© The Authors, 2024, Published by the Universidad del Zulia*Corresponding author:samir.djemai@umc.edu.dz
Keywords:
Azolla supplementation
Broiler diets
Sacrice
The impact of Azolla (Azolla pinnata R.Br.) dietary supplementation on broiler chicken
production performance and serum biochemical prole
El impacto de la suplementación dietética con Azolla (Azolla pinnata R.Br.) sobre el rendimiento
productivo y el perl bioquímico sérico de los pollos de engorde
O impacto da suplementação alimentar com Azolla (Azolla pinnata R.Br.) no desempenho produtivo
de frangos de carne e no perl bioquímico do soro
Asma Nour Elhouda Belagoune
1
Saber Beghoul
1
Samir Djemai
1*
Kahina Had
2
Douaa Amireche
1
Amir Mansour
1
Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2024, 41(3): e244130
ISSN 2477-9407
DOI: https://doi.org/10.47280/RevFacAgron(LUZ).v41.n3.10
Crop production
Associate editor: Professor Juan Vergara-López
University of Zulia, Faculty of Agronomy
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
1
Laboratoire de Recherche de Pathologie Animale
Développement des Elevages et Surveillance de la Chaine
Alimentaire des Denrées Animales ou d’origine Animale
(PADESCA Laboratory), Institute of Veterinary Sciences
-ElKhroub, University of Constantine 1, Constantine,
Algeria.
2
BIOQUAL Laboratory, Institute of Nutrition and Food
and Agri-Food Technologies, University of Constantine 1,
Algeria.
Received: 04-06-2024
Accepted: 12-08-2024
Published: 26-08-2024
Abstract
For decades, Algeria has faced diculties related to importing
raw materials for livestock feed, such as soybeans and corn. The
aim of this study was to valorize Azolla (Azolla pinnata R.Br.) as
an important source of nutrients, particularly proteins, in broiler
production. For this purpose, 60 broiler chicks of the Cobb
500 breed were divided into two groups, each containing three
repetitions of 10 birds. The diets of the tested and control groups
were the same, except for the tested group, which received Azolla
as a supplement. The nutritional value of Azolla incorporated into
the diet was assessed chemically. Liveweight, feed intake, feed
conversion ratio, oal weight, carcass yield, and biochemical
prole for both groups were observed and compared. The intake of
Azolla had no impact on production yield (P˃0.05); however, the
best liveweight at sacrice was obtained in the Azolla group, with a
value of 2600.67 g, whereas the mean recorded in the control group
was 2431.67 g. Regarding the weight and yield of oal and carcass,
we found the same observation: the highest weight of thighs and
wings was recorded in the Azolla group. All blood biochemical
parameters examined (glucose, creatinine, cholesterol, triglyceride,
high-density lipoprotein (HDL), total protein, albumin, and alanine
aminotransferase (ALT)) showed no signicant dierence, except
for aspartate aminotransferase (AST), which was found to be
signicantly higher in the Azolla group (P˂0.05). Azolla pinnata
R.Br., a source of unconventional protein, may therefore be an
alternative to the costly poultry feed used in Algeria.
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2024, 41(3): e244130 July-September. ISSN 2477-9407.
2-5 |
Resumen
Durante décadas, Argelia ha enfrentado dicultades relacionadas
con la importación de materias primas para la alimentación del
ganado, como la soja y el maíz. El objetivo de este estudio fue
valorizar la Azolla (Azolla pinnata R.Br.) como una fuente importante
de nutrientes, particularmente proteínas, en la producción de pollos de
engorde. Para este propósito, 60 pollos de engorde de la raza Cobb 500
se dividieron en dos grupos, cada uno con tres repeticiones de 10 aves.
Las dietas de los grupos evaluados y de control fueron las mismas,
excepto la del grupo evaluado, que recibió Azolla como suplemento.
Se evaluó químicamente el valor nutricional de la Azolla incorporada
a la dieta. Se observaron y compararon el peso vivo, el consumo de
alimento, el índice de conversión alimenticia, el peso de los despojos,
el rendimiento del canal y el perl bioquímico de ambos grupos. El
consumo de Azolla no tuvo impacto en el rendimiento productivo
(P˃0,05), sin embargo, el mejor peso vivo al sacricio lo obtuvo
el grupo Azolla, con un valor de 2600,67 g, mientras que la media
registrada en el grupo control fue de 2431,67 g. En cuanto al peso y
rendimiento de despojos y canales, encontramos la misma observación
: el mayor peso de muslos y alas se registró en el grupo Azolla.
Todos los parámetros bioquímicos sanguíneos examinados (glucosa,
creatinina, colesterol, triglicéridos, lipoproteínas de alta densidad
(HDL), proteínas totales, albúmina y alanina aminotransferasa
(ALT)) no mostraron diferencias signicativas, excepto el aspartato
aminotransferasa (AST), que resultó ser ser signicativamente
mayor en el grupo de Azolla (P˂0,05). Por lo tanto, la Azolla
pinnata R. Br., una fuente de proteínas no convencional, puede ser
una alternativa al costoso alimento para aves utilizado en Argelia.
Palabras clave: suplementación con Azolla, dietas de pollos,
sacricio.
Resumo
Durante décadas, a Argélia enfrentou diculdades relacionadas
à importação de matérias-primas para ração animal, como soja e
milho. O objetivo deste estudo foi valorizar a Azolla (Azolla pinnata
R.Br.) como uma importante fonte de nutrientes, particularmente
proteínas, na produção de frangos de corte. Para isso, 60 pintinhos
de corte da raça Cobb 500 foram divididos em dois grupos, cada
um contendo três repetições de 10 aves. As dietas dos grupos
testado e controle foram as mesmas, exceto para o grupo testado,
que recebeu Azolla como suplemento. O valor nutricional do Azolla
incorporado à dieta foi avaliado quimicamente. Peso vivo, consumo
de ração, conversão alimentar, peso de vísceras, rendimento de
carcaça e perl bioquímico de ambos os grupos foram observados e
comparados. O consumo de Azolla não teve impacto no rendimento
da produção (P˃0,05); entretanto, o melhor peso vivo ao sacrifício
foi obtido no grupo Azolla, com valor de 2600,67 g, enquanto a
média registrada no grupo controle foi de 2431,67 g. Em relação
ao peso e rendimento de miudezas e carcaça, encontramos a mesma
observação: o maior peso de coxas e asas foi registrado no grupo
Azolla. Todos os parâmetros bioquímicos sanguíneos examinados
(glicose, creatinina, colesterol, triglicerídeos, lipoproteína de alta
densidade (HDL), proteína total, albumina e alanina aminotransferase
(ALT)) não mostraram diferença signicativa, exceto para
aspartato aminotransferase (AST), que foi encontrado para ser
signicativamente maior no grupo Azolla (P˂0,05). A Azolla pinnata
R. Br., uma fonte de proteína não convencional, pode, portanto, ser
uma alternativa à dispendiosa ração para aves utilizada na Argélia.
Palavras-chave: suplementação com Azolla, dietas para frangos,
sacrifício.
Introduction
Despite the development of the Algerian poultry industry, it
still encounters many diculties, the main reason was the recurrent
shortage and the high cost of imported raw materials (soybean meal
and maize) for broiler feeding. Therefore, additional resources should
be sought. Some non-conventional food resources, such as Azolla,
have attracted interest from some Algerian farmers. The inclusion of
aquatic plants (e.g. Azolla pinnata, Egeria densa, Elodea canadensis
and Hydrilla verticillata) at low levels in poultry feed yielded positive
results, especially when included as an unconventional source of
protein or as a source of pigment to eggs (Mcdowell et al., 1990;
Khatun and Islam, 2021). Azolla pinnata is an aquatic plant that can
be utilized as a source of protein in animal feed; several studies have
been conducted on this subject, and this, on various animal species
such as poultry (Acharya et al., 2015; Shukla et al., 2018; Shambhvi
et al., 2020; Abdelatty et al., 2021), sh (Datta, 2011), giant river
prawn (Radhakrishnan et al., 2014), and sheep (Ahmed et al., 2016).
Subudhi and Singh (1978) noted that fresh Azolla can be used to
replace 20-25 % of commercial feed for chicken without any risk to
health. They also stated that 100 birds would require approximately 9
kg of fresh Azolla per day. They also indicated that 100 birds would
require approximately 9 kg of fresh Azolla daily to replace 20 % of
commercial feed. This resulted in a decrease in the cost of poultry
production.
Chickens have the ability to choose their diet, which satises
their natural appetite, develops their digestive system, and gives them
a degree of natural resistance to coccidiosis. Free choice feeding
is a more natural feeding system, where each bird can choose its
own nutrient balance to satisfy its own physiological needs. Gous
and Swatson (2000) explained that broilers can optimize their
performance by utilizing the optimal combination of protein sources
whenever given the opportunity.
The objective of this study was to assess the eect of freely
available fresh Azolla pinnata R.Br. on growth performance, blood
biochemical parameters and carcass characteristics of broiler
chickens.
Materials and methods
Experiment Design
60 one-day-old Cobb 500 chicks were reared together on the
oor for 15 days and given ad-libitum the same broiler starter feed
(crumbled). The birds were then randomly divided into two groups
(treatments) of 30 chicks each, with three replications of ten chicks
each. The grower and nisher feeds for broilers (crumbled) were
provided ad-libitum to both the control group (C) and the Azolla
group (A: choice-feeding group) during the grower (15-35 days of
age) and nisher (35-45 days of age) phases, respectively.
The Azolla was given free choice (free access) to the birds in
group A (choice-feeding group) when they were between 15 and 45
days old (table 1).
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
%HODJRXQH et al. Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2024 41(3): e244130
3-5 |
Table 1. Ingredients and chemical composition of broiler feed
used in the study.
Starter
diet
Grower
diet
Finisher
diet
Ingredient (%)
Soybean meal (44% Crude
protein)
31.50 26.00 22.75
Corn, yellow 57.25 61.30 61.60
Soybean oil 1.70 1.80 2.00
Wheat bran 5.50 7.00 10.00
Dicalcium phosphate 1.40 1.30 1.20
Monocalcium phosphates. 0.65 0.60 0.45
Vitamin mineral premix 1.00 1.00 1.00
Amino acid premix 1.00 1.00 1.00
Chemical composition (%)
Ether extract 4.46 4.66 4.90
Ash 5.68 5.15 4.78
Lysine 1.22 1.90 1.02
Methionine 0.63 0.61 0.59
Methionine + Cysteine 0.92 0.88 0.85
Threonine 0.78 0.71 0.67
Metabolizable energy (kcal.kg
-1
) 3,010.60 3,038.75 3,031.40
Crude protein 21.08 19.08 18.06
Data and sample collection
In order to prevent water loss, Azolla was cultivated in concrete
basins covered with plastic sheeting (black polyethylene). Following
the Azolla cultivating method in our region, these basins included two
centimeters of soil and one centimeter of aged sheep manure.
The fresh Azolla was washed, dried for four to ve days in the
shade, and then ground into a homogeneous powder. After which,
a representative sample of the our had been analyzed for dry
matter, ash, nitrogenous matter total, fat (ether extract), and crude
ber (AOAC, 1995). Weight measurements were performed every
ve days (in the morning, before feed distribution), after which feed
conversion ratio (FCR), average daily gain (ADG), and feed intake
(FI) were calculated (Abdelatty et al., 2021).
Nine chickens (3 from each group) were sacriced on the 45
th
day
of age. The carcass yield was calculated by weighing the animals’
carcasses, gizzards, livers, hearts, abdominal fat, thighs, mass of breast
and wings (Bhattacharyya et al., 2016). All weighing was performed
using an electronic scale with a 1 g accuracy (KERN CB12K1N).
Blood samples were collected at the 45
th
day of age (the end of
the experiment) from 3 birds of each repetition (9 chickens.group) in
heparinized and identied tubes. After centrifuging the tubes for 10
to 15 minutes at 2500 rpm, the plasma was collected in labeled dry
tubes and kept at -20 °C until the time of the analysis. It should be
mentioned that the biochemical prole was performed 24 hours after
the blood samples were collected.
The following blood parameters were measured using the
commercial BIOLABO kit (France; KENZA BIOLABO analyzer
France): glucose, triglycerides, cholesterol, high density lipoprotein
(HDL) cholesterol, total protein, albumin, creatinine, glutamate,
aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and alanine aminotransferase
(ALT).
Statistical analysis
The IBM SPSS Statistics 20 software was used to conduct
statistical analyses. Student’s t-test (for parametric data) and Mann-
Whitney test (for non-parametric data) were used to compare data
statistically.
Results and discussion
The chemical analysis revealed that the Azolla employed in this
study contained: 90.3 % dry matter (DM), 24.8 % crude protein (CP),
13.25 % crude ber (CF), 2.11 % ether extract (EE), 24.9 ash, 34.94
% Nitrogen-free extract (NFE) and 2095.66 kcal.kg
-1
metabolizable
energy (table 2).
Table 2. The chemical composition of Azolla used in the study.
Nutritional content* Proportion
Dry matter (%) 90.30
Ash (%) 24.90
Crude protein (%) 24.80
Ether extract (%) 2.11
Crude bre (%) 13.25
Nitrogen-free extract (%) 34.94
Metabolizable energy (kcal.kg
-1
)
2095.66
*Determined by analyzing dry matter
The proportions of the various chemical components present in
the Azolla used in this study are numerically close to those found in
previous studies, such as Shambhvi et al. (2020), who obtained the
following values: 25.62 % CP, 2.11 % EE, 19.2 % Ash, and 2075.57
kcal.kg metabolizable energy. Shukla et al. (2018) (CP = 25.64 %, EE
= 3.15 %, de Ash = 19.21 %) and Balaji et al. (2009) (CP=24.5 %)
obtained numerically similar results.
There was no signicant dierence (P = 0.31) in FI between the
Azolla group (4536 g) and the control group (3888 g). The dierence
in FCR between groups C (1.93) and A (2.07) was not statistically
signicant (P = 0.53). We found that the ADG in group A (73.02
g.day
-1
) was numerically higher than that in the control group (67.03
g.day
-1
); however, the dierence was not statistically signicant (P =
0.71) (table 3).
Acharya et al. (2015) also found that incorporating up to 10 %
fresh Azolla had no eect on FI in white pekin broiler ducks. Contrary
to our results, Ara et al. (2018) noticed that including Azolla cristata
in the diet of laying hens at 10, 15, and 20 % resulted in a signicant
decrease in feed consumption, while Abdelatty et al. (2020) found
an increase in FI in groups of chickens fed diets containing 5 and 10
% Azolla meal and this, compared to the control group. Shukla et al.
(2018), found no signicant dierence in FCR between the growing
turkeys fed Azolla and conventional feed and the control group fed
only conventional feed. The same authors observed no signicant
dierence in mean weekly weight gain between turkeys receiving ad-
libitum Azolla and the control group. Mishra et al. (2016) reported
that the introduction of 5 % to 7.5 % Azolla meal in chick feed
signicantly increased body weight gain.
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2024, 41(3): e244130 July-September. ISSN 2477-9407.
4-5 |
The average liveweight at sacrice and the average carcass weight
in group A (2,600.67 g and 2,017.56 g respectively) were statistically
higher (P < 0.05) than in group C (2,431.67 g and 1,842.22 g
respectively). The carcass yield in group A (77.57 %) was signicantly
better (P < 0.05) than in group C (75.76 %). In this study, we found
that chickens given Azolla had signicantly higher (P < 0.05) average
thighs and wings weights (529.44 g and 197.22 g respectively) than
the control group (486.56 g and 182.44 g respectively). However,
there was no statistically signicant dierence (P ˃ 0.05) in average
breast weight between groups A (691.78 g) and C (651.44 g). We
also found that incorporating fresh Azolla to group A feed showed no
statistically signicant eect (P ˃ 0.05) on the average weights of the
liver (50.89 g), heart (14.33 g) and gizzard (26.67 g) compared to the
control group (50.33 g, 16.11 g and 28.33 g respectively) (table 4).
Shambhvi et al. (2020) reported no signicant dierence in mean
liveweight at sacrice between the 2.5 % Azolla fed group (2046.25
g) and the control group (1988 g). Basak et al. (2002), Naghshi et al.
(2014), and Bhattacharyya et al. (2016) observed very high carcass
yields in broilers fed Azolla integrated at 5 %.
According to Naghshi et al. (2014), broilers fed 5 and 10 %
Azolla showed high average thigh weights. Varadharajan et al. (2019)
observed that incorporating 3 % Azolla meal in the feed improved
wings weight in quail. In contrast to the results of the present study,
Mishra et al. (2016) observed a decrease in wing weight in Chabro
chickens fed 7.5 % Azolla compared to the control group.
Shambhvi et al. (2020) reported that gizzard weight and breast
weight were signicantly higher in chickens fed 2.5 % Azolla pinnata
meal compared to the control group.
With the exception of AST, there was no signicant dierence
(P ˃ 0.05) in the serum biochemical prole parameters tested
(glucose, creatinine, cholesterol, triglyceride, HDL, total protein,
ALT). There was a statistically signicant increase (P < 0.05) in
blood AST in group A (430.78 IU.L
-1
) compared to group C (327.33
IU.L
-1
) (table 5).
Shukla et al. (2018) found no signicant dierence in serum
concentrations of liver enzymes (AST and ALT) between Azolla-fed
and control groups. Other studies carried out on broilers (Abdelatty
et al., 2020) and turkeys (Shukla et al., 2018) reported no statistically
signicant impact of Azolla in feed on blood concentrations of liver
enzymes (AST and ALT).
Conclusion
This study showed that broiler chicks fed fresh Azolla performed
better in terms of production compared to the control group. This
plant, which has a considerable amount of protein, can be used in
Algeria to reduce the cost of feed for livestock animals, particularly
broiler chickens, especially as it is easily available and simple to
cultivate.
Financial support
This study received no nancial support from any funding
organization or sector.
Table 3. Feed intake, average daily gain, and feed conversion ratio in the two groups studied.
Parameter
Control group
(C )
Azolla group
(A)
p-value
FI (g)
3,887.61
a
+ 165.48 4,535.64
a
+ 180.05 0.31
ADG (g.day
-1
) 67.03
a
+ 23.66 73.02
a
+ 30.52 0.71
FCR
1.93
a
+ 0.55 2.07
a
+ 0.78 0.53
a,b
Mean values with dierent superscripts within a row diered signicantly (P < 0.05).
FI: Feed intake; ADG: Average Daily Gain; FCR: Feed Conversion Ratio.
Table 4. Average liveweight at sacrice, average carcass weight and other carcass characteristics in broiler chickens at 45 day of age.
Parameter
Control group
(C )
Azolla group
(A)
P-value
Average liveweight at sacrice (g)
2,431.67
a
+ 60.42 2,600.67
b
+ 36.03 0.00
Average carcass weight (g)
1,842.22
a
+ 56.40 2,017.56
b
+ 67.60 0.00
Carcass yield (%)
75.76
a
+ 1.32 77.57
b
+ 2.11 0.04
Average liver, heart, gizzard, thighs, mass of breast and wings weight (g.bird
-1
)
Liver
50.33
a
+ 5.05 50.89
a
+ 4.46 0.89
Heart
16.11
a
+ 3.26 14.33
a
+ 2 0.18
Gizzard 28.33
a
+ 4.36 26.67
a
+ 0.88 0.34
Thighs 486.56
a
+ 47.42 529.44
b
+ 29.20 0.035
Mass of breast 651.44
a
+ 74.71 691.78
a
+ 46.49 0.188
Wings
182.44
a
+ 13.00 197.22
b
+ 12.36 0.025
a,b
Mean values with dierent superscripts within a row diered signicantly (p < 0.05).
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
%HODJRXQH et al. Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2024 41(3): e244130
5-5 |
Table 5. The biochemical prole of broiler chicken serum in the two study groups.
Parameter
Control group
(C )
Azolla group
(A)
p-value
Glucose (g.L
-1
) 2.18
a
+ 0.09 2.26
a
+ 0.15 0.19
Creatinine (mg.dl
-1
) 3.79
a
+ 0. 69 4.01
a
± 0.31 0.40
Cholesterol (g.L
-1
) 1.06
a
+0.11 1.15
a
+ 0.16 0.18
Triglyceride (g.L
-1
) 0.36
a
+ 0.16 0.40
a
+ 0.18 0.61
HDL (g.L
-1
) 0.56
a
+ 0.12 0.58
a
+ 0.14 0.70
Total protein (g.L
-1
) 33.67
a
+ 4.24 34.22
a
+ 2.59 0.74
Albumin (g.L
-1
) 15.56
a
+ 1.01 16.11
a
+ 1.36 0.34
AST (IU.L
-1
) 327.33
a
+ 56.78 430.78
b
± 85.58 0.008
ALT (IU.L
-1
) 13.00
a
+ 6.09 12.75
a
+ 2.96 0.918
a,b
Mean values with dierent superscripts within a row diered signicantly (P<0.05).
HDL: high-density lipoprotein; AST: aspartate aminotransferase; ALT: alanine aminotransferase.
Literature cited
Abdelatty, A.M., Mandouh, M.I., Al-Mokaddem, A.K., Mansour H.A., Khalil
H.M.A., Elolimy, A. A., Ford, H., O. A.A. Farid, O.A.A., Prince, A., Sakr,
O.G., Aljuaydi, S.H. & Bionaz, M. (2020). Inuence of level of inclusion
of Azolla leaf meal on growth performance, meat quality and skeletal
muscle p70S6 kinase α abundance in broiler chickens. Animal, 14(11),
2423-2432. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731120001421
Abdelatty, A.M., Mandouh, M.I., Mohamed, S.A., Busato, S., Badr, O.A.M.,
Bionaz, M., Elolimy, A.A., Moustafa, M.M.A., Farid O.A.A. & Al-
Mokaddem, A.K. (2021). Azolla leaf meal at 5% of the diet improves
growth performance, intestinal morphology and p70S6K1 activation,
and aects cecal microbiota in broiler chicken. Animal, 15(10), , 100362.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100362
Acharya, P., Mohanty, G. P., Pradhan, C.R., Mishra, S.K., Beura, N.C. & Moharana,
B. (2015). Exploring the eects of inclusion of dietary fresh Azolla on the
performance of White Pekin broiler ducks. Veterinary World, 8(11), 1293-
1299. www.veterinaryworld.org/Vol.8/November-2015/4.pdf
Ahmed, H.A., Ganai, A.M., Beigh, Y. A., Sheikh G.G. & Reshi, P.A. (2016).
Performance of growing sheep on Azolla based diets. Indian Journal of
Animal Research, 50(5), 721-724. https://arccarticles.s3.amazonaws.com/
webArticle/articles/ArticleFile-B-2938-16%20(721-724)%20B-2938.pdf
AOAC (1995). Ocial method of Analysis of AOAC International. Vols. 1 .
15th Edition, Association of Ocial Analytical Chemists (AOAC),
Arlington, Virginia. https://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/ibr/002/aoac.
methods.1.1990.pdf
Ara, S., Adil, S. & Khan, K.A. (2018). Eect of Aquatic Fern, Azolla cristata
in Diet on Growth, Serum Biochemistry and Laying Performance of
Chicken. Pakistan Journal of Zoolog, 50(6), 2325-2329. http://dx.doi.
org/10.17582/journal.pjz/2018.50.6.2325.2329
Balaji, K., Jalaludeen, A., Churchil, R.R., Peethambaran, P.A. & Senthilkumar,
S. (2009). Eect of dietary inclusion of Azolla (Azolla pinnata)
on production performance of broiler chicken. Indian Journal of
Poultry Science, 44(2), 195-198. http://www.indianjournals.com/ijor.
aspx?target=ijor%3Aijps&volume=44&issue=2&article=010
Basak, B., Pramanik, M.A.H., Rahman, M.S., Tarafdar S.U. & Roy, B.C. (2002).
Azolla (Azolla pinnata) as a feed ingredient in broiler ration. International
Journal of Poultry Science, 1 (1), 29-34. https://www.gemenskapspraktik.
se/projects/theAzollacookingandcultivationproject/research/Azolla%20
as%20a%20feed%20ingredient%20in%20broiler%20ration.pdf
Bhattacharyya, A., Shukla, P.K., Roy, D. & Shukla, M. (2016). Eect of
Azolla supplementation on growth, immunocompetence and carcass
characteristics of commercial broilers. Journal of Animal Research, 6(5),
941-945. https://doi.org/10.5958/2277-940X.2016.00122.4
Datta, S.N. (2011). Culture of Azolla and its ecacy in diet of Labeo
rohita. Aquaculture, 310(3-4), 376-379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aquaculture.2010.11.008
Gous, R.M . & Swatson, H.K. (2000). Mixture experiments: A severe test of
the ability of a broiler chicken to make the right choice. British Poultry
Science, 41(2), 136–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/713654920
Khatun, M.M. & Islam, M.A.(2021). Eect of Azolla pinnata on the quality
and cholesterol content of egg of laying hens. Merit Research Journal
of Agricultural Science and Soil Sciences, 9(7), 070-076. http://
meritresearchjournals.org/asss/index.htm
Mcdowell, L.R., Lizama, L.C., Marion, J.E. & Wilcox, C.J. (1990). Utilization
of aquatic plants Elodea canadensis and Hydrilla verticillata in Diets for
Laying Hens: Performance and Egg-yolk pigmentation. Poultry Science,
69(4), 673-678. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0690673
Mishra, D.B., Roy, D., Kumar, V., Bhattacharyya, A., Kumar, M., Kushwaha, R.
& Vaswani, S. (2016). Eect of feeding Azolla (
Azolla pinnata) meal on
the performance, nutrient utilization and carcass characteristics of Chabro
chicken. Indian Journal of Poultry Science, 51(3), 259-263. https://doi.
org/10.5958/0974-8180.2016.00060.X
Naghshi, H., Khojasteh, S. & Jafari, M. (2014). Investigation the eect of
dierent levels of Azolla (Azolla pinnata) on performance and carcass
characteristics of cobb broiler chicks. International Journal of Farming
and Allied Sciences, 3(1), 45-49. http://www.ijfas.com/wp-content/
uploads/2014/02/45-49.pdf
Radhakrishnan, S., Bhavan, P.S., Seenivasan, C., Shanthi, R. & Muralisankar,
T. (2014). Replacement of shmeal with Spirulina platensis, Chlorella
vulgaris and Azolla pinnata on non-enzymatic and enzymatic antioxidant
activities of Macrobrachium rosenbergii. The Journal of basic & applied
zoology, 67(2), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobaz.2013.12.003
Shambhvi, Katoch. S., Chauhan P. & Mane, B.G. (2020). Eect of feeding
Azolla pinnata in combination with direct-fed microbial on broiler
performance. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 53,5. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11250-020-02437-w
Subudhi, B.P.R. & Singh, P.K. (1978). Nutritive value of the water fern Azolla
pinnata for chicks. Poultry Science, 57(2), 378-380. https://doi.
org/10.3382/ps.0570378
Varadharajan, A., Gnanasekar, R. & Kothandaraman, S. (2019). Studies on
feeding value of Azolla in quails in relationship to its carcass traits.
Journal of Pharmaceutical Innovation, 8(4), 1143-1145. https://www.
thepharmajournal.com/archives/2019/vol8issue4/PartR/8-4-124-734.pdf