rations contained non-enriched yeast or 0.400 mg/kg chromium-enriched yeast had no significant (P > 0.05) effect on liver and kidneys that expressed as % of carcass weight. Also, Bonomi et al. [75] not found any effect on the weight of the main organs for rabbits received chromium-yeast. Also, Omer et al. [71] mentioned that addition 0.5% lemongrass or active dried yeast to rabbit diets had no significant effect (P > 0.05) on external and internal offals (giblets) weight.

Digestive tract of the experimental groups is presented in Table (6) cleared that dietary treatments had no significant (P > 0.05) effect on empty weight and % of slaughter weight for stomach, small intestine large intestine and total digestive tract.

However, it had significant effect on full and content weight and % of slaughter weight for stomach ([R.sub.3]); small intestine ([R.sub.2], [R.sub.3] and [R.sub.4]); large intestine ([R.sub.5]) and total digestive tract ([R.sub.4]). These results are disagreement with those found by Abd-El-Hady [70] who fed weaned rabbits diets contained 0, 300 and 400 gm digestarom (contained active components: menthol (3.00% of peppermint), anethol (0.45% of anise, fennel) and carvon (0.035% of caraway)/ton. He noted that full stomach, full intestine weight and percentages as % of slaughter weight and intestine length were not significantly different among experimental groups. On the other hand, Raeesi et al. [46] showed that supplementation of 1 and 3 % of garlic in the broiler diet had no significant effects on relative weights of carcass, fat pad, or digestive organs among different treatments. Also, Omer et al. [71] observed that adding 0.5% lemongrass or active dried yeast to rabbit diets had no significant effect (P > 0.05) on full, Empty and content of digestive tract weight.

Microbiological quality of supplemented diets:

Microbiological quality of supplementation rations and drinking water is presented in Tables (7 and 8). The present results showed that increasing level of addition of bioactive natural mixture (LOG) decreased TPC, TCC, FCC and TM. Mean while TY count was increased with increasing additional level of LOG. The mean of total bacteria count (TPC), total coliform count (TCC), fecal coliform count (FCC), total mould count (TM) and total yeast count (TY) in experimental rations and drinking water with or without the bioactive natural mixture (LOG) additive. The mean values of TPC, TCC, FCC, TM, and TY were (90 x [10.sup.-4], 80 x [10.sup.-4], 70 x [10.sup.- 4], 50 x [10.sup.-3] and 15 x [10.sup.-2], respectively) for control ration ([R.sub.1]). Meanwhile, the corresponding values for the same parameter were (80 x [10.sup.-4], 60 x [10.sup.-4], 45 x [10.sup.-4], 12 x [10.sup.-3] and 10 x [10.sup.-2], respectively) for drinking water before addition of the natural additive. Total aerobic counts were not higher than the recommended safety. For instance, all samples having total aerobic counts (TPC) less than the recommended safety limit of [10.sup.-4] cfu/g proposed by the International Dietetics of Association of European Community (IDAEC) and the Egyptian standards. These results are in agreement with those noted by Aiad et al. [31] and Ahmed et al. [32]. The growth of the bacterial strains in different addition rations was less or not detected after the inhibition effect of the juice at various concentrations. The four levels of juice inhibited the Salmonella spp. in rations and water intake. Natural bioactive mixture (LOG) contains garlic, onion and lemon juice, garlic contains 0.3-0.5 allicin and antimicrobial component [76]. According to Kumar and Berwal [26] and Zaika and Kissinger [77] the grampositive are generally more sensitive to allicin than gram-negative bacteria. Acetic acid bacteria are the most resistant among the gram positive bacteria. Abdou et al. [78] indicated that 5-10 % fresh garlic was sufficient to inhibit the growth of E. coli. The same trend was observed in onion.

Conclusion:

From illustrated results in the present study, it can be conclude that, under conditions similar to those, natural bioactive mixture composed of lemon, onion and garlic juice (LOG) can be used safely in rabbit rations at 15 ml LOG/ kg DM intake with no adverse effect on rabbit's performance, carcasses characteristics. Also, can be used this bioactive mixture to improve the utilization of rabbit rations throughout decreasing different pathogenic microorganisms.

ARTICLE INFO

Article history:

Received 28 September 2015

Accepted 30 October 2015

Available online 24 November 2015

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work was supported by project No. 100704a, National Research Centre under title "Natural additives for feeding growing rabbits"

REFERENCES

[1] El-Ashry, M.A., N.E. El-Bordeny, H.M. Khattab and H.M. El-Sayed, 2006. Effect of diet supplemented with medicinal herbs on nutrient digestibility and some blood metabolites of buffalo calves. Egyptian J. Nutrition and Feeds, 2: 179-191.

[2] Wagr, A., S. Quaratulain, H. Altaf, G.M. Ahmad and Z. Ashhar, 1994. Evaluation of different garlic extracts for antibacterial activity. Sci. Intl., 5: 385-386.

[3] Banerjee, S.K and S.K. Maulik, 2002. Effect of garlic on cardiovascular disorders: a review. Nutrition Journal, 1: (4): 1-14.

[4] Chang, KJ and S.H. Cheong, 2008. Volatile organosulfur and nutrient compounds from garlic by cultivating areas and processing methods. Fed. Am. Soc. Exp. Bio. J. 22: 1108.2.

[5] Agarwal, K.C., 1996. Therapeutic actions of garlic constituents. Med. Res. Rev. 16, 111-124.

[6] Marilynn, L., 2001. Effect of garlic on blood lipids in particles with coronary heart disease. Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 34: 2100-2103.

[7] Murray, M., 1993. The Healing Power of Hefbs. Rocklin, CA: Prima Publishing Co; 143: 366.

[8] Chevallier, A., 1996. Encyclopedia of Medicinal Plants. New York, NY: DK Publishing, 81.

[9] Miyake, Y., A. Murakami, Y. Sugiyama, M. Isobe, K. Koshimizu and H. Ohigashi, 1999. Identification of coumarins from lemon fruit (Citrus Limon) as inhibitors of in vitro tumor promotion and super oxide and nitric oxide generation. J. Agric. Food Chem., 47 (8): 3151-3157.

[10] Fisher, K. and C.A. Phillips, 2006. The effect of lemon, orange and bergamot essential oils and their components on the survival of Campylobacter jejuni, Escherichia coli O157, Listeria monocytogenes, Bacillus cereus and Staphylococcus aureus in vitro and in food systems. J. Appl. Microbiol., 101 (6): 1232-1240.

[11] Manners, G.D., 2007. Citrus limonoids: analysis, bioactivity, and biomedical prospects. J. Agric. Food Chem., 55 (21): 8285-8294.

[12] Miyake, Y., M. Mochizuki, M. Okada, M. Hiramitsu, Y. Morimitsu and T. Osawa, 2007. Isolation of antioxidative phenolic glucosides from lemon juice and their suppressive effect on the expression of blood adhesion molecules. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem., 71 (8): 1911-1919.

[13] AL-Jabri, Najwa N., M.A. Hossain, 2014. Comparative chemical composition and antimicrobial activity study of essential oils from two imported lemon fruits samples against pathogenic bacteria. Beni-Suef University Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 3: 247e-253e.

[14] Prior, R.L., 2003. Fruit and vegetables in the prevention of cellular oxidative damage. Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 78: 570S-578S.

[15] Ibrahim, M.R., H.M. El-Banna, I.I. Omara and Marwa A. Suliman, 2011. Evaluation of nutritive value of some citrus pulp as feedstuffs in rabbit diets. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 10(7): 667-674.

[16] Barragry, T.B. and T. Powers, 1994. Veterinary Drug Therapy. Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

[17] CAFA., 1997. Commission on Antimicrobial Feed Additives. Antimicrobial feed additives. Swedish Official Government Reports 1997:132. Ministry of Agriculture, Stockholm, Sweden.

[18] Rivlin, R.S., 2001. Historical perspective on the use of garlic. J. Nutr., 131(3S): 951S-954S.

[19] Amagase, H., B.L. Petesch, H. Matsuura, S. Kasuga, and Y. Itakura, 2001. Intake of garlic and its bioactive components. J. Nutr., 131(S3): 955S-962S.

[20] Sivam, G.P., 2001. Protection against Helicobacter pylori and other bacterial infections by garlic. J. Nutr. 131 (3S): 1106S-1108S.

[21] Ankri, S. and D. Mirelman, 1999. Antimicrobial properties of allicin from garlic. Microb. Infect., 1: 125129.

[22] Prasad, G., V.A. Laxdal, M.Yu and B.L. Raney, 1995. Antioxidant activity of allicin, an active principle in garlic. Mol. Cell. Biochem, 148: 183-189.

[23] Ali M., M. Thomson and M. Afzal, 2000.Garlic and onions: their effect on eicosanoid metabolism and its clinical relevance. Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes and Essential Fatty Acids (PLEFA), 62(2): 55-73.

[24] Williams, C.A. and E.D. Lamprecht, 2008. Some commonly fed herbs and other functional foods in equine nutrition: A review. The Veterinary Journal, 178(1): 21-31.

[25] Sato, A., M. Terao and Y. Henna, 1990. Antibacterial action of garlic extract on food poisoning bacteria. J. of the Food Hygiene Society Japan, 31: 328-332.

[26] Kumar, M. and J.S. Berwal, 1999. Sensivity of food pathogens to garlic (Allium sativum). Appl. Microbiol., 84: 213-215.

[27] Saleem, Z.M. and K.S. Al-Delaimy, 1982. Inhibition of Bacillus aurous by garlic extracts J. of Food Protection, 45: 1007-1009.

[28] Elgyyar, M., F.A. Draughon, D. Golden and J.R. Mout, 2001. Antimicrobial activity of essential oils from plants against selected pathogenic and saprophytic microorganisms. Journal of Food Protection, 64 (7): 1019-1024.

[29] Wangensteen, H., A.B. Sanulsen and K.E. Malterud, 2004. Antioxidant activity in extracts from coriander. Food Chemistry, 88: 293-297.

[30] Khir, A.A. and Nany S. Ibrahim, 2007. Effect of coriander and anise as feed additives on performance of buffalo calves. Egyptian J. Nutrition and Feeds, 10(2): 453-460.

[31] Aiad, A.M., Neamat I. Bassuony, A.A. Afifi and F.M. Abo-Donia, 2008. Adding natural juice of vegetables and fruitage to ruminant diets: (A). Lemon, onion and garlic juice supplemented to diets fed to suckling buffalo calves and its effect on digestibility, growth performance and fungi count. World Journal of Agricultural Science, 4 (2): 149-156.

[32] Ahmed, A.A., Neamat I. Bassuony, Set El-Habiab S. Awad, A.M. Aiad and S.A. Mohamed, 2009. Adding natural juice of vegetables and fruitage to ruminant diets (B). Nutrients utilization, microbial safety and immunity, Effect of diets supplemented with lemon, onion and garlic juice fed to growing buffalo calves. World Journal of Agricultural Science, 5(4): 456-465.

[33] Issa, K. J. and J. M. Abo Omar, 2012. Effect of garlic powder on performance and lipid profile of broilers. Open Journal of Animal Sciences, 2(2): 62-68.

[34] Cavallito, C.J., J.S. Buck and C.M. Suter, 1994. Allicin, the antibacterial principle of Allium sativum. Determination of the chemical composition. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 60: 1952-1958.

[35] Tollba, A.A.H. and Hassan, M.S.H. 2003. Using some natural additives to improve physiological and productive performance of broiler chicks under high temperature conditions. Black cumin (nigilla sativa) or Garlic (allium sativum). Poultry Science, 23: 327-340.

[36] Demir, E., S. Sarica, M.A. Ozcan and M. Suicmez, 2003. The use of natural feed additives as alternatives for an antibiotic growth promoter in broiler diets. British Poultry Science, 44, S44-S45. doi: 10.1080/00071660301944

[37] Lewis, M.R., S.P. Rose, A.M. Mackenzie and L.A. Tucker, 2003. Effects of dietary inclusion of plant extracts on the growth performance of male broiler chickens. British Poultry Science, 44: S43-S44.

[38] Melvin, J.M., J. Jayochitra and M. Vijayapriaya, 2009. Antimicrobial activity of some common spices against certain human pathogens. Journal of Medicinal Plants Research, 3: 1134-1136.

[39] Lampe, J.W., 1999. Health effects of vegetables and fruits: Assessing mechanisms of action in human experimental studies. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 70: 475-490.

[40] Dalle Zotte, A. and Zs. Szendro, 2011. The role of rabbit meat as functional food. Meat Sci. 88: 319-331.

[41] Cardinali, R., M. Cullere, A. Dal Bosco, C. Mugnai, S. Ruggeri, S. Mattioli, C. Castellini, M. Trabalza Marinucci and A. Dalle Zotte, 2015. Oregano, rosemary and vitamin E dietary supplementation in growing rabbits: Effect on growth performance, carcass traits, bone development and meat chemical composition, Livestock Science, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.02.010

[42] Onibi, G.E., J.O. Agbede, S.T. Afun and V.A. Aletor, 2007. Assessment of the meat quality of broiler chickens fed equi-protein replacement of fish meal with frog meal. Res. Agric. Sci., 1(2): 73-80.

[43] Javandel, F., B. Navidshad, J. Seifdavati, G.H. Pourrahimi, and S. Baniyaghoub, 2008. The favorite dosage of garlic meal as a feed additive in broiler chickens ratios. Pakistan Journal of Biological Science, 11(13): 1746-1749.

[44] Onibi, G.E., E. Oluwatoyin, A. Adebisi, N. Fajemisin, V. Ayode, and J.I. Adetun, 2009. Response of broiler chickens in terms of performance and meat quality to garlic (Allium sativum) supplementation. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 4(5): 511-517.

[45] Senthilkumar, S., N. Madesh, M.R. Purushothaman, P. Vasanthakumar, G. Thirumalaisamy and P. Sasikumar, 2015. Effect of garlic supplementation on performance in broilers-a review. International Journal of Science, Environment and Technology, 4(4): 980-983.

[46] Raeesi, M., S.A. Hoeini-Aliabad, A. Roofchaee, A. ZareShahneh, and S. Pirali, 2010. Effect of periodically use of garlic (Allium sativum) power on performance and carcass characteristics in broiler chickens. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 68: 1213-1219.

[47] Blasco, A., J. Quhayaun and G. Masoscro, 1993. Hormanization of criteria and terminology in rabbit meat research. World Rabbits Sciences, 1: 3-10.

[48] APHA., 1990. American Public Health Association. Standard Methods for the Examination of Dairy products. 11th ed APHA. Inc, New York.

[49] Oxpoid Manual, 2000. Oxpoid Manual of Culture Media Ingredients and Other Laboratory Services. 4th edition Oxpoid Ltd.

[50] Georgala, D.L. and M. Boothroyd, 1965. A system for detection salmonella in meat and meat product. J. Appl. Bacteriol., 28: 206.

[51] Khan N.A. and A.D. McCaskey, 1973. Incidence of salmonella in commercially prepared sandwiches for the vending trades. J. Milk Food Technol., 39: 315.

[52] Bolton, F.J., L. Crozievand J.K. Wiliamson, 1995. Optimization of methods for isolation of Escherichia coli 0157: H7 from beef burgers PHLS microbial. Digest, 12: 67-750.

[53] ISO 6887, 2001. Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs preparation of test samples, initial suspension and decimal dilutions for microbiological examination.

[54] Difco, 2000. Difco manual of dehydrated culture media and reagents for microbiological and clinical laboratories products. Ninth Edition Difco Laboratories, Detriot Mi.: Change, USA.

