AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION CENTREwww.arccjournals.com/www.ijaronline.in

*Corresponding author’s e-mail: doctorwsi639@gmail.com1Department of Animal Nutrition, 2Department of Poultry Production, 3Department of Dairy Technology.Faculty of Animal Production & Technology, University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Ravi Campus, Lahore 54000, Pakistan.

Comparative evaluation of influence of dietary organic and inorganic seleniumsupplement on growth performance of indigenous Aseel chickensWaseem Muhammad Zia*1, Anjum Khalique1, Saima Naveed1, Jibran Hussain2,Nadeem Muhammad3 and Sohail Ahmad2

Department of Animal Nutrition, Faculty of Animal Production & Technology,University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Ravi Campus, Lahore 54000, Pakistan.Received: 12-05-2016 Accepted: 23-12-2016 DOI: 10.18805/ijar.v0iOF.7608

ABSTRACTTwo hundred-forty 3-weeks-old Aseel birds from Lakha, Mushki, Peshaweri and Mianwali varieties of indigenous Aseelwere chosen (60 birds/variety, 30 males and 30 females) to evaluate the influence of selenium supplements on growthperformance. The birds of either sex were divided according to randomized complete block design into A, B and C treatmentgroups (10 birds/treatment); A and B were experimental, while C was control. Se-enriched yeast (organic selenium) andsodium selenite (inorganic selenium) were supplemented @ 0.3 mg/kg in the basal diets of group A and B, respectively,while, group C was fed without additional selenium. Birds were maintained individually in battery cages from 4-21 weeks.Statistically, the results showed the reduced (P>0.05) feed intake, while enhanced (P0.05) nutrient utilization for drymatter, crude protein, crude fiber, crude fat and ash; superior feed conversion ratio; higher live final body weight; lower(P0.05) mortality and rearing cost in Se-enriched yeast fed birds, chiefly in the males of Lakha variety than those receivedsodium selenite supplemented or control diet. The study concluded that the organic selenium supplement (Se-enrichedyeast) had a major influence in improving the overall growth performance of Aseel.

Key words: Body weight, FCR, Indigenous Aseel, Mortality, Nutrient utilization, Rearing cost, Selenium, Varieties.

INTRODUCTIONIt is well known that indispensable trace elements

increase the performance of poultry and its deficiency causesserious disorders in human and livestock. Selenium (Se)deficiency in poultry manifests itself in a variety of diseasesand dysfunctions including pancreatic fibrosis, liver necrosis,muscular dystrophy, exudative diathesis, microangiopathy,poor feathering and immune deficiency (Edens, 1996).Selenium boosts the serum level of T3 revealing a superiorthyroid hormone homeostasis and thus the better metabolicbalance to the body of livestock (Sethy et al., 2015).Selenium selenite improves the reproduction in goats byenhancing semen quality in Aardi goats (Hajalshaikh et al.,2015); dietary inclusion of Se enhances the reproductionperformance and hormonal profile in buffalo heifers (Ganieet al., 2014). Similarly, Pankaj et al. (2014) have alsoindicated that Se supplementation can improve semen qualityin goats. The symptoms of Se deficiency in poultry havebeen related to its role in antioxidant protection through theenzyme glutathione peroxidase. More recently, a number ofselenoproteins have been identified that both improve ourknowledge of the physiological function of Se and assist inexplaining other signs of its deficiency (Edens and Gowdy,2005). Selenium exists in two forms, the organic and the

inorganic form (Foster and Sumar, 1997), and traditionally,is supplemented in poultry diets via inorganic sources (Hesset al., 2000). Organic Se is in the form of organic Secompounds, such as Se-enriched yeast, and selenomethionine(Payne et al., 2005). Researchers have reported that organicSe supplementation in poultry feeds has been positive impacton the performance of poultry birds (El-Sheikh et al., 2006).Ankur et al. (2011) demonstrated the enhanced growth rateand nutrient retention in broilers consumed the Sesupplemented diet. The organic Se is readily available andis actively absorbed from the intestine, so organic Se fedbirds might have an improved capability to increase theproductivity of poultry due to improved antioxidant status(Schrauzer, 2000; El-Sheikh et al., 2006). The mainadvantages of organic Se in poultry are: superior nutrientutilization, better weight gain, developed different bodymeasurements (Ankur et al., 2011; Zia et al., 2016b);upgraded slaughtering characteristics (Zia et al., 2016d) andblood biochemical profile (Zia et al., 2016c); organic Se fedhens present greater production performance (Zia et al.,2016e); better egg quality/geometry and improved hatchingtraits (Zia et al., 2016a) than those received dietary inorganicSe supplement. Organic Se enhanced the chick viability,maintain productive and reproductive performance (Edens

Indian J. Anim. Res., 51 (3) 2017 : 478-488Print ISSN:0367-6722 / Online ISSN:0976-0555

Volume 51 Issue 3 (2017) 479

et al., 2000). In commercial poultry production, Se needsto be supplemented to overcome various stressors e.g., ithas been reported that Se is a good feed supplement for heat-stressed poultry (Habibian et al., 2015). Moreover, Se,especially organic yeast Se needs to be supplemented toovercome stress and oxidative injury due to exogenousCorticosterone administration (Chun et al., 2009). Similarly,Senthil et al. (2015) concluded that supplementation of Seat the rate of 0.3 mg/kg of poultry diet enhances the growthrate in broilers. Information accumulated clearly indicatesthat Se-enriched yeast has a range of important commerciallyvaluable advantages.

With the increase in the global human population,the people of developing countries are suffering from therisks of malnutrition in terms of protein foods, especiallyfrom animal origin and Pakistan is also among the sufferers(Jatoi, 2012). The situation, therefore, demands concertedefforts to produce the animal protein in substantial quantityto fulfill requirements of the masses. Domestic poultry undercurrent animal protein scarcity is a good option to overcomethe situation. The Aseel is a well-known indigenous breedof Pakistan used for backyard poultry production and is asignificant source of eggs and meat. The village chickensare important in breaking the ferocious cycle of poverty,malnutrition and disease (Robert, 1992). The local breedscontain genes and alleles pertinent to their adaptation to aparticular environment and local breeding goals (Romanovet al., 1996). Aseel chicken is a significant source of eggs,meat and a rapid source of income (Khan, 2004). The heavybody weight is one of the well-known characteristics of theAseel chicken (Ahmad et al., 2014). The indigenous Aseel,though possessing appreciable potentials but are with verylow overall performance. Despite, having considerableabilities, insufficient research work has still been conductedfor the improvement of Aseel chicken. Therefore, it is acrucial to not elucidate the influence of dietary Sesupplementation with organic and inorganic Se supplementson growth performance and nutrient utilization in recognizedvarieties of indigenous Aseel chicken.MATERIALS AND METHODS

Experimental manipulations were approved by theAnimal Ethics Committee, University of Veterinary andAnimal Sciences Lahore (UVAS), Pakistan.

The experiment was conducted at IndigenousChicken Genetic Resource Center (ICGRC), Ravi Campus,C-Block, Pattoki. This study led for the period of 18 weeks(from 4 to 21 weeks) to estimate the impact of organic andinorganic Se supplements on growth performance in fourvarieties namely Lakha (LA), Mushki (MK), Peshaweri (PS)and Mianwali (MN) of indigenous Aseel chicken. For thispurpose, 400 d-old birds (100 birds/variety, 50 males and50 females) were procured from Avian Research and Training

center, UVAS, Lahore. These birds were given an adjustmentperiod of 21 days, then a total of 240 birds were picked upfrom 400 birds. These birds were distributed in a randomizedcomplete block design into four groups, 60 birds/group/variety (30 males and 30 females). The birds of either sex ineach group were further subdivided into three treatmentgroups A, B, and C (10 birds/treatment). Group A and Bwere experimental groups, while group C was control. Eachtreatment was replicated 10 times with one bird in eachreplicate. In this experiment, each bird was regarded as anexperimental unit (4varieties×3treatments×2sexes×10 birds/treatment).

Three basal diets were formulated according toNRC (1994) standards for the experimental birds (Table 1).Diet-I (Starter diet: 4 to 9 weeks) was consisted of 2960kcal/kg (ME) and 21.54% (CP); Diet-II (Grower diet: 10 to16 weeks) was comprised of 3020 kcal/kg (ME) and 19.98%(CP) and Diet-III (Finisher diet: 17 to 21 weeks) was havingthe energy value of 2913 kcal/kg (ME) and 15.60% (CP).The basal diets for the birds of group A were supplemented@ 0.3 mg/kg with an organic Se supplement: Se-enrichedyeast (SY) {Selemax® 2000 mg/kg (0.2%), Biorigin, Brazil};the basal diets for the birds of group B @ 0.3 mg/kg with aninorganic Se supplement: sodium selenite (SS) {Sodiumselenite, (DM 98%), 456,000 mg/kg, Suzhou Haijin ChemicalCo., Ltd. Jiangsu, China} and group C was considered ascontrol and was fed the basal diet without additional Se. Thecomposition of Se in basal and supplemented diet is given inTable 3 which shows that the total analyzed Se concentrationin Diet-I, was 0.38 mg/kg, 0.37 mg/kg and 0.11 mg/kg, inDiet-II, it was 0.39 mg/kg, 0.38 mg/kg and 0.13 mg/kg andin Diet-III, it was 0.38 mg/kg, 0.37 mg/kg and 0.10 mg/kgfor A, B and C groups, respectively.

The birds were maintained separately throughoutstudy period under uniform husbandry conditions in three-tiered battery cages. The cages were having individual cellswith removable trough feeders and automatic nipple drinkers.Birds were allowed to get feed and water ad libitum. Theavailability of clean fresh drinking water was ensured roundthe clock. Routine immunization and veterinary care wereensured to protect bird’s health status. Birds were vaccinatedagainst Newcastle (ND) and infectious bursal diseases (IBD)as per the standard vaccination schedule.

Feed intake was recorded daily (Feed intake g= feedoffered g – feed refused g) by using electrical weighingbalance capable of measuring up to 1 g. The feed conversionratio (FCR= feed consumed/body weight gain), weight gainand body weight were estimated weekly. Mortality wasrecorded daily and estimated at the termination of theexperiment (Mortality%= Number of dead birds/totalbirds×100). The rearing cost (cost of feed + cost of Se) foreach bird was assessed at the end of the experiment. A totalof 72 birds (3 birds/sex/ treatment) were randomly selected

480 INDIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL RESEARCH

at 21 weeks of age and shifted to the metabolic cages todetermine nutrient utilization. Birds were given an adjustmentperiod of 4 days. Feed and water were withdrawn 12 hoursbefore the start of the trial. The trial was continued for 4days. Droppings were gathered on daily basis. The droppingscollected in 4 days were dried in a hot air oven at 60 andwere allowed to cool in glass dedicators. The samples ofexperimental diets and droppings were analyzed for drymatter, crude protein, crude fiber, fat content and total ashby using methods AOAC (1995). The analyzed chemicalcomposition of the diet offered during metabolic trial isdescribed in Table 2.

Selenium contents in the experimental dietswere analyzed by Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical

Emission Spectrometer (ICP-OES), Model (PerkinElmer 2100-DV, USA) by the wet digestion method(Analytical grade Nitric acid and Per Chloric acid) at theNuclear Institute for Agriculture & Biology (NIAB),Faisalabad.

Table 1: Ingredient composition of the basal diets

Ingredient, % Diet-I (Starter) Diet-II (Grower) Diet-III (Finisher) (4-9 weeks) (10-16 weeks) (17-21 weeks)Corn grain 59.62 61.54 58.90Wheat grain - - 5.00Rice tips - - 8.50Wheat bran - - 5.10Soybean meal (48% CP) 32.50 31.70 7.00Fish meal (60% CP) 2.00 0.00 -Canola meal (40% CP) - - 10.00Feather meal (80% CP) - - 1.05Soybean oil 2.00 3.00 1.20Di-calcium phosphate 1.50 1.70 -Limestone 1.35 1.14 2.35Sodium chloride 0.30 0.30 0.30Vitamin-mineral mix* 0.50 0.50 0.50DL-methionine 0.23 0.12 0.10Total 100.00 100.00 100.00Analyzed chemical composition2

Crude protein (%) 21.54 19.98 15.60ME by calculation1 (kcal/kg) 2960 3020 2913Calcium (%) 1.02 0.91 1.00Phosphorus (%) 0.46 0.45 0.42Lysine (%) 1.21 1.09 0.69Methionine (%) 0.57 0.43 0.35Analyzed selenium (mg/kg) 0.11 0.13 0.10*Vitamin-mineral provided per kg of diet: Vitamin A, 9000 U; Vitamin D3, 3000 U; Vitamin E, 24 mg; Vitamin K3, 1.8 mg; Vitamin B1, 2.0 mg;Vitamin B2, 5.0 mg; Vitamin B6, 3.0 mg; Vitamin B12, 0.1 mg; nicotinic acid, 40 mg; pantothenic acid, 15 mg; folic acid, 1.0 mg; biotin, 0.05 mg;choline chloride, 500 mg; Fe, 80 mg; Cu, 20 mg; Zn, 90 mg; Mn, 80 mg; I, 0.35 mg1Metabolizable energy content was estimated according to NRC (1994)2Chemical analysis according to AOAC (1995)

Table 2: Analyzed chemical composition* of diet offered duringmetabolic trialNutrients (%)

Dry matted 91.65Crude protein 15.60Crude fat 3.32Crude fiber 4.21Total ash 5.97*Chemical analysis according to AOAC (1995)

Table 3: Composition of supplemental and analyzed selenium in the experimental diets (mg/kg)

Experimental Diets Diet-I Diet-II Diet-III

Treatment groups A B C A B C A B CSupplemental level of SY 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00Supplemental level of SS 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00Analyzed Se (Basal diets) 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.10Analyzed level of SY 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00Analyzed level of SS 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00

Analyzed selenium in the diets= Analyzed selenium in the basal diet + Analyzed selenium in the supplemented diet

Volume 51 Issue 3 (2017) 481

All statistical analyses were performed using SAS®,9.1 (2002-03) portable software.

The data were investigated with the analysis ofvariance (ANOVA) technique (Steel et al., 1997) in arandomized complete block design (RCBD) under factorialarrangement. Differences among treatment means werecompared by using Duncan’s Multiple Range (DMR) test(Duncan, 1955).The model was as follows:Yijk = µ + Bi + Tj + Bi × Tj + ijkWhere,Yijk = dependent variables (cumulative feed intake, FCR,

weight gain, final live body weight, folds of increase inbody weight, nutrient utilization, rearing cost, mortalityrate)

µ = Population meanBi = Effect of ith Block (i=1, 2, 3, 4; Lakha, Mushki, Peshaweri, Mianwali)Tj = Effect of jth Treatment (j= 1, 2; Dietary treatment, Sex)Bi × Tj = Interaction Effectijk = Residual Effect of jth treatment in ith block NID ~ 0,2

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe influence of dietary organic (SY) and inorganic

(SS) Se supplements on growth parameters of indigenousAseel chickens is presented in Table 4, which shows that thegrowth performance of Aseel birds was improved byreceiving SY supplemented diet compared to the birds gotSS supplemented or control diet. Cumulative feed intake(CFI) was decreased (P0.05) in SY-fed birds as comparedto those in the no Se or SS treatment groups with the leastCFI in females (6497.24±29.07 g). Among varieties, femalesof Mushki showed maximum CFI (8323.34±153.07 g), whilemales of Lakha presented minimum CFI (7742.15±89.15g). Overall, the CFI was decreased in SY-fed (6857.04±52.42g) birds as compared to those in the SS-fed (8666.16±94.23g) or control (9168.91±60.90 g) groups. Among Aseelvarieties, feed intake was higher in Mushki (8453.70±146.48g). But with Mianwali, there was no significant difference.This variation among different varieties of Aseel may bedue to strain and variety difference (Bell and Weaver, 2005).The interaction of varieties and Se sources (V×Se) showedlower (P0.05) CFI in the female birds of Peshaweri(6400.15±32.82 g) got SY included diet compared to thoseexposed to SS treated or control diet. The interaction, onoverall basis exhibited lower CFI in SY-fed birds ofPeshaweri (6506.26±31.01 g) compared to the remainingtwo treatments. Our these results are in line with those ofPayne et al. (2005) who claimed no increase in feed intakewith the addition of organic Se in poultry diets. Peric et al.(2009) also reported the non-significant effect on feed intakeas a result of Se supplementation in broilers. However, some

other researchers reported increase in feed intake by the birdsexposed to Se included diets (Attia et al., 2010; Cruz andFernandez, 2011). Fig. 1 displays that overall, the SY-fedbirds showed superior weekly weight gain compared withrest of the dietary treatments. The birds of Lakha varietyrepresented better weekly weight gain among varieties (Fig.2). Feed conversion ratio (FCR) was improved by SYsupplementation, superior to SS incorporation with best FCRin SY fed males (3.71±0.02). Among varieties, males ofLakha showed better FCR (4.27±0.13). In interaction, theSY-fed male birds of Lakha revealed the best FCR(3.42±0.01). Overall, the FCR was improved by both Sesources when compared to FCR for the birds in treatmentgroup which was without supplemented Se (6.16±0.05).Regarding the source of Se, FCR in SY treatment (3.81±0.02)was superior to in SS treatment (5.28±0.09). Among thevarieties, Lakha showed better FCR (4.86±0.14). Ininteraction, the SY-fed birds of Lakha variety showed thebest FCR (3.62±0.05) than the rest of the interactions. Arthuret al. (1992) and Schrauzer (2000) reported in-line resultsthat the supplementation of organic Se improves feedconversion. On the other hand, it has been reported that FCRremained unaffected by Se inclusion in broiler chickens(Gruzauskas et al., 2014). The dietary addition of organicSe supplement (SY) exhibited significantly (P0.05)increased final body weight (FBW) compared to SS-fed birdsor the birds in the control group with maximum FBW inmales of Lakha (2141.13±20.28 g). Among varieties, malesof Lakha presented enhanced FBW (2038.70±39.21 g).In interaction, the male birds of Lakha variety revealedthe highest FBW (2320.00±8.35 g) exposed to SYincorporated diet. Sodium selenite fed or control groupdid not improve FBW over the group received SYsupplemented diet. Overall, the Se-yeast addition exhibitedincreased (P0.05) final FBW (1996.55±19.50 g)compared to SS addition (1848.10±12.53 g) orunsupplemented control (1684.93±12.41 g). Amongvarieties, Lakha presented enhanced FBW (1902.32±28.04g) compared to rest of the varieties. In interaction, SY-fed birds of Lakha exhibited the highest (2104.10±49.71g) FBW. Current findings are in line with those ofKanchana and Jeyanthi (2010) and Beckett and Arthur(2005) indicating improved FBW on organ ic Sesupplemented diets. This has been claimed that increasein body weight is linked with the inclusion of organic Sein broilers (Choct et al., 2004; Salman et al., 2007; Uptonet al., 2008). Similarly, the identical results were reportedby (Yang et al. 2012) that SY supplementation can increasethe body weight of the broilers. Contrary to our results,Miller et al. (1972) and Deniz et al. (2005) did not founddifference in live weight gain of broilers fed with differentsources and levels of Se. Similarly, Peric et al. (2009)observed no effects on the performance of the broilerswhen using different concentrations (0.0 and 0.3 ppm) of

482 INDIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL RESEARCH

Tabl

e 4:

Influ

ence

of S

e so

urce

s, A

seel

var

ietie

s an

d th

eir

inte

ract

ion

on c

umul

ativ

e fe

ed in

take

, FC

R a

nd f

inal

bod

y w

eigh

t in

Ase

el c

hick

ens

from

4-2

1 w

eeks

(Mea

ns±S

.E)

a –

q M

eans

bea

ring

unlik

e su

pers

crip

ts w

ithin

col

umn

diffe

r si

gnifi

cant

ly (

P0.

05);

SE:

stan

dard

err

or;

SY:

Se-e

nric

hed

yeas

t (0

.3 m

g/kg

) or

gani

c Se

sup

plem

ent;

SS:

sodi

um s

elen

ite (

0.3

mg/

kg)

inor

gani

c Se

sup

plem

ent;

C: c

ontro

l (w

ithou

t ad

ditio

nal S

e); L

A: L

akha

; M

K:

Mus

hki;

PS: P

esha

wer

i; M

N:

Mia

nwal

i

Volume 51 Issue 3 (2017) 483

SS and SY, and the combination of both. The nutrientutilization was significantly improved in the birds receivedSY supplemented diet contrast to the birds of rest of thedietary treatments (Table 5). Significantly enhanced (P0.05)nutrient utilization was noticed in the male birds receivedSY added diet i.e. the digestibility of DM (86.3±0.4%), CF(80.4±0.2%), CP (76.3±0.4%), crude fat (83.6±0.4%) andash (84.1±0.2%). Among Lakha, Mushki, Peshaweri andMianwali varieties, the males of Lakha exhibited enhancednutrient utilization of DM (80.1±2.4%), CF (78.9±0.7%),CP (71.9±1.8%), crude fat (80.8±1.4%) and ash (80.0±1.4%).In interaction, SY-fed birds of Lakha variety displayedsignificantly (P0.05) improved nutrient utilization of DM(87.9±0.2%), CF (81.8±0.1%), CP (78.3±0.3%), crude fat(86.0±0.1%) and ash (85.1±0.1%) compared to SS treatedor control group. According to overall analysis, the improvedDM utilization (84.95±0.43%), CF (80.28±0.27%), CP(75.42±0.43%), crude fat (82.66±0.42%) and ash (82.18±0.38%) utilization was observed in SY supplemented groupthan other treatment groups. The birds of Lakha variety

presented better DM (79.91±1.46%), CF (78.50±0.58%),CP (71.79±1.17%), crude fat (79.95±0.95%) and ash(78.54±0.95%) utilization among four varieties. Ininteraction, SY-fed birds of Lakha exhibited improved DM(86.67±0.57%), CF (81.66±0.13%), CP (77.48±0.42%),crude fat (84.95±0.50%) and ash (82.98±0.95%) utilizationcompared to SS treated or untreated group. These results ofour study are in accordance with the findings of Ankur andBaghel (2011) indicating that Se inclusion in the diets ofpoultry enhances nutrient retention in broiler birds. Pietroet al. (2013) also reported significant differences in nutrientutilization with the addition of organic Se in the diet ofbroilers.

Results given in Table 6 shows that the folds ofincrease in body weight on the overall basis were better(P0.05) in the SY fed birds (20.56±0.010 folds), especiallyin the male birds of Lakha (20.72±0.008 folds) wheninteracting with SY source of Se. Among varieties, males ofLakha (20.56±0.023 folds) individually, as well as overall(20.49±0.016 folds) exhibited improved results. Significant

Fig 1: Influence of selenium sources on weekly weight gain in Aseel chicken

Fig 2: Influence of different varieties on weekly weight gain in Aseel chicken

484 INDIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL RESEARCH

Tabl

e 5:

Inf

luen

ce o

f Se

sou

rces

, Ase

el v

arie

ties

and

thei

r in

tera

ctio

n on

nut

rient

util

izat

ion

in A

seel

chi

cken

fro

m 4

-21

wee

ks (

Mea

ns±S

.E)

a –

v M

eans

bea

ring

unlik

e su

pers

crip

ts w

ithin

col

umn

diffe

r si

gnifi

cant

ly (

P0.

05);

SE:

stan

dard

err

or;

SY:

Se-e

nric

hed

yeas

t (0

.3 m

g/kg

) or

gani

c Se

sup

plem

ent;

SS:

sodi

um s

elen

ite (

0.3

mg/

kg)

inor

gani

c Se

sup

plem

ent;

C: c

ontro

l (w

ithou

t ad

ditio

nal S

e); L

A: L

akha

; M

K:

Mus

hki;

PS: P

esha

wer

i; M

N:

Mia

nwal

i

Volume 51 Issue 3 (2017) 485

Tabl

e 6:

Influ

ence

of S

e so

urce

s, A

seel

var

ietie

s an

d th

eir i

nter

actio

n on

tim

e of

incr

ease

, rea

ring

cost

and

mor

talit

y in

Ase

el c

hick

en f

rom

4-2

1 w

eeks

(M

eans

±S.E

)

a –

m M

eans

bea

ring

unlik

e su

pers

crip

ts d

iffer

sig

nific

antly

(P

0.05

); SE

: sta

ndar

d er

ror

of m

ean;

SY:

Se-

enric

hed

yeas

t (0.

3 m

g/kg

), or

gani

c Se

sup

plem

ent;

SS: s

odiu

m s

elen

ite (

0.3

mg/

kg),

inor

gani

cSe

sup

plem

ent;

C:

cont

rol (

with

out

addi

tiona

l Se)

; LA

: La

kha;

MK

: M

ushk

i; PS

: Pe

shaw

eri;

MN

: M

ianw

ali

486 INDIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL RESEARCH

weight gain by SY fed birds has already been reported byKanchana and Jeyanthi (2010) and Salman et al. (2007).The overall expenditures (per bird) in rearing the birds ofSY supplemented group represented less (P0.05) cost(PRs.207.89±0.46) than those in SS supplemented(PRs.209.28±0.26) or control group (PRs.210.07±0.15).However, males of Lakha exposed to SY supplemented dietshowed significantly (P0.05) lower rearing cost(PRs.206.30±0.77) than those received SS added or standarddiet. Lakha variety on overall (PRs.206.30±0.53) and its malespresented lesser rearing cost (PRs.205.20±0.93) among fourvarieties. Overall, the rearing cost in the interaction of SY Sesource and Lakha variety (PRs.202.72±1.0) as well as themales of Lakha exhibited significantly (P0.05) least rearingcost (PRs.199.33±1.24). The identical findings have beenreported by Ibrahim et al. (2011) that Se supplementation inbroilers improved weight gain and final body weight withoutincrease of feeding costs. The rate of mortality on the overallbasis was decreased (P0.05) in the birds exposed to SYincluded diet (0.08±0.03%) compared to the birds receivedSS added (0.25±0.04%) or control diet (0.16±0.04%), whileamong four Aseel varieties, on overall basis as well as ininteractions of varieties and Se sources the non-significantvariations (P>0.05) were observed. These results are inagreement with the findings of Rajashree et al. (2014)demonstrating lower mortality rates in response to organicSe supplemented diets. Contrary to our findings, Gruzauskas

et al. (2014) demonstrated non-significant impact of Seaddition on rate of mortality. The overall results of the studydemonstrated that supplementation of Se-yeast had asignificant impact on growth parameters of Aseel and Se-yeast incorporation proved superior to sodium selenite.Djordjevic et al. (2016) reported that organic Se, in the formof selenized yeast was more effective than inorganic form.The results of this experiment represent that the inclusion ofSe supplements, especially the organic Se supplement (SY)can favorably affect the body weight, nutrient utilization andrearing cost and in other indicators of growth parameters.CONCLUSION

Based on the results, the present study concludedthat the organic dietary Se supplement (Se-enriched yeast:SY) may be a vital dietary supplemental source for lowproducing indigenous Aseel chickens to improve their overallgrowth performance. Further detailed studies are stillrequired in which other levels, sources, and the combinationsof Se supplementation can be planned.ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Prof. Dr. Muhammad Akram (Late), Ex-Dean,Faculty of Animal Production and Technology, UVAS, Lahore,is gratefully acknowledged for his supervision, guidance,encouragement and for providing all the necessary facilitiesat Indigenous Chicken Genetic Resource Center, C-Block,Ravi Campus, Pattoki to carry out this research project.

REFERENCESAhmad, Z., Sahota, A.W., Akram, M., Khalique, A., Jatoi, A.S., Shafique, M., Usman, M. and Khan, U. (2014). Pre and

post-moult productive efficiency in four varieties of indigenous Aseel chicken during different production cycles.J. Anim. Plant Sci. 24: 1276-1282.

Ankur, K. and Baghel, R.P.S. (2011). Effect of different levels of dietary selenium on growth performance and nutrientutilization of broiler birds. Vet. World. 4: 173-175.

AOAC. (1995). Official Methods of Analysis. 13th edn. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.Arthur, J.R., Nicol, F. and Beckett, G.J. (1992). The role of selenium in thyroid hormone metabolism and effects of selenium

deficiency on thyroid hormone and iodine metabolism. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 33: 37-42.Attia, Y.A., Abdalah, A.A., Zeweil, H.S., Bovera, F., Tag El-Din, A.A. and Araft, M.A. (2010). Effect of inorganic or

organic selenium supplementation on productive performance, egg quality and some physiological traits of dual-purpose breeding hens. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 11: 505–519.

Beckett, G.J. and Arthur, J.R. (2005). Selenium and endocrine system. J. Endocrin. 184: 455-465Bell, D.D. and Weaver, W.D. (2005). Commercial chicken meat and egg production, 5th edn. Springer Publishers.Choct, M., Naylor, A.J. and Reinke, N. (2004). Selenium supplementation affects broiler growth performance, meat yield

and feather coverage. Br. Poult. Sci. 45: 677-683.Chun, F., Yu, B. and Daiwen, C. (2009). Effects of different sources and levels of selenium on performance, thyroid

function and antioxidant status in stressed broiler chickens. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 8: 583-587.Djordjevic, S., Lalic, N., Omerovic, I. and Milosevic, B. (2016). The effect of selenium source on the performance of

growing chickens. Int. J. Agron. Agr. Res. 8: 21-25.Duncan, D.B. (1955). Multiple range and multiple F-tests. Biometrics. 11: 1-42.Cruz, V.C. and Fernandez, I.B. (2011). Effect of organic selenium and zinc on the performance and egg quality of Japanese

quails. Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 13: 91-95Deniz, G.S., Genzen, S. and Turkmen, I.I. (2005). Effects of two supplemental dietary selenium sources (mineral and

organic) on broiler performance and drip loss. Rev. Med. Vet. 156: 423-426.

Volume 51 Issue 3 (2017) 487

Edens, F.W. (1996). Organic selenium: From feathers to muscle integrity to drip loss. Five years onward: No more seleniteIn: Lyons TP, Jacques and (Eds.) KA. Biotechnology in the Feed Industry: The Living Gut. Nottingham UniversityPress, Nottingham NG 110 AX, United Kingdom. Proc. 12th Alltech Ann. Symp. 12: 165-185.

Edens, F.W. and Gowdy, K.M. (2005). Involvement of the thioredoxin reductase system in the maintenance of cellularredox status. In: T. P. Lyons and K. A. Jacques (Eds.), Nutritional biotechnology in the food and feed industry.Nottingham University Press; Nottingham, United Kingdom. Proc. 20th Alltech Ann. Symp. 20: 369-382.

Edens, F.W., Carter, T.A., Parkhurst, C.R. and Sefton, A.E. (2000). Effect of selenium source and litter type on broilerfeathering. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 9: 407-413.

El-Sheikh, T.M. and Ahmed-Nagwa, S. (2006). An attempt to alleviate heat stress of broiler chicks (during summer season)through stocking density, dietary organic selenium (Sel-Plex) and vitamin E-selenium. Egypt. Poult. Sci. 26:1587-1611.

Foster, L.H. and Sumar, S. (1997). Selenium in health and disease: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 37: 211-228.Ganie, A.A., Baghel, R.P.S., Mudgal, V., Aarif, O. and Sheikh, G.G. (2014). Effect of selenium supplementation on

reproductive performance and hormonal profile in buffalo heifers. DOI: 10.5958/j.0976-0555.48.1.006.Gruzauskas, R., Barstys, T., Raceviciute-Stupeliene, A., Kliseviciute, V., Buckiuniene, V. and Bliznikas, S. (2014). The

effect of sodium selenite, selenium methionine and vitamin E on productivity, digestive processes and physiologiccondition of broiler chickens. Vet. Med. Zoot. 65: 22-29.

Habibian, M., Sadeghi, G., Ghazi, S. and Moeini, M.M. (2015). Selenium as a feed supplement for heat-stressed poultry-a Review. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 165: 183-193.

Hajalshaikh, A., Al-Hassan, M.J. and Mohamed, H.E. (2015). The influence of injectable sodium selenite on semencharacteristics and testosterone concentration in Aardi goats. pp. 793-797. DOI: 10.18805/ijar.7041.

Hess, J.B., Dows, K.M. and Bilgili, S.F. (2000). Selenium nutrition and poultry meat quality. Poult. Sci. 79: 107-112.Ibrahim, M.T., Eljack, B.H. and Fadlalla, I.M.T. (2011). Selenium supplementation to broiler diets. Anim. Sci. J. 2: 12-17.Jatoi, A.S. (2012). Productive performance of four close-bred flocks of Japanese quails with different body weights and its

effect on subsequent progeny growth. Ph.D. Thesis. Deptt. Poult. Prod., Univ. Vet. Anim. Sci., Lahore, Pakistan.Kanchana, G. and Jeyanthi, G.P. (2010). Influence of vitamin-E and selenium supplementation in growth performance and

antibody response of layer chicks. Int. J. Pharmacol. Biol. Sci. 6: 1-11.Khan, M.S. (2004). Technical report on the status, trend, utilization and performance of FAnGR and their wild relatives in

Pakistan GEF-UNDP Project. 2715-03-4709.Miller, D., Soares, H.J., Bauersfeld, P. and Cuppett, S.L. (1972). Comparative selenium retention by chicks fed sodium

selenite, selenomethionine, fish meal, and fish soluble. Poult. Sci. 51: 1669-1673.NRC. (1994). Nutrient Requirements of Poultry. 9th rev. edn. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Pankaj, K., Brijesh, Y. and Sarvajeet, Y. (2014). Effect of zinc and selenium supplementation on semen quality of Barbari

bucks. Indian J. Anim. Res. 48: 366-369.Payne, R.L., Lavergne, T.K. and Southern, L.L. (2005). Effect of inorganic versus organic selenium on hen production and

egg selenium concentration. Poult. Sci. 84: 232-237.Peric, L., Milosevic, N., Milic, D. and Vukic-Vranjes, M. (2009). Effect of Sel-Plex in breeding broiler diets on the

subsequent day-old chick quality. 16th European symposium on Poult. Nut. Strasbourg, France. pp. 605-608.Pietro, C., Peter, H., Selle, A., Aaron, J. and Cowieson, A. (2013). Effects of organic selenium supplementation on growth

performance, nutrient utilization, oxidative stress and selenium tissue concentrations in broiler chickens. Anim.Prod. Sci. 54: 966-971.

Rajashree, K., Muthukumar, T. and Karthikeyan, N. (2014). Influence of inorganic and organic selenium sources on broilerperformance and meat quality. Iran. J. Appl. Anim. Sci. 1: 151-157.

Robert, J.A. (1992). The scavenging feed resource base in assessments of the productivity of scavenging village chickens.Proceedings of an International Workshop held on Newcastle disease in village chickens control with thermostable-oral vaccines, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. pp. 29-32.

Romanov, M.N., Wezyk, S., Cywa-Benko, K. and Sakhatsky, N.I. (1996). Poultry genetic resources in the countries ofEastern Europe: History and current state: Poult. Avian Biol. Rev. 7:1-29.

Salman, M., Selcuk, Z. and Hakan, M.O. (2007). Effect of vitamin E and selenium on performance, plasma and tissueGSH-Px activity in broilers. J. Int. Vet. Sci. 3: 25-34.

SAS. 2002-03. SAS/STATE User’s guide: Statistics. Version 9.1., SAS Institute Inc, Cary, North Carolina, USA.Schrauzer, G.N. (2000). Selenomethionine: A review of its nutritional significance, metabolism and toxicity. J. Nutr. 130:

1653-1656.

488 INDIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL RESEARCH

Senthil Kumaran, C.K., Sugapriya., S. Dhayalan., V. Ranjithkumar., R. and Chandarshekar, B. (2015). Influence of dietaryselenium nanowires on growth performance of broiler chicken. Int. J. Biosci. Nanosci. 2: 78-83.

Sethy, K., Dass., R.S. Garg., A.K. Sahu., S. and Gogoi, S. (2015). Effect of different selenium sources (Selenium yeast andSodium selenite) on haematology, blood chemistry and thyroid hormones in male goats (Capra hircus). Indian J.Anim. Res. pp. 788-792. DOI: 10.18805/ijar.7040.

Steel, R.G.D., Torri, J.H. and Dicky, D.A. (1997). Principles and Procedures of Statistics, A biochemical approach, 3rd edn.McGraw Hill Book Co, Inc. USA.

Upton, R.J., Frank, W., Edens. and Ferket, P.R. (2008). Selenium yeast effect on broiler performance. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 7:798-805.

Yang, Y.R., Meng, F.C., Wang, P., Jiang, Y.B., Yin, Q.Q., Chang, J., Zuo, R.Y., Zheng, Q.H. and Liu, J.X. (2012). Effect oforganic and inorganic selenium supplementation on growth performance, meat quality and antioxidant propertyof broilers. Afr. J. Biotech. 11: 3031-3036.

Zia, W.M., Khalique, A., Naveed, S. and Hussain, J. (2016a). Egg quality, geometry and hatching traits of indigenousAseel as influenced by organic and inorganic selenium supplementation. Indian J. Anim. Res., DOI:10.18805/ijar.9420.

Zia, W.M., Khalique, A., Naveed, S. and Hussain, J. (2016b). Studies on growth pattern of different body measurements inindigenous Aseel chicken fed with selenium supplemented diets. Indian J. Anim. Res., DOI:10.18805/ijar.9636.

Zia, W.M., Khalique, A., Naveed, S., Hussain, J. and Muhammad, I. (2016c). Effect of selenium supplementation onglutathione peroxidase (GPx), cholesterol, thyroxin (T4) and other blood biochemicals in local Aseel. Indian J.Anim. Res., DOI:10.18805/ijar.10765.

Zia, W.M., Khalique, A., Naveed, S., Hussain, J., Muhammad, I., Muhammad, T.K. and Rehman, S.M. (2016d). Exploringthe effect of selenium forms on final body weight, slaughter characteristics and tissue selenium concentration inAseel cockerels. Indian J. Anim. Res., DOI:10.18805/ijar.10764.

Zia, W.M., Khalique, A., Naveed, S. and Hussain, J. (2016e). Impact of selenium supplementation on productive performanceand egg selenium status in native Aseel chicken. Ital. J. Anim. Sci., http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2016.1222247.