Effects of Se nanoparticles supplementation on growth performance, hematological parameters and nutrient digestibility of Labeo rohita fingerling fed sunflower meal based diet / Efeitos da suplementação de nanopartículas de Se no desempenho de crescimento, parâmetros hematológicos e digestibilidade de nutrientes da dieta baseada em farinha de girassol alimentada com alevinos de Labeo rohita

Abstract The aim of the present study is to assess the effects of selenium nanoparticles on the growth, hematology and nutrients digestibility of Labeorohita fingerlings. Fingerlings were fed with seven isocaloric sunflower meal-based diet supplemented with different concentrations of nanoparticles naming T1 to T7 (0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, and 3 mg/kg), with 5% wet body weight while chromic oxide was used as an indigestible marker. After experimentation for 90 days T3 treated group (1mg/kg -1Se-nano level) showed the best result in hematological parameters (WBC's 7.97 ×103mm-3, RBC's 2.98 ×106 mm-3 and Platelet count 67), nutrient digestibility (crude protein: 74%, ether extract: 76%, gross energy: 70%) and growth performance (weight gain 13.24 g, weight gain% 198, feed conversion ratio 1.5, survival rate 100%) as compared to the other treatment groups. Specific growth rates were found significantly higher in T5 than in other groups. The present study indicated positive effect of 1 mg/kg Se-nanoparticles on growth advancement, hematological parameters, and nutrients digestibility of L. rohita fingerlings.

Resumo O objetivo do presente estudo é avaliar os efeitos das nanopartículas de selênio no crescimento, hematologia e digestibilidade dos nutrientes de alevinos de Labeo rohita. Os alevinos foram alimentados com sete dietas isocalóricas à base de farinha de girassol suplementada com diferentes concentrações de nanopartículas, nomeando T1 a T7 (0, 0,5, 1, 1,5, 2, 2,5 e 3 mg / kg), com 5% do peso corporal úmido enquanto o óxido crômico foi usado como um marcador indigesto. Após a experimentação por 90 dias, o grupo tratado com T3 (nível 1mg / kg -1Se-nano) mostrou o melhor resultado em parâmetros hematológicos (WBC's 7,97 × 103mm-3, RBC's 2,98 × 106mm-3 e contagem de plaquetas 67), digestibilidade dos nutrientes (proteína bruta: 74%, extrato de éter: 76%, energia bruta: 70%) e desempenho de crescimento (ganho de peso 13,24 g, ganho de peso % 198, taxa de conversão alimentar 1,5, taxa de sobrevivência 100%) em comparação com os outros grupos de tratamento. As taxas de crescimento específicas foram encontradas significativamente mais altas em T5 do que em outros grupos. O presente estudo indicou efeito positivo de 1 mg / kg de nanopartículas de Se no avanço do crescimento, parâmetros hematológicos e digestibilidade de nutrientes de alevinos de L. rohita.

Effects of Se nanoparticles supplementation on growth performance, hematological parameters and nutrient digestibility of Labeo rohita fingerling fed sunflower meal based diet

Abstract The aim of the present study is to assess the effects of selenium nanoparticles on the growth, hematology and nutrients digestibility of Labeorohita fingerlings. Fingerlings were fed with seven isocaloric sunflower meal-based diet supplemented with different concentrations of nanoparticles naming T1 to T7 (0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, and 3 mg/kg), with 5% wet body weight while chromic oxide was used as an indigestible marker. After experimentation for 90 days T3 treated group (1mg/kg -1Se-nano level) showed the best result in hematological parameters (WBCs 7.97 ×103mm-3, RBCs 2.98 ×106 mm-3 and Platelet count 67), nutrient digestibility (crude protein: 74%, ether extract: 76%, gross energy: 70%) and growth performance (weight gain 13.24 g, weight gain% 198, feed conversion ratio 1.5, survival rate 100%) as compared to the other treatment groups. Specific growth rates were found significantly higher in T5 than in other groups. The present study indicated positive effect of 1 mg/kg Se-nanoparticles on growth advancement, hematological parameters, and nutrients digestibility of L. rohita fingerlings.

Resumo O objetivo do presente estudo é avaliar os efeitos das nanopartículas de selênio no crescimento, hematologia e digestibilidade dos nutrientes de alevinos de Labeo rohita. Os alevinos foram alimentados com sete dietas isocalóricas à base de farinha de girassol suplementada com diferentes concentrações de nanopartículas, nomeando T1 a T7 (0, 0,5, 1, 1,5, 2, 2,5 e 3 mg / kg), com 5% do peso corporal úmido enquanto o óxido crômico foi usado como um marcador indigesto. Após a experimentação por 90 dias, o grupo tratado com T3 (nível 1mg / kg -1Se-nano) mostrou o melhor resultado em parâmetros hematológicos (WBCs 7,97 × 103mm-3, RBCs 2,98 × 106mm-3 e contagem de plaquetas 67), digestibilidade dos nutrientes (proteína bruta: 74%, extrato de éter: 76%, energia bruta: 70%) e desempenho de crescimento (ganho de peso 13,24 g, ganho de peso % 198, taxa de conversão alimentar 1,5, taxa de sobrevivência 100%) em comparação com os outros grupos de tratamento. As taxas de crescimento específicas foram encontradas significativamente mais altas em T5 do que em outros grupos. O presente estudo indicou efeito positivo de 1 mg / kg de nanopartículas de Se no avanço do crescimento, parâmetros hematológicos e digestibilidade de nutrientes de alevinos de L. rohita.

Variations in nutritional profile of honey produced by various species of genus Apis / Variações no perfil nutricional do mel produzido por várias espécies do gênero Apis

Abstract The medicinal attributes of honey appears to overshadow its importance as a functional food. Consequently, several literatures are rife with ancient uses of honey as complementary and alternative medicine, with relevance to modern day health care, supported by evidence-based clinical data, with little attention given to honey's nutritional functions. The moisture contents of honey extracted from University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore honey bee farm was 12.19% while that of natural source was 9.03 ± 1.63%. Similarly, ash and protein contents of farmed honey recorded were 0.37% and 5.22%, respectively. Whereas ash and protein contents of natural honey were 1.70 ± 1.98% and 6.10 ± 0.79%. Likewise fat, dietary fiber and carbohydrates contents of farmed source documented were 0.14%, 1.99% and 62.26% respectively. Although fat, dietary fiber and carbohydrates contents of honey taken from natural resource were 0.54 ± 0.28%, 2.76 ± 1.07% and 55.32 ± 2.91% respectively. Glucose and fructose contents of honey taken out from honeybee farm were 27% and 34% but natural source were 22.50 ± 2.12% and 28.50 ± 3.54%. Glucose and fructose contents of honey taken out from honeybee farm were 27% and 34% but natural source were 22.50 ± 2.12% and 28.50 ± 3.54%. Similarly, sucrose and maltose contents of farmed honey were 2.5% and 12% while in natural honey were 1.35 ± 0.49% and 8.00 ± 1.41% respectively. The present study indicates that such as moisture, carbohydrates, sucrose and maltose contents were higher farmed honey as compared to the natural honey. In our recommendation natural honey is better than farmed honey.

Resumo Os atributos medicinais do mel parecem ofuscar sua importância como alimento funcional. Consequentemente, várias literaturas estão repletas de usos antigos do mel como medicina complementar e alternativa, com relevância para os cuidados de saúde modernos, apoiados por dados clínicos baseados em evidências, com pouca atenção dada às funções nutricionais do mel. O teor de umidade do mel extraído da Universidade de Veterinária e Ciências Animais, fazenda de abelhas de Lahore, foi de 12,19%, enquanto o de fonte natural foi de 9,03 ± 1,63%. Da mesma forma, os teores de cinzas e proteínas do mel cultivado foram de 0,37% e 5,22%, respectivamente. Já os teores de cinzas e proteínas do mel natural foram de 1,70 ± 1,98% e 6,10 ± 0,79%. Da mesma forma, os teores de gordura, fibra dietética e carboidratos de origem cultivada documentados foram de 0,14%, 1,99% e 62,26%, respectivamente. Embora os teores de gordura, fibra alimentar e carboidratos do mel retirado dos recursos naturais fossem de 0,54 ± 0,28%, 2,76 ± 1,07% e 55,32 ± 2,91%, respectivamente. Os conteúdos de glicose e frutose do mel retirado da fazenda de abelhas foram de 27% e 34%, mas a fonte natural foi de 22,50 ± 2,12% e 28,50 ± 3,54%. Os conteúdos de glicose e frutose do mel retirado da fazenda de abelhas foram de 27% e 34%, mas a fonte natural foi de 22,50 ± 2,12% e 28,50 ± 3,54%. Da mesma forma, os teores de sacarose e maltose no mel cultivado foram de 2,5% e 12%, enquanto no mel natural foram de 1,35 ± 0,49% e 8,00 ± 1,41%, respectivamente. O presente estudo indica que os teores de umidade, carboidratos, sacarose e maltose foram maiores no mel cultivado em comparação ao mel natural. Em nossa recomendação, o mel natural é melhor que o mel de cultivo.

Variations in nutritional profile of honey produced by various species of genus Apis / Variações no perfil nutricional do mel produzido por várias espécies do gênero Apis

The medicinal attributes of honey appears to overshadow its importance as a functional food. Consequently, several literatures are rife with ancient uses of honey as complementary and alternative medicine, with relevance to modern day health care, supported by evidence-based clinical data, with little attention given to honey’s nutritional functions. The moisture contents of honey extracted from University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore honey bee farm was 12.19% while that of natural source was 9.03 ± 1.63%. Similarly, ash and protein contents of farmed honey recorded were 0.37% and 5.22%, respectively. Whereas ash and protein contents of natural honey were 1.70 ± 1.98% and 6.10 ± 0.79%. Likewise fat, dietary fiber and carbohydrates contents of farmed source documented were 0.14%, 1.99% and 62.26% respectively. Although fat, dietary fiber and carbohydrates contents of honey taken from natural resource were 0.54 ± 0.28%, 2.76 ± 1.07% and 55.32 ± 2.91% respectively. Glucose and fructose contents of honey taken out from honeybee farm were 27% and 34% but natural source were 22.50 ± 2.12% and 28.50 ± 3.54%. Glucose and fructose contents of honey taken out from honeybee farm were 27% and 34% but natural source were 22.50 ± 2.12% and 28.50 ± 3.54%. Similarly, sucrose and maltose contents of farmed honey were 2.5% and 12% while in natural honey were 1.35 ± 0.49% and 8.00 ± 1.41% respectively. The present study indicates that such as moisture, carbohydrates, sucrose and maltose contents were higher farmed honey as compared to the natural honey. In our recommendation natural honey is better than farmed honey.

Os atributos medicinais do mel parecem ofuscar sua importância como alimento funcional. Consequentemente, várias literaturas estão repletas de usos antigos do mel como medicina complementar e alternativa, com relevância para os cuidados de saúde modernos, apoiados por dados clínicos baseados em evidências, com pouca atenção dada às funções nutricionais do mel. O teor de umidade do mel extraído da Universidade de Veterinária e Ciências Animais, fazenda de abelhas de Lahore, foi de 12,19%, enquanto o de fonte natural foi de 9,03 ± 1,63%. Da mesma forma, os teores de cinzas e proteínas do mel cultivado foram de 0,37% e 5,22%, respectivamente. Já os teores de cinzas e proteínas do mel natural foram de 1,70 ± 1,98% e 6,10 ± 0,79%. Da mesma forma, os teores de gordura, fibra dietética e carboidratos de origem cultivada documentados foram de 0,14%, 1,99% e 62,26%, respectivamente. Embora os teores de gordura, fibra alimentar e carboidratos do mel retirado dos recursos naturais fossem de 0,54 ± 0,28%, 2,76 ± 1,07% e 55,32 ± 2,91%, respectivamente. Os conteúdos de glicose e frutose do mel retirado da fazenda de abelhas foram de 27% e 34%, mas a fonte natural foi de 22,50 ± 2,12% e 28,50 ± 3,54%. Os conteúdos de glicose e frutose do mel retirado da fazenda de abelhas foram de 27% e 34%, mas a fonte natural foi de 22,50 ± 2,12% e 28,50 ± 3,54%. Da mesma forma, os teores de sacarose e maltose no mel cultivado foram de 2,5% e 12%, enquanto no mel natural foram de 1,35 ± 0,49% e 8,00 ± 1,41%, respectivamente. O presente estudo indica que os teores de umidade, carboidratos, sacarose e maltose foram maiores no mel cultivado em comparação ao mel natural. Em nossa recomendação, o mel natural é melhor que o mel de cultivo.

Variations in nutritional profile of honey produced by various species of genus Apis

Abstract The medicinal attributes of honey appears to overshadow its importance as a functional food. Consequently, several literatures are rife with ancient uses of honey as complementary and alternative medicine, with relevance to modern day health care, supported by evidence-based clinical data, with little attention given to honeys nutritional functions. The moisture contents of honey extracted from University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore honey bee farm was 12.19% while that of natural source was 9.03 ± 1.63%. Similarly, ash and protein contents of farmed honey recorded were 0.37% and 5.22%, respectively. Whereas ash and protein contents of natural honey were 1.70 ± 1.98% and 6.10 ± 0.79%. Likewise fat, dietary fiber and carbohydrates contents of farmed source documented were 0.14%, 1.99% and 62.26% respectively. Although fat, dietary fiber and carbohydrates contents of honey taken from natural resource were 0.54 ± 0.28%, 2.76 ± 1.07% and 55.32 ± 2.91% respectively. Glucose and fructose contents of honey taken out from honeybee farm were 27% and 34% but natural source were 22.50 ± 2.12% and 28.50 ± 3.54%. Glucose and fructose contents of honey taken out from honeybee farm were 27% and 34% but natural source were 22.50 ± 2.12% and 28.50 ± 3.54%. Similarly, sucrose and maltose contents of farmed honey were 2.5% and 12% while in natural honey were 1.35 ± 0.49% and 8.00 ± 1.41% respectively. The present study indicates that such as moisture, carbohydrates, sucrose and maltose contents were higher farmed honey as compared to the natural honey. In our recommendation natural honey is better than farmed honey.

Resumo Os atributos medicinais do mel parecem ofuscar sua importância como alimento funcional. Consequentemente, várias literaturas estão repletas de usos antigos do mel como medicina complementar e alternativa, com relevância para os cuidados de saúde modernos, apoiados por dados clínicos baseados em evidências, com pouca atenção dada às funções nutricionais do mel. O teor de umidade do mel extraído da Universidade de Veterinária e Ciências Animais, fazenda de abelhas de Lahore, foi de 12,19%, enquanto o de fonte natural foi de 9,03 ± 1,63%. Da mesma forma, os teores de cinzas e proteínas do mel cultivado foram de 0,37% e 5,22%, respectivamente. Já os teores de cinzas e proteínas do mel natural foram de 1,70 ± 1,98% e 6,10 ± 0,79%. Da mesma forma, os teores de gordura, fibra dietética e carboidratos de origem cultivada documentados foram de 0,14%, 1,99% e 62,26%, respectivamente. Embora os teores de gordura, fibra alimentar e carboidratos do mel retirado dos recursos naturais fossem de 0,54 ± 0,28%, 2,76 ± 1,07% e 55,32 ± 2,91%, respectivamente. Os conteúdos de glicose e frutose do mel retirado da fazenda de abelhas foram de 27% e 34%, mas a fonte natural foi de 22,50 ± 2,12% e 28,50 ± 3,54%. Os conteúdos de glicose e frutose do mel retirado da fazenda de abelhas foram de 27% e 34%, mas a fonte natural foi de 22,50 ± 2,12% e 28,50 ± 3,54%. Da mesma forma, os teores de sacarose e maltose no mel cultivado foram de 2,5% e 12%, enquanto no mel natural foram de 1,35 ± 0,49% e 8,00 ± 1,41%, respectivamente. O presente estudo indica que os teores de umidade, carboidratos, sacarose e maltose foram maiores no mel cultivado em comparação ao mel natural. Em nossa recomendação, o mel natural é melhor que o mel de cultivo.

Effects of Se nanoparticles supplementation on growth performance, hematological parameters and nutrient digestibility of Labeo rohita fingerling fed sunflower meal based diet.

The aim of the present study is to assess the effects of selenium nanoparticles on the growth, hematology and nutrients digestibility of Labeorohita fingerlings. Fingerlings were fed with seven isocaloric sunflower meal-based diet supplemented with different concentrations of nanoparticles naming T1 to T7 (0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, and 3 mg/kg), with 5% wet body weight while chromic oxide was used as an indigestible marker. After experimentation for 90 days T3 treated group (1mg/kg -1Se-nano level) showed the best result in hematological parameters (WBC's 7.97 ×103mm-3, RBC's 2.98 ×106 mm-3 and Platelet count 67), nutrient digestibility (crude protein: 74%, ether extract: 76%, gross energy: 70%) and growth performance (weight gain 13.24 g, weight gain% 198, feed conversion ratio 1.5, survival rate 100%) as compared to the other treatment groups. Specific growth rates were found significantly higher in T5 than in other groups. The present study indicated positive effect of 1 mg/kg Se-nanoparticles on growth advancement, hematological parameters, and nutrients digestibility of L. rohita fingerlings.

Variations in nutritional profile of honey produced by various species of genus Apis.

The medicinal attributes of honey appears to overshadow its importance as a functional food. Consequently, several literatures are rife with ancient uses of honey as complementary and alternative medicine, with relevance to modern day health care, supported by evidence-based clinical data, with little attention given to honey's nutritional functions. The moisture contents of honey extracted from University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore honey bee farm was 12.19% while that of natural source was 9.03 ± 1.63%. Similarly, ash and protein contents of farmed honey recorded were 0.37% and 5.22%, respectively. Whereas ash and protein contents of natural honey were 1.70 ± 1.98% and 6.10 ± 0.79%. Likewise fat, dietary fiber and carbohydrates contents of farmed source documented were 0.14%, 1.99% and 62.26% respectively. Although fat, dietary fiber and carbohydrates contents of honey taken from natural resource were 0.54 ± 0.28%, 2.76 ± 1.07% and 55.32 ± 2.91% respectively. Glucose and fructose contents of honey taken out from honeybee farm were 27% and 34% but natural source were 22.50 ± 2.12% and 28.50 ± 3.54%. Glucose and fructose contents of honey taken out from honeybee farm were 27% and 34% but natural source were 22.50 ± 2.12% and 28.50 ± 3.54%. Similarly, sucrose and maltose contents of farmed honey were 2.5% and 12% while in natural honey were 1.35 ± 0.49% and 8.00 ± 1.41% respectively. The present study indicates that such as moisture, carbohydrates, sucrose and maltose contents were higher farmed honey as compared to the natural honey. In our recommendation natural honey is better than farmed honey.