NAAS Score – 4.31

Free counters!

UserOnline

Previous Next

Effect of Age and Sex on Haematological Profile of Kadaknath Fowl Reared Under Intensive System

Preeti Ekka Mohan Singh K. Mukherjee Deepti Kiran Barwa Chandrahas Sannat Asit Jain
Vol 8(7), 348-355
DOI- http://dx.doi.org/10.5455/ijlr.20171211104153

The study was designed to investigate the haematological parameters at different age groups of male and female Kadaknath fowl, maintained in the poultry unit of College of Veterinary Science & Animal Husbandry, Anjora, Durg Chhattisgarh, reared under intensive farming system using standard feeding and management practices. For this study the blood samples were taken from 15 male and 15 female birds at 8, 12, 24, 40 and 48 weeks of age. The values for packed cell volume (PCV), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), total erythrocyte count (TEC), total leucocytes count (TLC), haemoglobin (Hb), mean corpuscular volume (MCV), mean corpuscular haemoglobin (MCH), mean corpuscular haemoglobin concentration (MCHC) and differential leukocyte count (DLC) were assessed. Effect of age in PCV, TEC, TLC, lymphocyte, heterophill, monocyte, eosinophill, Hb, MCV, MCH and MCHC were significant (p<0.05). However, no significant (p>0.05) age difference was observed in basophill. In general all the haematological parameters showed increasing trend with advancement of age. Effect of sex was found significant for eosinophill, lymphocyte, Hb, MCHC, PCV and heterophill; and these values were higher in males than in females.


Keywords : Age Female Haematological Male

Poultry production in India has taken a quantum leap in the last four decades, emerging from an unscientific farming practice to commercial production system with state-of-the-art technological interventions. India has emerged as the third largest egg pro­ducer and fifth largest poultry meat producer in the world (Watt Executive Guide, 2015). This achievement has been possible due to development of high producing breeds and also due to research in feeding and management practices. In addition to the high producing commercial breeds, now a days, the focus is also on conservation, characterization and improvement of the productivity of native breeds like Kadaknath, Aseel etc. The Kadaknath breed of chicken is gaining tremendous popularity owing to its tasty meat which is believed to be associated with many medicinal qualities.   This breed is native to tribal belt of Jhabua and Dhar districts of Madhya Pradesh. The breed is also called as Kalamasi, meaning a fowl with black flesh and also entire body of the Kadaknath bird is black in colour, right from comb to the claws. The breed is resistant to many diseases as compared to the commercial breeds. Kadaknath birds have higher percentage of protein, iron and haemoglobin.

Although haematological test hasn’t widely been applied for diagnosis of avian diseases but these tests could be suitable diagnostic tools for monitoring healthy or sick birds in response to therapeutic regimens, and giving a prognosis to some of poultry diseases. Normal values for haematological and biochemical factors of domestic chicken have been studied earlier by different workers (Simaraks et al., 2004; Pampori and Iqbal, 2007; Ladokan et al., 2008; Albokhadaim et al., 2012a; Elagib et al., 2012), however these parameters are greatly affected by breed, sex , age, season and other environmental factors (Fudge, 2000; Kececi and Col, 2011). Indian chicken breeds have better immunocompetence, disease resistance and tropical adaptability as compared to the exotic germplasm (Kundu et al., 1999). The studies on haematological parameters on indian chicken breeds, particularly on Kadaknath are very scanty. Hence the present study was aimed at bridging up this information gap.

Materials and Methods

Experiment Stock

The Kadaknath birds used for the present study were taken from the Kadaknath research unit of the poultry farm of the College of Veterinary Sci. & A.H., Anjora, Durg in Chhattisgarh state. The birds right from their hatching till the completion of the study were raised under deep litter system. The chicks were provided with starter ration (2800Kcal/kg ME and 20% CP) up to 8 weeks of age, grower ration (2700kcal/kg ME and 18% CP on calculated basis) from 9 to 20 weeks of age and layer ration (2,700 Kcal/Kg ME and 16% CP),  after 20 weeks of age along with 1.1% calcium and 0.45% available phosphorus. Water was given ad libitum. Standard health care and management practices were followed.

Haematology

Blood samples were collected from 15 male and 15 female birds at 8, 12, 24, 40 and 48 weeks of age. Approximately 3ml blood samples were taken from jugular vein in EDTA vials for haematological study. Haemoglobin content of blood was estimated by Sahli’s haemoglobin meter (Coles, 1986) and PCV was estimated by micro hematocrit method. erythrocyte sedimentation rate was done by wintrobe’s method. Total erythrocyte count (TEC), total leucocytes count (TLC) were estimated as per the method given by Nambiar (1960) using diluting fluid recommended by Natt and Herrick (1954). For Differential leukocyte count thin blood smears were air dried, fixed in methanol for three minutes and stained with Giemsa stain for differential counts. The parameters like, MCV, MCH and MCHC were derived by the standard formulae.

Statistical Methods

ANOVA one way classification was used for testing the significance of difference due to age as per the method outlined by Snedecor & Cochran (1994) while sex effect was studied by the student’s t test.

Results and Discussion

The mean haematological values along with standard errors in both the sexes of  Kadaknath chicken at  8, 12, 24, 40 and 48 weeks of age for PCV, ESR, TEC, TLC, Hb, MCV, MCH, MCHC and DLC are presented in Table 1.

The values for the above haematological parameters at different age groups, pooled over the two sexes are presented in Table 2.  At 24 week of age the pooled mean values (Table 2) of  PCV(%), ESR(mm), TEC (million/cu.mm.), TLC (thousand/cu.mm.), lymphocyte (%), heterophill (%), monocyte (%), eosinophill (%), basophill (%), Hb (gm/dl), MCV (fl), MCH (%) and MCHC (%) were 38.15 ± 0.40, 4.04 ± 0.06, 2.97 ± 0.16, 29.8 ± 0.34, 70.70 ± 0.87, 21.95 ± 0.87, 3.60 ± 0.30, 1.75 ± 0.18, 2.00 ± 0.16, 14.29 ± 0.32, 134.98 ± 6.55, 51.33 ± 2.97 and 37.95 ± 1.00, respectively and  at  the 48 week of age  the respective values  were 41.70 ± 0.29, 4.42 ± 0.09, 2.66 ± 0.11, 26.60 ± 1.40, 72.55 ± 0.82, 20.80 ± 0.59, 2.75 ± 0.26, 2.90 ± 0.26, 2.10 ± 0.19, 17.24 ± 0.27, 161.52 ± 6.17, 66.85 ± 2.78 and 48.94 ± 3.24, respectively. Similar findings were reported by Panigrahy et al. (2017) in Vanraja. Likewise, Pandian et al. (2012) and Bora et al. (2017) also observed similar haematological values in Kadaknath.

Sex Effect

Significant sex effect was observed for eosinophil at 8, 12 and 48 weeks of age with females showing larger counts than the males. The present finding is in agreement with the results observed by Abdi-Hachesoo et al. (2011) in indigenous chicken varieties of Iran however, they differ with the findings of Sharmin and Myenuddin (2004) in indigenous chickens of Bangladesh and Simaraks et al. (2004) in thai indigenous chicken.  The lymphocyte counts also showed significant sex effect at 12, 40 and 48 weeks of age. Contrary to the trends of eosinophil the lymphocyte counts were higher in males than in females.

 

Table 1: Haematological parameters of Kadaknath chickens of different sex

  8 WEEK 12 WEEK 24 WEEK 40WEEK 48 WEEK
  Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
PCV (%) 24.53 ± 0.63 23.47 ± 0.74 26.53 ± 0.96 25.53 ± 0.68 37.60 ± 0.48 38.70 ± 0.62 40.27 ±  0.43a 38.07 ± 0.53b 42.10 ± 0.41 41.30  ± 0.40
ESR (mm) 3.44 ± 0.05 3.47 ± 0.03 3.34  ± 0.06 3.24 ± 0.04 4.15 ± 0.10 3.92 ± 0.06 4.18 ±  0.06 4.09 ± 0.05 4.45 ± 0.15 4.39  ± 0.10
TEC (million/cu.mm.) 2.50 ± 0.26 2.25 ± 0.16 2.67 ± 0.10 2.64 ± 0.15 2.96 ± 0.27 2.67 ± 0.12 2.97 ±  0.09 2.67 ± 0.09 2.99 ± 0.74 2.79  ± 0.14
TLC (thousand/cu.mm.) 19.87 ± 0.45 19.57 ± 1.47 24.43 ± 0.63 23.03 ± 0.86 26.90 ± 2.29 26.30  ± 1.76 29.13 ±  0.75 29.70 ± 0.50 29.95 ± 0.41 29.65 ± 0.56
DLC
Lymphocyte (%) 76.53 ± 0.62 75.80 ± 0.70 75.47 ± 1.28a 69.20 ± 0.57b 70.80 ± 1.17 70.60 ± 1.35 71.33 ±  0.55a 64.47 ± 0.84b 75.40 ± 0.72a 69.70 ± 0.73b
Heterophill (%) 17.27 ± 0.75 17.87 ± 0.65 17.73 ± 1.08 22.47 ± 0.50 21.70 ± 1.21 22.20 ± 1.31 19.40 ±  0.68a 26.87 ± 1.06b 19.20 ± 0.70a 22.40 ± 0.64b
Monocyte (%) 2.47 ± 0.13 2.47 ± 0.19 2.73 ± 0.54 3.27 ± 0.28 3.70 ± 0.52 3.50 ± 0.34 3.80 ±  0.39 3.87 ± 0.29 3.20 ± 0.39 2.30 ± 0.30
Eocinophill (%) 1.47 ± 0.17a 2.13 ± 0.24b 1.67 ± 0.19a 2.60 ± 0.21b 3.70 ± 0.52 1.80 ± 0.25 3.33 ±  0.39 2.73 ± 0.33 2.20 ± 0.29a 3.60 ± 0.3b
Basophill (%) 2.27 ± 0.23 1.73 ± 0.21 2.40 ± 0.24 2.47 ± 0.24 2.10 ± 0.23 1.90 ± 0.23 2.13 ±  0.19 2.07 ± 0.25 2.10 ± 0.23 2.00 ± 0.26
Hb (g/dl) 10.95 ± 0.33 10.77 ± 0.40 12.09 ± 0.38a 11.13 ± 0.27b 14.86 ± 0.40 13.72 ± 1.44 16.73 ± 0.38a 15.37 ± 0.32b 17.90 ± 0.33a 16.58 ± 0.32b
MCV (fl) 115.48 ±12.46 112.50 ± 9.39 100.19 ± 3.04 101.51 ± 6.93 136.71 ± 11.74 147.21 ± 5.84 137.89 ± 5.08 144.30 ±  4.49 141.67 ± 4.50 151.30 ± 7.50
MCH (%) 52.43 ± 6.84 51.98 ± 4.11 45.98 ± 1.94 44.40 ± 3.13 54.18 ± 4.97 52.29 ± 2.73 57.37 ± 2.57 58.30 ±  2.12 60.25 ± 2.16 66.45 ± 2.50
MCHC (%) 46.59 ± 2.19 44.39 ±  2.18 46.22 ± 1.95 43.94 ± 1.39 39.60 ± 1.25a 35.59 ± 1.43b 41.57 ± 0.90 40.50 ±  1.02 53.05 ± 3.50a 40.17 ± 0.81b

Means with different superscripts in a row differ significantly (P<0.05)

Table 2            : Haematological parameters of Kadaknath chickens of different age

S. No.   8 weeks 12 week 24 weeks 40 week 48 week
    Mean & SE Mean & SE Mean & SE Mean & SE Mean & SE
1 PCV (%) 24.00 ± 2.67a 26.03 ± 0.58b 38.15 ± 0.40c 39.17 ± 0. 93c 41.70 ± 0.29d
2 ESR (mm) 3.45 ± 0.15b 3.29 ± 0.04a 4.04 ± 0.06c 4.13 ± 0.04c 4.42 ± 0.09d
3 TEC (million/cu.mm.) 2.38 ± 0.83a 2.65 ± 0.09b 2.81 ± 0.16b 2.82 ± 0.09b 2.89 ± 0.11b
4 TLC (thousand/cu.mm.) 20.32 ± 2.19a 23.73 ± 0.54b 26.60 ± 1.40c 29.42 ± 0.45d 29.8 ± 0.34d
5 DLC
a Lymphocyte (%) 76.17 ± 2.53c 72.33 ± 0.90b 70.70 ± 0.87b 67.90 ± 0.81a 72.55 ± 0.82b
b Heterophill (%) 17.57 ± 2.69a 20.10 ± 0.73b 21.95 ± 0.87 bc 23.13 ± 0.93c 20.80 ± 0.59b
c Monocyte (%) 2.47 ± 0.63a 3.00 ± 0.30b 3.60 ± 0.30 bc 3.83 ± 0.24c 2.75 ± 0.26a
d Eocinophill (%) 1.80 ± 0.85a 2.13 ± 0.16a 1.75 ± 0.18a 3.03 ± 0.26b 2.90 ± 0.26b
e Basophill (%) 2.00 ± 0.87 2.43 ± 0.16 2.00 ± 0.16 2.10 ± 0.15 2.10 ± 0.19
6 Hb (g/dl) 10.86 ± 1.39a 11.61 ± 0.24b 14.29 ± 0.32c 16.05 ± 0.28d 17.24 ± 0.27e
7 MCV (fl) 113.99 ± 43.09a 100.87 ± 3.76a 141.96 ± 6.49c 141.10 ± 3.38c 145.39 ± 4.73c
8 MCH (%) 52.20 ± 21.88a 45.19 ± 1.82a 53.23 ± 2.77a 57.83 ± 1.64b 59.84 ± 1.66b
9 MCHC (%) 45.49 ± 8.69c 45.08 ± 1.20bc 37.59 ± 1.31a 41.03 ± 0.67ab 46.12 ± 2.20c

Means with different superscripts in a row differ significantly (P<0.05)

 

Higher values of lymphocytes in males were also reported by Abdi-Hachesoo et al. (2011) and Panigrahy et al. (2017). The males and females differed significantly for heterophill counts at 40 and 48 weeks of age, the females being on the higher side. Present findings are in line with those of Abdi-Hachesoo et al. (2011) and Panigrahy et al. (2017). Total TEC were higher in males than that of females. This is supported by the observation of Kundu et al. (2013), Elagib and Ahmed (2011), Albokhadaim (2012b) and Isidahomen et al. (2011). Higher TLC count in males than that of females is similar to the report of Abdi-Hachesoo et al. (2013), Albokhadaim et al. (2012a) and Isidahomen et al. (2011). The PCV was found significantly higher in males at 40 week of age.  Similar observations were made by Panigrahy et al. (2017), Addass et al. (2012), Albokhadaim (2012b) and Isidahomen et al. (2011). The Hb was recorded significantly higher in males at 12, 40 and 48 weeks of age. Similar results have been noted by Panigrahy et al. (2017), Albokhadaim (2012b) and Elagib and Ahmed (2011). The MCHC had significantly higher values in males at 24 and 48 weeks of age. In present study MCV, MCH and MCHC had higher values in males. Contrary to this report Panigrahy et al. (2017) and Elagib and Ahmed (2011) found higher values in females. TLC values were higher in males than females which are supported with the findings of Bora et al. (2017).

Effect of Age

Significant age effect (p<0.05) were observed for all the haematological parameters except for basophil. All the haematological parameters showed an increasing trend with advancement of age. Similarly Islam et al. (2004) also reported the increasing trend of Hb, PCV and TEC with age. In an another study Elagib and Ahmed (2011) and Islam et al. (2004) also reported increasing trend of Hb concentration with the advancing age.

In present study increasing value of TEC was reported with advancement of age which is similar to the report of Islam et al. (2004) and Praveen et al. (2017). The PCV found in our study agrees well with the range (42-52%) as reported by Panigrahy (2017) and Bora et al. (2017) and with report in indigenous chicken in Iran by Bahman et al. (2011), Abdi-Hachesoo et al. (2013) and Parveen et al. (2107). Lower PCV at young age and increasing trend with the advancement of age in this study corresponds to the findings of Praveen et al. (2017). However, contradictory findings of ESR were reported by Islam et al. (2004). The higher PCV in present study might be because of hemoconcentration due to dehydration by effect of high temperature (Benjamin, 1985). MCV values were reported in the range from 90 to 140 in  chicken by Jain (1993) which corroborates well with the present findings. The present finding of MCV, MCH and MCHC were higher to the findings of Islam et al. (2004). Praveen et al. (2017) reported decreasing values of haematological parameters with advancement of age. Percentages of basophill were lower, than reference range as reported by Jain (1993) and similar finding were also observed by Bora et al. (2017). However, lymphocyte, heterophil and eosinophil were similar to the findings of Jain (1993). In contrast to present study Bora et al. (2017) reported lower values of lymphocyte and monocyte. Heterophill was lower to the finding of Bora et al. (2017) where as similar eosinophil value was recorded.

Haematological values were comparatively higher in Kadaknath breeds as compared to other breeds like Fayoumi, Aseel and Local chicken (Islam et al., 2004), RIR, Desi and Fayoumi (Praveen et al., 2017) and Aseel and Rajshri (Bora et al., 2017). These variations might be affected by diurnal fluctuations or changes in daily physical and metabolic activities (Sanni et al., 2000, Piccione et al., 2001, 2005).

Conclusion

This study revealed that  Kadaknath breed showed variation of haematological parameters  with sex and age of the birds. When compared with the reports of other breeds available in the literature, it is discovered that the Kadaknath breed excels in haemoglobin and TEC which is indicative of better vitality and better resistance of the breed to diseases. In conclusion present study provides baseline data of haematological parameters in Kadaknath chickens which could be suitable diagnostic tool for monitoring health.

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to acknowledge the facilities extended by the poultry seed project College of Veterinary Science & Animal Husbandry, Anjora, Durg, Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu Vishwavidyalaya, Anjora, Durg.

References

  1. Abdi-Hachesoo B, Talebi A, Asri-Rezaei S and Basaki M. 2013. Sex related differences in biochemical and haematological parameters of adult indigenous chickens in Northwest of Iran. Journal of Animal Science Advances. 3(10): 512-516.
  2. Addass P.A, David DL, Edward A, Zira KE and Midau A. 2012. Effect of age, sex and management system on some haematological parameters of intensively and semi-intensively kept chicken in Mubi, Adamawa state, Nigeria. Iranian Journalof Applied Animal Science . 2(3): 277-282.
  3. Albokhadaim I, Althnaian T and El-Bahr SM. 2012a. Investigation of Selected biochemical parameters in local chickens with different Age and Sex in Al-ahsa Saudi Arabia. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences. 15: 827-898.
  4. Albokhadaim I. 2012b. Hematological and some biochemical values of Indigenous chickens in Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia during summer season. Asian Journal of Poultry Science.6(4): 138-145.
  5. Bahman AH, Talebi A and Siamark AR. 2011. Comparative Study on Blood Profiles of Indigenous and Ross-308 Broiler Breeders. Global Veterinaria. 7(3): 238-241.
  6. Benjamin MM0. 1985. Outline of Veterinary Clinical Pathology, Kalyani Publisher, New Delhi, India. pp 71-75.
  7. Bora S, Gurram S and Sagi R. 2017. Hematological and Biochemical Parameters of Three Indigenous Chicken Breeds during Summer Season. International Journal of Livestock Research.  7(9): 47-52.
  8. Coles EH. (1986). Veterinary clinical Pathology, 4th edn. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp. 279-291.
  9. Elagib HAA, Elamin KM, Ahmed ADA and Malik HEE. 2012. Blood Biochemical Profile of Males and Females of Three Indigenous Chicken Ecotypes in Sudan. Journal of       Veterinary  2(12): 568-572.
  10. Fudge AM. 2000. Laboratory Medicine-Avian and Exotic Pets. W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, pp. 486.
  11. Isidahomen EC, Ozoje MO and Njidda AA. 2011. Haematological and serum biochemical indices of local and exotic chickens in a subhumid tropical environment. European Journal of Biological Research. 3(1): 16-21.
  12. Islam MK, Lucky NS, Islam MR, Ahad A, Das BR, Rahman MM and Siddiui MSI 2004. Haematological Parameters of Fayoumi, Assil and Local chickens reared on sylhet region in Bangladesh. International Journal of Poultry Science. 3(2): 144-147.
  13. Jain   1993. Essentials of Veterinary hematology. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.
  14. Kececi T and Col R. 2011. Haematological and biochemical values of the blood of pheasants of different ages. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Science. 35:      149-156.
  15. Kundu A, De AK, Kundu MS, Sunder J and Jeyakumar S. 2013. Comparative haematology of Vanaraja, Nicobari fowls and their various F1 crosses under hot humid climate of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. India. Veterinary World. 6(12): 1008-1011.
  16. Kundu AM, Singh DP, Mahapatra SC, Dash BB, Moudgal RP and Bisht GS. (1999). Antibody response to sheep erythrocytes in Indian vis-à-vis imported breeds of Br. Poult. Sci. 40: 40-43.
  17. Ladokun AO, Yakubu A, Otite JR, Omeje JN, Sokunbi OA and Onyeji E. 2008. Hematological and serum biochemical indices of naked neck and normally feathered             Nigerian indigenous chickens in a sun humid tropical environment. International Journal of Poultry Science. 7: 55-58.
  18. Nambiar KTK. 1960. Studies on haematology of the domestic fowl. M.V.Sc. thesis submitted to the University of Madras.
  19. Natt MP and Herick CA. 1954. A new blood diluent for counting erythrocytes and leucocytes of chickens. Poultry Science. 31: 735–738.
  20. Pampori ZA and Igbal S. 2007. Haematology, serum chemistry and electrocardiographic evaluation in native chicken of Kashmir. International Journal of Poultry Science. 6:    578-582.
  21. Pandian C, Pandiyan MT, Sundaresan A and Omprakash AV. 2012. Haematological profile and erythrocyte indices in different breeds of poultry. International Journal of           Livestock Research.  2(3): 89-92.
  22. Panigrahy KK, Behera K, Mohapatra LM, Acharya AP, Sethy K, Panda S and Gupta SK. Sex-related differences in hemato-biochemical indices of adult Vanaraja         chickens during summer and winter seasons. Veterinary World. 10(2): 176-180.
  23. Parveen A, Khan SH,  Khawaja T, Iftikhar N and Khan S. 2017. Growth Performance and Haemato-biochemical Parameters of Different Breeds of Rural Chickens. Journal of           World Poultry Research. 7(3): 114-122.
  24. Piccione G, Assenza A, Fazi F, Giudice E and Caola G. 2001. Different periodicity of some haematological parameters in excercise-loaded and sedentary horses. Journal of Equine Science. 12: 17-23.
  25. Piccione G, Fazio F, Giudice E, Grasso F and Caola G. 2005. Nycthemeral change of some haematological parameters in horses. Journalof Applied Biomedicine. 3: 123-
  26. Sanni AA, Oyedokun OR and Alaka OO. 2000. Preliminiary observation on diurnal rhythum in the haematological parameters of male african giants rats (Cricetomys gambianus, Waterhouse). African Journal of biomedical Research. 3: 117-120.
  27. Sharmin ML and Myenuddin M. 2004. Haematological values of the indigenous chickens. Bangladesh Journal of Veterinary Medicine. 2(2): 163-164.
  28. Simaraks S, Chinrasri O and Aengwanich W. 2004. Hematological, electrolyte and serum biochemical value of the Thai indigenous chickens (Gallus domesticus) in northeastern of Thailand. SongklanakarinJournal of Science and Technology. 26:      425-430.
  29. Snedecor GW and Cochran WG. 1994. Statistical methods. 8th Iowa State University Press Ames, Iowa, U.S.A.
  30. Watt Executive Guide. 2015. Poultry Trends. www.wattagnet.com.

 

Full Text Read : 2498 Downloads : 453
Previous Next

Open Access Policy

Close