[55] Zadik, P.M., P.A. Chapman and C.A. Siddons, 1994. Immunomagnetic separation as a sensitive method for isolating Escherichia coli 0157:H7 from food samples. Epidemiol. Infection, 113: 31-39.

[56] AO AC, 2005. Official Methods of Analysis, 18th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC, USA.

[57] NRC, 1977. National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Rabbits, National Academy of Science, Washington, D.C.

[58] SPSS, 2008. Statistical Package for Social Sciences, Statistics for Windows, Version 17.0. Released 2008. Chicago, U.S.A.: SPSS Inc.

[59] Duncan, D.B., 1955. Multiple Rang and Multiple F-Test Biometrics, 11: 1- 42.

[60] Zaki, A.A., M.R. Mostafa, R.T. Fouad and Z.M. Marei, 2000. Teosint (Zea mexicanal) forage productivity quality and its feeding effect on performance of buffalo calves, Proc. Conf. Anim. Growth Prod. In the 21 century sakha, 18-20 April, pp: 1737-244.

[61] El-Ashry, M.A., Zebaa, A. Motagally and Y.A. Maareek, 2002. Effect of life dried baker's yeast with or without acidification of milk and yeast culture on performance of suckling buffalo calves. Egyptian J. Nutrition and Feeds, 5(1): 31-41.

[62] Aiad, A.M., 2005. The replacement value of canola meal for soybean meal in growing buffalo calves ration. J. Agric. Sci., Mansoura Univ., 6: 3047-3058.

[63] Ibrahim, Sh.A.M., A.A. El-Ghamry and G.M. El-Mallah, 2000. Effect of some medicinal plants of Labiatae family as feed additives on growth and metabolic changes of rabbits. Egypt. J. Rabbit Sci., 10, 105-120.

[64] Chrastionva, L., M. Chrenkova, A. Laukova, A. Rafay, M. Simonova, Z. Vasilkova, R. Szaboova, V. Strompfova, L. Ondruska, L., S. Faix and S. Placha, 2007. Effect of dietary herbal extracts on health and performance of rabbits. Sekundarwirkungen von Futterinhaltsstoffen-vom Nahrstoff zum Wirkstoff, Wien, 144-148.

[65] Nadi, S., 1999. The use of some medicinal plants in ruminant nutrition. Ph.D. Thesis, Fac. of Agric., Fayoum, Egypt.

[66] Aboul-Fotouh, G.E., S.M. Allam, E.I. Shehata and S.N. Abd El-Azeem, 1999. Effect of some medicinal plants as feed additives on performance of growing sheep. Egyptian J. Nutrition and Feeds, 2 (2): 79-87.

[67] Aboul-Fotouh, G.E., S.M. Allam, E.I. Shehata and S.N. Abd El-Azeem, 2000. Effect of some medicinal plants as feed additives on milk production and composition of lactating buffaloes. Egyptian J. Nutrition and Feeds, 3 (1): 31- 41.

[68] Eid, Y., H. Zeweil, M.H. Ahmed, M. Basyony and Maha Farok, 2010. Effect of plant source of omega-3 fatty acids and green tea powder on the performance and meat quality of growing rabbits. Egyptian Journal of Rabbit Science, 20(2): 115-134.

[69] Hassan, E.H. and S.M. Abdel-Raheem, 2013. Response of growing buffalo calves to dietary supplementation of caraway and garlic as natural additives. World Applied Sciences Journal, 22(3): 408-414.

[70] Abd-El-Hady, A.M., 2014. Performance, physiological parameters and slaughter characteristics in growing rabbits as affected by herbal feed additives (digestarom[R]). Journal of International Scientific Publications: Agriculture and Food Volume 2, ISSN 1314-8591 (Online), Published at: http://www.scientificpublications.net.

[71] Omer, H.A.A., Hewida, M.H. Elallawy, Laila D. Abd El-Samee and Nagwa Maghraby, 2010. Productive performance of rabbits fed diets containing lemongrass or active dried yeast. American-Eurasian J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 7(2): 179-187.

[72] Omer, H.A.A., Sh.A.M. Ibrahim, A.A. Abedo and F.A.F. Ali, 2012. Growth performance of rabbits fed diets containing different levels of energy and mixture of some medicinal plants. Journal of Agricultural Science, 4, (2): 201-212. Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education.

[73] Omer, H.A.A., Y.A. A. EL-Nomeary, R.I. EL-Kady, Azza M.M. Badr, F.A.F. Ali, Sawsan M. Ahmed, H.M.H. EL-Allawy and Sh. A.M. Ibrahim (2013). Improving the utilization of rabbit diets containing vegetable oil by using fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) and oregano (Origanum vulgare L) as feed additives. Life Science Journal, 10 (1): 2625-2636.

[74] Lambertini, L., G. Vignola, G.M. Beone, G. Zaghini and A. Formigoni, 2004. Effect of chromium yeast supplementation on growth performance and meat quality in rabbits. World Rabbit Sci., 12: 33-47.

[75] Bonomi, A., Bonomi, B.M., A. Quarantell, 1999. II cromo organico nell'alimentazione del coniglio da carne. J. Food Sci. Nutr., 28, 351-362.

[76] Shelef, I.A., 1993. Antimicrobial effect of spices. J. of Food Safety, 6: 29-44.

[77] Zaiaka, L.A. and J.C. Kissinger, 1983. Inhibitory and stimulatory effects of oregano on Lactobacillus planetarium and Pediococcus cerevisiae. J. of Food Sci., 46: 1205-1210.

[78] Abdou, I.A., A.A. Zeid, M.R. El-Sherbeeny and Z.H. Abou-El-Gheat, 1972. Antimicrobial activities of Allium sativum, Allium cepa, Raphanus sativus, Capsicum frutescens, Eruca sativa, Allnom kurral on bacteria. Qualitus plantarum et. Materiae Vegetables, 22: 29-35.

(1) H.A.A. Omer, (1) Sawsan M. Ahmed, (2) Neamat I. Bassuony, (2) Azza M.M. Badr and (2) Mervat S.M. Hasanin

(1) Animal Production Department, National Research Centre, 33 El-Bohouth Street, P.O:12622, Dokki, Giza, Egypt.

(2) Regional Centre for Food and Feed (Microbiology Department), Agriculture Research Centre, Ministry of Agriculture, Dokki, Giza, Egypt

Corresponding Author: Omer H.A.A. Animal Production Department, National Research Centre, 33 El-Bohouth Street, P.O:12622, Dokki, Giza, Egypt;

E-mail: hamedomer2000@yahoo.com
Table 1: Formula of experimental rations (kg/Ton).

Ingredients             Experimental rations

                        [R.sub.1]   [R.sub.2]     [R.sub.3]
                        Basal       5 ml          10 ml
                        ration      LOG           LOG

Clover hay              320
Yellow corn             140
Barley                  70
Soybean meal (44% CP)   160         Basal diet    Basal diet
Wheat barn              260
Molasses                25          +             +
Di-Ca-phosphate         15          5 ml          10 ml
DL. Methionine          3           LOG/kg DM     LOG/kg DM
Sodium chloride         4           intake        intake
Vit-M in-Pre mix *      3

Ingredients             Experimental rations

                        [R.sub.4]     [R.sub.5]
                        15 ml         20 ml
                        LOG           LOG

Clover hay
Yellow corn
Barley
Soybean meal (44% CP)   Basal diet    Basal diet
Wheat barn
Molasses                +             +
Di-Ca-phosphate         15 ml         20 ml
DL. Methionine          LOG/kg DM     LOG/kg
Sodium chloride         intake        DM intake
Vit-M in-Pre mix *

* Each kg vitamins and minerals premix contains: Vit. A.
2.00000IU, 10.000 mg, B 1400 mg, B2 1200 mg, B6, 400 mg, B
12.2 mg, K 3400 mg, D3 200000IU, Choline chloride 240 mg
pantothenic acid 400mg, Niacin 1000mg, Folic acid 1000 mg,
Biotin 40 mg, Manganese 1700 mg, Zinc 14000 mg, Iron 1500mg,
copper 500 mg, selenium 20 mg, Iodine 40 mg and Magnesium
8000 mg. LOG: Natural bioactive mixture juice composed of
lemon, onion and garlic juice at portions (1.00: 1.00:
0.125/liter clean water.

Table 2: Chemical analysis of the experimental rations.

Item                          Experimental rations

                              [R.sub.1]   [R.sub.2]   [R.sub.3]
                               control    5 ml LOG    10 ml LOG

1-Chemical analysis of the experimental rations

Moisture                        8.20        8.30        8.35

Chemical analysis on DM basis

Organic matter (OM)             90.40       90.47       90.50
Crude protein (CP)              18.11       18.20       18.26
Crude fiber (CF)                13.00       13.30       13.50
Ether extract (EE)              2.72        2.81        2.84
Nitrogen-free extract (NFE)     56.57       56.16       55.90
Ash                             9.60        9.53        9.50

Item                          Experimental rations

                              [R.sub.4]   [R.sub.5]
                              15 ml LOG   20 ml LOG

1-Chemical analysis of the experimental rations

Moisture                        8.40        8.50

Chemical analysis on DM basis

Organic matter (OM)             90.56       90.60
Crude protein (CP)              18.30       18.33
Crude fiber (CF)                13.60       13.80
Ether extract (EE)              2.86        2.90
Nitrogen-free extract (NFE)     55.80       55.57
Ash                             9.44        9.40

LOG: Natural bioactive mixture juice composed of lemon, onion
and garlic juice at portions (1.00: 1.00: 0.125/liter clean water.

Table 3: Growth performance of the experimental groups.

Item                     Experimental rations

                         [R.sub.1]   [R.sub.2] 5   [R.sub.3] 10
                          control      ml LOG         ml LOG

Live body weight (LBW)

Initial weight (g)          564          560           565
Final weight (FW, g)     1298 (b)     1441 (ab)      1512 (a)
Total body weight         734 (b)     881 (ab)       947 (a)
  gain (TBWG, g)
Average daily gain       13.11 (b)   15.73 (ab)     16.91 (a)
  (ADG, g/day)
Dry matter intake           109          112           110
  (DMI), g
Feed conversion          8.31 (b)     7.12 (a)       6.51 (a)
  (g DMI/g gain)

Item                     Experimental rations           SEM

                         [R.sub.4] 15   [R.sub.5] 20
                            ml LOG         ml LOG

Live body weight (LBW)

Initial weight (g)           562            569        5.81
Final weight (FW, g)       1561 (a)      1445 (ab)     29.35
Total body weight          999 (a)        876 (ab)     28.97
  gain (TBWG, g)
Average daily gain        17.84 (a)      15.64 (ab)    0.51
  (ADG, g/day)
Dry matter intake            109            106        2.65
  (DMI), g
Feed conversion            6.11 (a)       6.78 (a)     0.21
  (g DMI/g gain)

(a) and (b): Means in the same row having different
superscripts differ significantly (P<0.05).

SEM: Standard error of mean.

LOG: Natural bioactive mixture juice composed of lemon, onion
and garlic juice at portions (1.00: 1.00: 0.125/ liter clean water.

Table 4: Dressing percentages and carcass cuts of the
experimental groups.

Item                             Experimental rations

                                 [R.sub.1]    [R.sub.2]   [R.sub.3]
                                  control     5 ml LOG    10 ml LOG

Slaughter weight (SW), g         1567 (a,b)   1681 (a)    1557 (ab)
Digestive tract
Full weight, g                    306 (b)     328 (ab)     277 (b)
Empty weight, g                     135          134         128
Content weight, g                 171 (bc)     194 (b)     149 (c)
Empty body weight (EBW), g          1396        1487         1408
Head weight, g                       96          98           97
Edible offal's, weight, g         85 (ab)      102 (a)     91 (ab)
  (Giblets)
Carcass weight ([CW.sub.1])       759 (ab)     821 (a)     748 (ab)
Carcass weight ([CW.sub.2])       855 (ab)     919 (a)     845 (ab)
Carcass weight ([CW.sub.3])       940 (ab)    1021 (a)     936 (ab)
Dressing percentages (DP)%
DP1                                48.44        48.84       48.04
DP2                                54.56        54.67       54.27
DP2                              59.99 (ab)   60.74 (a)   60.12 (ab)
DP2                                54.37        55.21       53.13
DP5                                61.25        61.80       60.01
DP*                              67.34 (ab)   68.66 (a)   66.48 (ab)
Carcass cuts
Fore part      weight, g          236 (ab)     274 (a)     241 (ab)
               % of [CW.sub.1]     31.10        33.37       32.22
Middle part    weight, g            218          223         201
               % of [CW.sub.1]     28.72        27.16       26.87
Hind part      weight, g          305 (ab)     324 (a)     306 (ab)
               % of [CW.sub.1]     40.18        39.47       40.91

Item                             Experimental rations       SEM

                                 [R.sub.4]    [R.sub.5]
                                 15 ml LOG    20 ml LOG

Slaughter weight (SW), g          1739 (a)     1364 (b)    51.17
Digestive tract
Full weight, g                    391 (a)      273 (b)     15.12
Empty weight, g                     149          121       7.13
Content weight, g                 242 (a)      152 (c)     10.32
Empty body weight (EBW), g          1497         1212      44.44
Head weight, g                      101           91       1.68
Edible offal's, weight, g         102 (a)       74 (b)     3.91
  (Giblets)
Carcass weight ([CW.sub.1])       788 (ab)     624 (b)     28.94
Carcass weight ([CW.sub.2])       889 (ab)     715 (b)     29.30
Carcass weight ([CW.sub.3])       991 (ab)     789 (b)     32.73
Dressing percentages (DP)%
DP1                                45.31        45.75      0.61
DP2                                51.12        52.42      0.58
DP2                              56.99 (b)    57.84 (ab)   0.56
DP2                                52.64        51.49      0.61
DP5                                59.39        58.99      0.55
DP*                              66.20 (ab)   65.10 (b)    0.51
Carcass cuts
Fore part      weight, g          247 (ab)     206 (b)     8.63
               % of [CW.sub.1]     31.35        33.02      0.41
Middle part    weight, g            228          168       10.84
               % of [CW.sub.1]     28.93        26.92      0.50
Hind part      weight, g          313 (ab)     250 (b)     10.77
               % of [CW.sub.1]     39.72        40.06      0.32

(a), (b) and (c): Means in the same row having different
superscripts differ significantly (P<0.05).

SEM: Standard error of mean.

EBW: Empty body weight = Slaughter weight--digestive
tract content.

LOG: Natural bioactive mixture juice composed of lemon, onion
and garlic juice at portions (1.00: 1.00: 0.125/liter clean water.

[CW.sub.1]: Carcass weight.

[CW.sub.2]: Carcass weight + head.

[CW.sub.3]: Carcass weight + head + edible offal's include
(Liver, heart, kidneys, spleen, testes and lungs).

[DP.sub.1]: Dressing percentages calculated as
([CW.sub.1]/SW * 100).

[DP.sub.2]: Dressing percentages calculated as
([CW.sub.2]/SW * 100).

[DP.sub.3]: Dressing percentages calculated as
([CW.sub.3] + SW * 100).

[DP.sub.4]: Dressing percentages calculated as
([CW.sub.1]/EBW * 100).

[DP.sub.5]: Dressing percentages calculated as
([CW.sub.2]/EBW * 100).

[DP.sub.6]. Dressing percentages calculated as
([CW.sub.3] + EBW * 100)

Table 5: External and internal offal's (Giblets) of
the experimental groups.

Item                             Experimental rations

                                 [R.sub.1]    [R.sub.2]   [R.sub.3]
                                  control       5 ml        10 ml
                                                 LOG         LOG

Slaughter weight (SW), g           1567ab       1681a      1557ab

External offal's:

Blood                weight, g       42          43          49
                     % of SW     2.68 (bc)    2.56 (c)    3.15 (ab)
Fur, legs, ears      weight, g    279 (ab)    289 (ab)    295 (ab)
  and tail           % of SW       17.80        17.19       18.95
Total                weight, g      321          332         344
                     % of SW     20.48 (ab)   19.75 (b)   22.09 (a)

Edible offals

Head                 weight, g       96          98          97
                     % of SW        6.13        5.83        6.23

Internal offal's (Giblets):

Liver                weight, g       48          60          50
                     % of SW        3.06        3.57        3.21
Heart                weight, g     5 (b)       6 (ab)        7a
                     % of SW        0.32        0.36        0.45
Kidneys              weight, g       13          16          15
                     % of SW        0.83        0.95        0.96
Spleen               weight, g       1            1           1
                     % of SW        0.06        0.06        0.06
Testes               weight, g       5            6           5
                     % of SW      0.32 (b)    0.36 (ab)   0.32 (b)
Lungs                weight, g       13          13          13
                     % of SW        0.83        0.77        0.83
Total                weight, g    181 (ab)     200 (a)    188 (ab)
  (head + giblets)   % of SW       11.55        11.90       12.06

Item                             Experimental rations      SEM

                                 [R.sub.4]    [R.sub.5]
                                   15 ml        20 ml
                                    LOG          LOG

Slaughter weight (SW), g          1739 (a)    1364 (b)    51.17

External offal's:

Blood                weight, g       45          47       1.52
                     % of SW     2.59 (bc)    3.45 (a)    0.12
Fur, legs, ears      weight, g    312 (a)      255 (b)    7.90
  and tail           % of SW       17.94        18.70     0.28
Total                weight, g      357          302      8.57
                     % of SW     20.53 (ab)   22.14 (a)   0.35

Edible offals

Head                 weight, g      101          91       1.68
                     % of SW        5.81        6.67      0.14

Internal offal's (Giblets):

Liver                weight, g       57          39       3.21
                     % of SW        3.28        2.86      0.13
Heart                weight, g     6 (ab)      6 (ab)     0.22
                     % of SW        0.34        0.44      0.02
Kidneys              weight, g       16          12       0.67
                     % of SW        0.92        0.88      0.03
Spleen               weight, g       1            1       0.00
                     % of SW        0.06        0.07      0.003
Testes               weight, g       6            5       0.19
                     % of SW     0.34 (ab)    0.37 (a)    0.007
Lungs                weight, g       16          11       0.53
                     % of SW        0.92        0.81      0.04
Total                weight, g    203 (a)      16 (b)     5.05
  (head + giblets)   % of SW       11.67        12.10     0.21

(a), (b) and (c): Means in the same row having different
superscripts differ significantly (P<0.05).

SEM: Standard error of mean.

LOG: Natural bioactive mixture juice composed of lemon, onion
and garlic juice at portions (1.00: 1.00: 0.125/ liter clean water.

Table 6: Digestive tract of the experimental groups.

Item                         Experimental rations

                      [R.sub.1]    [R.sub.2]   [R.sub.3]
                       control     5 ml LOG    10 ml LOG

Slaughter weight      1567 (ab)    1681 (a)    1557 (ab)
(SW), g

Stomach:

Full      weight, g    105 (a)      118 (a)     64 (b)
           % of SW     6.70 (a)    7.02 (a)    4.11 (b)
Empty     weight, g       25          30          27
           % of SW       1.60        1.78        1.73
Content   weight, g     80 (a)      88 (a)      37 (b)
           % of SW     5.10 (b)    5.24 (ab)   2.38 (c)

Small intestine:

Full      weight, g     67 (c)      90 (b)      97 (b)
           % of SW     4.28 (d)    5.35 (c)    6.23 (b)
Empty     weight, g       56          63          55
           % of SW       3.57        3.75        3.53
Content   weight, g     11 (d)      27 (c)      42 (b)
           % of SW     0.71 (d)    1.60 (c)    2.70 (b)

Large intestine:

Full      weight, g    134 (a)     120 (ab)     116 (b)
           % of SW     8.55 (a)    7.14 (ab)   7.45 (ab)
Empty     weight, g       54          41          46
           % of SW       3.45        2.44        2.95
Content   weight, g     80 (a)      79 (a)      70 (a)
           % of SW     5.10 (a)    4.70 (a)    4.50 (a)

Total digestive tract:

Full      weight, g    306 (b)     328 (ab)     277 (b)
           % of SW    19.53 (ab)   19.51 (b)   17.79 (b)
Empty     weight, g      135          134         128
           % of SW       8.62        7.97        8.22
Content   weight, g    171 (bc)     194 (b)     149 (c)
           % of SW    10.91 (bc)   11.54 (b)   9.57 (c)

Item                  Experimental rations      SEM

                      [R.sub.4]   [R.sub.5]
                      15 ml LOG   20 ml LOG

Slaughter weight      1739 (a)     1364 (b)    51.17
(SW), g

Stomach:

Full      weight, g    124 (a)     105 (a)     6.52
           % of SW    7.13 (a)     7.70 (a)    0.36
Empty     weight, g      31           24       1.38
           % of SW      1.78         1.76      0.05
Content   weight, g    93 (a)       81 (a)     5.79
           % of SW    5.35 (ab)    5.94 (a)    0.35

Small intestine:

Full      weight, g    125 (a)     79 (bc)     5.69
           % of SW    7.19 (a)    5.79 (bc)    0.28
Empty     weight, g      63           48       3.33
           % of SW      3.62         3.52      0.15
Content   weight, g    62 (a)      31 (bc)     4.83
           % of SW    3.57 (a)    2.27 (bc)    0.28

Large intestine:

Full      weight, g    142 (a)      89 (b)     7.01
           % of SW    8.16 (ab)    6.52 (b)    0.29
Empty     weight, g      55           49       4.15
           % of SW      3.16         3.59      0.24
Content   weight, g    87 (a)       40 (b)     5.41
           % of SW    5.00 (a)     2.93 (b)    0.27

Total digestive tract:

Full      weight, g    391 (a)     273 (b)     15.12
           % of SW    22.48 (a)   20.01 (ab)   0.54
Empty     weight, g      149         121       7.13
           % of SW      8.56         8.87      0.33
Content   weight, g    242 (a)     152 (c)     10.32
           % of SW    13.92 (a)   11.14 (bc)   0.43

a, b, c and d: Means in the same row having different
superscripts differ significantly (P<0.05).

SEM: Standard error of mean.

LOG: Natural bioactive mixture juice composed of lemon,
onion and garlic juice at portions (1.00: 1.00: 0.125/
liter clean water.

Table 7: Count and detected of different microorganisms of rabbit
rations (cfu/g) before and after adding different levels of natural
bioactive mixture juice (LOG).

Item                                 Experimental rations

                                     R1                 R2
                                  control            5 ml LOG

Total bacteria count (TPC)    90 x [10.sup.-4]   80 x [10.sup.-4]
Total coliform count (TCC)    90 x [10.sup.-4]   75 x [10.sup.-4]
Faecal coliform count (FCC)   70 x [10.sup.-4]   45 x [10.sup.-4]
Total mould count. (TM)       50 x [10.sup.-3]   5 x [10.sup.-3]
Total yeast count. (TY)       15 x [10.sup.-2]   16 x [10.sup.-2]
Salmonella spp. (S. spp.)            -                  -
Escherichia coli (E. coli)           +                  +
Staphylococcus aureus.               +                  +
  (S. aureus)
Campylobacter spp.                   +                  +
  (C. spp.)

Item                                 Experimental rations

                                     R3                 R4
                                 10 ml LOG          15 ml LOG

Total bacteria count (TPC)    60 x [10.sup.-3]   40 x [10.sup.-3]
Total coliform count (TCC)    44 x [10.sup.-3]   31 x [10.sup.-3]
Faecal coliform count (FCC)   35 x [10.sup.-3]   23 x [10.sup.-3]
Total mould count. (TM)       3 x [10.sup.-3]    2 x [10.sup.-2]
Total yeast count. (TY)       20 x [10.sup.-2]   25 x [10.sup.-2]
Salmonella spp. (S. spp.)            -                  -
Escherichia coli (E. coli)           +                  -
Staphylococcus aureus.               +                  -
  (S. aureus)
Campylobacter spp.                   +                  -
  (C. spp.)

Item                          Experimental rations

                                       R5
                                   20 ml LOG

Total bacteria count (TPC)      35 x [10.sup.-2]
Total coliform count (TCC)      27 x [10.sup.-2]
Faecal coliform count (FCC)     12 x [10.sup.-2]
Total mould count. (TM)         1 x [10.sup.-1]
Total yeast count. (TY)         30 x [10.sup.-2]
Salmonella spp. (S. spp.)              -
Escherichia coli (E. coli)             -
Staphylococcus aureus.                 -
  (S. aureus)
Campylobacter spp.                     -
  (C. spp.)

LOG: Natural bioactive mixture juice composed of lemon, onion and
garlic juice at portions (1.00: 1.00: 0.125/liter clean water.

Table 8: Drinking water analysis before starting the
experimental feeding.

Item                                 Count and detected

Total bacteria count (TPC)            80 x [10.sup.-4]
Total coliform count (TCC)            60 x [10.sup.-4]
Faecal coliform count (FCC)           45 x [10.sup.-4]
Total mould count. (TM)               12 x [10.sup.-3]
Total yeast count. (TY)               10 x [10.sup.-2]
Salmonella spp. (S. spp.)                    -
Escherichia coli (E. Coli)                   +
Staphylococcus aureus. (S. aureus)           +
Campylobacter spp. (C. spp.)                 -
COPYRIGHT 2015 American-Eurasian Network for Scientific Information
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2015 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Omer, H.A.A.; Ahmed, Sawsan M.; Bassuony, Neamat I.; Badr, Azza M.M.; Hasanin, Mervat S.M.
Publication:Advances in Environmental Biology
Article Type:Report
Date:Dec 1, 2015
Words:9310
Previous Article:Bone Mineral Density (BMD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Next Article:Survey of nutritional education for students of faculty education Nujran based on supplemented food products with some vegetables peels and study the...
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters