Effects of dietary L-carnitine and coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) at different supplemental ages on performance and some immune response were investigated in ascites-susceptible broilers. A 3 x 2 x 2 factorial design was used consisting of L-carnitine supplementation (0, 75, and 100 mg/kg), CoQ10 supplementation (0 and 40 mg/kg) and different supplemental ages (from day 1 on and from day 10 on). A total of 480 one-day-old Arbor Acre male broiler chicks were randomly allocated to 12 groups, every group had five replicates, each with eight birds. The birds were fed a corn-soybean based diet for six weeks. From day 10-21, all the birds were exposed to a low ambient temperature (12-15 degrees C) to increase the susceptibility to ascites. No significant effects were observed on growth performance by L-carnitine, CoQ10 supplementation, and different supplemental ages. Packed cell volume was significantly decreased by L-carnitine supplementation alone, and ascites heart index and ascites mortality were decreased by L-carnitine, CoQ10 supplementation alone, and L-carnitine + CoQ10 supplementation together (p < 0.05). Heart index of broilers was significantly improved by L-carnitine, CoQ10 supplementation alone during 0-3 week. Serum IgG content was improved by L-carnitine supplementation alone (p < 0.05), but lysozyme activity was increased by L-carnitine + CoQ10 supplementation together (p < 0.05). A significant L-carnitine by supplemental age interaction was observed in lysozyme activity. L-carnitine supplementation alone had no effects on the peripheral blood lymphocyte (PBL) proliferation in response to concanavalin A (ConA) and lipopolysaccharide, but supplemental CoQ10 alone and L-carnitine+ CoQ10 together decreased the PBL proliferation in response to ConA (p < 0.05). The present study suggested that L-carnitine + CoQ10 supplementation together had positive effects on some immune response of ascites-susceptible broilers, which might benefit for the reduction of broilers' susceptibility to ascites.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Geng et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: