Asian Journal of Dairy and Food Research

  • Chief EditorHarjinder Singh

  • Print ISSN 0971-4456

  • Online ISSN 0976-0563

  • NAAS Rating 5.44

  • SJR 0.176, CiteScore: 0.357

Frequency :
Bi-Monthly (February, April, June, August, October & December)
Indexing Services :
Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Full Research Article

Asian Journal of Dairy and Food Research, volume 44 issue 3 (june 2025) : 476-483

Effects of Silybum marianum Seeds as a Feed Additive on Broiler Production Performance and Quality

Abdelghani Souheila1,*, Beghoul Saber1, Djeghar Alaa Eddine2, Djemai Samir1
  • https://orcid.org/0009-0005-6434-4720, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8301-6440, https://orcid.org/0009-0003-9132-2178, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8989-0561
1PADESCA Laboratory (Laboratoire de Recherche de Pathologie Animale Développement des Elevages et Surveillance de la Chaine Alimentaire des Denrées Animales Ou d’origine Animale), Institute of Veterinary Sciences-El Khroub, University of Constantine 1,25000, Constantine, Algeria.
2Laboratoire de Gestion de la santé et productions animales, Institute of Veterinary Sciences-El Khroub, University of Constantine 1,25000, Constantine, Algeria.
Cite article:- Souheila Abdelghani, Saber Beghoul, Eddine Alaa Djeghar, Samir Djemai (2025). Effects of Silybum marianum Seeds as a Feed Additive on Broiler Production Performance and Quality . Asian Journal of Dairy and Food Research. 44(3): 476-483. doi: 10.18805/ajdfr.DRF-511.

ABSTRACT

Background: The use of growth-promoting antibiotics in poultry feed at sub-therapeutic doses can lead to the development of antibiotic resistance, which can reduce their effectiveness in treating both animal and human health issues. The study aimed to evaluate the effects of adding Milk thistle seeds to broiler feed and drinking water on zootechnical and production performance, as well as on various biochemical parameters.

Methods: One hundred Cobb 500 broiler chicks were weighed and divided into four equal groups of 25 chicks each. The control group was fed a conventional diet. The experimental groups were as follows: group 2 received a diet containing 3% ground Milk thistle seeds, group 3 was treated with water infused with 3% Milk thistle seeds and group 4 received a diet with 1.5% ground Milk thistle seeds and drinking water infused with 1.5% Milk thistle seeds. All chicks had unlimited access to food and water during the 43-day rearing period.

Result: The study revealed that the group labeled as control had the highest feed intake at 4300.32 g, while the chickens that were fed a ration containing 3% Milk thistle seeds consumed a lower quantity, approximately 3674.12 g. The inclusion of Milk thistle seeds at a rate of 1.5% in the feed and 1.5% in the drinking water significantly increased the slaughter weight of the chickens (2803.50 g) compared to the control group (2578.90 g) (P<0.05). The control group chickens, which were fed a conventional diet, had a lower carcass weight compared to those in group 4 (P<0.05). However, the inclusion of Milk thistle seeds in the different groups did not affect carcass yield, abdominal mass,biochemical profile (P>0.05).

INTRODUCTION

Chicken meat is preferred over other meats due to its higher protein content and lower cholesterol levels (Aman et al., 2023). Antibiotics have been added to poultry diets as growth-promoting feed additives. This is done to improve zootechnical performance, including increasing growth rate, decreasing mortality rate and reducing disease incidence. The goal is to increase the productivity of poultry farms and meet the growing demand for poultry meat (Askri et al., 2018). However, the use of growth-promoting antibiotics in poultry feed at sub-therapeutic doses can lead to the development of antibiotic resistance, which can reduce their effectiveness in treating both animal and human health issues (Dupraz, 2004; Mehboob,S., et al., 2025). Indeed, in 2006, the European Union banned the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in animal feed (Alloui, 2011; Li, 2017). Faced with this ban, researchers are turning their attention to other nutritional solutions, with alternatives such as phytobiotics attracting increasing interest (Skomorucha et al., 2013). The use of phytobiotics has grown due to their pharmacological benefits, which include promoting feed intake, improving antioxidant status, increasing endogenous enzyme secretion, altering cell membrane fluidity and permeability and enhancing nutrient absorption (Vicente-Martínez et al., 2022). Milk thistle (Silybum marianum), which belongs to the Asteraceae family, is one of the medicinal plants that can be used for animal feed (Erisir et al., 2016). For over 2,000 years, its seeds have been used as a natural remedy to treat liver and bile disorders (Ding et al., 2001; Sayin et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2020). Silymarin is the biologically active substance in Milk thistle, a group of flavonolignan isomers (Kazazis et al., 2014). Bahmani et al., (2015), Fehér and Lengyel (2012), have shown in their studies that silymarin has hepatoprotective effects due to its antioxidant action; anti-inflammatory effect; membrane stabilization and inhibition of fibrogenesis, promoting Hepatocyte regeneration. In addition, silymarin has chemopreventive activity against bacterial, viral, fungal and chemical toxins (Opletal, 2010). Due to its chemical composition and biological properties, veterinarians prefer to use silymarin as a natural medicine for intensive livestock farming (Radko et al., 2007; Saadh, 2020), although Milk thistle is widely used in human and animal nutrition (Grela et al., 2020). Studies have shown that the addition of silymarin to livestock diets increases production performance and improves animal health (Tedesco, 2001). Ahmad et al., (2019), reported that the body weight and feed conversion ratio of broilers fed diets containing 10 and 15 g/kg Milk thistle, respectively, were increased. A positive effect of adding silymarin-phospholipid complex or silymarin to broiler diets on performance results was reported by Mojahedtalab et al., (2013).
               
The objective of this study was to determine the effect of incorporating Milk thistle seeds into the feed and drinking water of broiler chickens on zootechnical and production performance, as well as on certain biochemical parameters.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Experimental animals and feeds
 
The experimental animals used in this experiment were: unsexed, vaccinated first-day-old chicks of the Cobb 500 strain, with an average weight of 45.2 to 47 g. The experiment was conducted at the Institute of Veterinary Sciences in Constantine. The ingredients and feed rations were prepared in the PADESCA research laboratory. Milk thistle seeds were ground and the feed ration for each group was calculated according to the nutritional value of the ingredients using Microsoft Excel to obtain an iso-energy iso-protein ration. To incorporate Milk thistle seeds into the drinking water, they were added to boiling water and left to infuse for a few minutes while maintaining the boiling point.
 
Experimental design
 
The study was conducted at the rearing building of the experimental farm of the Institute of Veterinary Sciences-El Khroub, University of Constantine 1 in Algeria, from November 16 to December 28, 2022. One hundred chicks (n=100) were raised on a bed of wood shavings (3 kg/m2). The rearing environment was maintained at a temperature of 33oC for the first three days, which was then gradually decreased by 2oC each week. At 43 days of age, the temperature was 21oC. The lighting system consisted of 24 hours of light for the first three days, followed by 6 hours of darkness and 18 hours of light for the remaining days of the rearing period (43 days). Static aeration ensured ventilation throughout. The environmental conditions and animal health were monitored daily during the rearing period. The chicks were weighed and randomly divided into four equal groups of 25 chicks each. 
     
Treatments were applied throughout the rearing period as follows: Control group ²C². received a basic diet + drinking water containing synthetic food additives; Experimental group ²2². received a basic diet supplemented with  3% ground Milk thistle seeds + drinking water without additives; Experimental group ²3². received a basic diet + drinking water containing 3% infused Milk thistle seeds;  Experimental group ²4². received a basal diet supplemented with 1.5% ground Milk thistle seeds + drinking water containing 1.5% infused Milk thistle seeds. All chicks had ad libitum access to food and water. The compositions of the starter, growth and finishing feeds distributed to birds in 4 experimental groups are described in Table 1.

Table 1: Composition of starter, grower and finisher diet.


 
Data collection
 
Monitoring was conducted throughout the rearing period. Feed and water were weighed and distributed daily to the respective clean feeders and troughs for each group. Feed and water remaining in the corresponding equipment were also weighed to determine feed intake (FI). Chicks were weighed weekly from arrival in the rearing building until the day of slaughter (live weight at slaughter) to determine average weight gain (AWG). A representative sample of animals in each group was weighed to calculate average group weight. Daily records of dead animals were kept to determine the mortality ratio (MR), for each phase and the entire trial period. Consumption Index (CI) was also calculated.
     
At the end of the rearing period (day 43), 10 birds were randomly selected from each group, identified and weighed to assess their live weight at slaughter. They were then slaughtered at the abattoir in Constantine, with feathers, paste and heads removed. The full carcasses were weighed and evisceration was carried out to weigh the empty carcasses and calculate the carcass yield (CY). The weight of liverand abdominal fat, was also calculated.
       
At the time of slaughter, blood was collected from 10 subjects per group individually in pre-identified heparinized tubes. The tubes were then centrifuged at 3,000 rpm for 10 minutes and the resulting plasma was collected in identified dry tubes and stored at a freezing temperature of -18°C. Biochemical analyses were conducted at the private laboratory ‘EL AZIZA’ in Constantine to evaluate the impact of Milk thistle seeds on the biochemical profile, specifically liver function, by measuring : Aspartate AminoTransferase (AST), Alanine AminoTransferase (ALT) and glucose levels.
 
Statistical analysis
       
The collected data were statistically processed using IBM SPSS Statistics 22. The statistical test used was the Analysis of One Factor Variance (ANOVA) test for most of the parameters studied. After validating the conditions of application, such as normality and homogeneity, the Tukey test (post-hoc test) was applied for comparison of multiple treatments. The ‘Welch’ test was used to analyze the ‘carcass yield’ parameter, correcting for homogeneity where h0 is rejected, indicating a lack of equality of variances. The non-parametric ‘Kruskal-Wallis’ test was used to analyze the ‘ALT’ parameter, as its normality was invalid.                            
       
The data are presented as mean values±standard deviation, with a statistically significant difference considered at p<0.05.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Zootechnical performance and mortality ratio
 
The results regarding the effects of incorporating Milk thistle seeds into broiler feed and drinking water on zootechnical Performance are summarized, in Table 2.

Table 2: Effects of incorporating Milk thistle seeds into broiler feed and drinking water on zootechnical performance.


       
The highest ²FI² was noted for the “control” group with a value of 4300.32 g and the lowest was noted for experimental group ²2² (3674.12 g), while values of 4241.21 g and 3818.68 g were noted for experimental groups ²3² and²1², respectively. Although Milk thistle seeds incorporated into the feed and drinking water increased feed intake compared with other ²experimental groups² it remained lower than that of the ²control² group.
       
In contrast, Zaker-Esteghamati et al., (2020) reported that consumption of 0.8% heat-treated Milk thistle seeds increased ²FI² in broilers of the Cobb 500 strain. Similarly, Fani et al., (2013) showed that Milk thistle’s active ingredient, silymarin, had a positive effect on feed intake.
       
The group with the highest live weight at slaughter was recorded as group ²4², with an average of 2803.50 g. The lowest live weight, at 2493.20 g, was recorded for group ²3², while group ²C² and ²2² recorded values of 2578.90 g and 2708.60 g, respectively. The ANOVA test (P<0.05) showed that the incorporation of Milk thistle seeds in the feed (1.5%) and drinking water (1.5%) had an effect on live weight at slaughter (2803.50 g) compared to groups ²C, 2 and 3². A significant difference was observed between group “3” and group ²4², according to the Tukey post-hoc test.
       
Our results are in agreement with Janocha et al., (2021), who demonstrated that incorporating ground Milk thistle seeds (2/3%) into the diets of Ross 308 broilers throughout the rearing period (42 d) significantly increased live weight at slaughter. Similarly, Gawel et al., (2003) reported an increase in live weight at slaughter of broilers when they received silymarin. However, according to Sťastník et al., (2016), the addition of Milk thistle seed cake to the feed of Ross 308 broilers at 5% and 15% did not affect the average body weight. In their study, the control group had a weight of 2320.31 g, while the experimental groups at 5% and 15% had weights of 2166.69 g and 1988.78 g, respectively.
     
Regarding the ²CI², group 3 had the lowest ²CI² (1.40), while group C had the highest ²CI² (1.66). Groups ²3² and ²4² had CIs of 1.47 and 1.51, respectively. The inclusion of ground Milk thistle seeds in the broiler feed (3%) significantly reduced the Consumption Index (CI) (P<0.05) compared to the other groups. A significant difference was observed between group “C” and group ²2², as determined by the Tukey test.
       
Kralik et al., (2015), demonstrated that adding 3% Milk thistle oil to the diet of Cobb 500 broilers increased the”CI”. Similarly, the introduction of 0.5% Milk thistle in the diet of broilers decreased feed conversion compared to other chickens fed a feed without additives; Milk thistle, state Kalantar et al., (2014). Our results are not in agreement with those of Zaker-Esteghamati et al., (2020), who obtained a slightly higher feed conversion ratio in the 0.4% heat-treated raw Milk thistle seed diet (1.37) than in the 0.8% heat-treated Milk thistle seed diet (1.36).
     
The recorded ²AWG” for group ²C² was 58.87 g, while group ²2² had a value of 61.91 g. Group ²4² had the highest ²AWG² (64.11 g), while group ²3² showed a significant drop in ²AWG² (56.91 g).
       
The inclusion of 1,5% Milk thistle seeds in both feed and drinking water significantly increased average gain (P<0.05) compared to the other groups. The Tukey test revealed a significant difference between groups ²3² and ²4².
       
Our findings differ from those of Suchý et al., (2008), who reported that incorporating 0.2% and 1% Milk thistle Seed Cake in Ross 308 broiler feed resulted in a decrease in average gain. In contrast, Ahmad et al., (2019) obtained similar results to ours, finding significantly higher mean weight gain (P<0.05) for the groups fed a ration containing 10 g/kg and 15 g/kg of Milk thistle seed powder. During the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th weeks, the addition of 15 g/kg of Milk thistle seed powder to the broiler feed significantly increased the average weight gain, followed by the group fed 10 g/kg of Milk thistle seed powder.                         

During the entire test period, groups ²C² and ²3² did not experience any mortalities. However, groups ²2² and ²4² had a ²MR²of 4%. The observed health issues included aerosacculitis, fibrinous pneumonia, perihepatitis and pericarditis. Additionally, a sporadic case of colibacillosis was suspected. No treatment was administered to living subjects, as they did not exhibit any symptoms.
 
Production performance
 
The results regarding the effects of incorporating Milk thistle seeds into feed and drinking water on broiler production performance are summarized, in Table 3.

Table 3: Results of incorporating Milk thistle seeds into feed and drinking water on broiler production performance.


       
The impact of Milk thistle seeds on carcass weight and liveris significant (P<0.05). Group ²4² recorded the highest average weights for full carcass (2327 g), empty carcass (1968.30 g) and liver (54.70 g), compared with those of group ²3², which represented the lowest values (2050 g, 1728.90 g, 43 g), respectively.
       
Group ²2² had weights of 2239 g for full carcass, 1889 g for empty carcass and 51.90 g for liver, followed lastly by group ²C² at 2221.10 g, 1881.60 g and 49.70 g, respectively. The incorporation of Milk thistle seeds in feed and water (1.5%) “group 3² significantly increased liver weight (p<0.05). The Tukey test revealed a significant difference between group ²3² and ²2².
    
Our results are similar to those of Tavakolinasab et al., (2020), who concluded that Milk thistle extract added at 250 mg/kg to broiler feed resulted in an increase in liver weight. However, introducing 15% Milk thistle seed cake into the broiler diet increased liver weight compared to control groups and chickens fed a diet containing 5% Milk thistle, but the effect was not statistically significant (P>0.05).
     
The addition of Milk thistle seeds to the feed and drinking water did not significantly affect ²CY², abdominal fat weight (P>0.05). In our experiment, the highest “CY” was found in group ²C² (73.11%) compered to group ²3² (69.39%). No significant difference was found between the different groups (P>0.05) according to Welch’s test.
     
Our results are similar to those of Schiavone et al., (2007), who found that the addition of 40 and 80 ppm silymarin to the feed of Ross 308 strain broilers decreased ²CY², however the control group recorded the highest yield (75.04%). Similarly, Sťastník et al., (2016), found in their experiment that the use of 5% and 15% Milk thistle seeds did not have a positive impact on ²CY², with the control group still recording the highest yield.
       
Group ²2² recorded the highest average abdominal fat weight of 37.40 g, compared to 34.40 g for the control group, whose subjects had the least amount of fat. The inclusion of Milk thistle seeds in the ration and/or drinking water did not have a positive impact on abdominal fat. A research study carried out by Rashidi et al., (2015), shows that the incorporation rates 0.5%, 1%, 1.5%, 2% of Milk thistle seeds in broiler feed do not have a significant effect on abdominal fat weight. Similarly, a significant reduction in abdominal fat was recorded in broilers fed a diet containing 250 mg/kg Milk thistle extract, Tavakolinasab et al., (2020).
 
Biochemical parameters
 
The results regarding the effects of incorporating Milk thistle seeds into broiler feed and drinking water on certain biochemical parameters are summarized in, Table 4.

Table 4: Effects of incorporating Milk thistle seeds into broiler feed and drinking water on certain biochemical parameters.


       
Incorporation of Milk thistle seeds into the feed and/or drinking water had no significant effect (P>0.05) on AST, ALT and glucose. Regarding AST, group ²2² had the highest average (390 IU/L) compared with (366.80 IU/L) for the Control group but this increase was not significant.
       
For ALT, the highest value was recorded in group ²4², where animals received Milk thistle in their feed ration and drinking water, i.e. 4.10 IU/L, while group ²C² recorded the lowest value, 3 IU/L.
     
The results show that the highest blood glucose level was obtained in the control group (2.05 g/l), while the lowest glucose level was reported in group ²3² (1.93 g/l).
       
The results obtained by Tavakolinasab et al., (2020), show that adding Milk thistle extract at 250 mg/kg to broiler feed significantly reduced (P<0.05) glucose (164.40 mg/dl), AST (4.53 IU/L) and ALT (212.67 IU/L) levels, respectively, compared to the control group, which recorded 191.23 mg/ml glucose, 300.33 IU/L ALT and 8 IU/L AST.

CONCLUSION

The results indicate that the inclusion of Milk thistle (Silybum marianum) seeds in the diet and drinking water of Cobb 500 broilers had a significant effect (P<0.05) on certain zootechnical and production parameters. The incorporation of whole Milk thistle seeds in the feed (1.5%) and drinking water (1.5%) of chickens had a positive impact on live weight at slaughter, ²AWG², full and empty carcass weight and liver weight. The results also show that incorporating ground Milk thistle seeds at a rate of 3% into the chickens’ feed significantly (P<0.05) reduced ²CI². The results of this experiment show that the Milk thistle seeds used did not have a significant effect on the biochemical profile. However, nutritional status and liver function were maintained.
               
Milk thistle seeds may be recommended as a natural feed additive for poultry and livestock farmers, replacing synthetic feed additives and minimizing their harmful effects on animal and human health.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to express their deepest appreciation to Institute of Veterinary Sciences for assistance rendered in the completion of the present work. The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to all the staff at the « SNV volailles slaughterhouse »in Hamma Bouwiane Constantine for their essential cooperation in the sampling process and data collection. The authors are also grateful to all the organizations(NUTI ALIMENT PLUS), ‘EL AZIZA’ laboratory and The people who contributed to the completion of this work.

Disclaimers 
 
The views and conclusions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of their affiliated institutions. The authors are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the information provided, but do not accept any liability for any direct or indirect losses resulting from the use of this content.
 
Informed consent    
                                                                                                                                                        
All animal procedures for experiments were approved by the Committee of Experimental Animal care and handling techniques were approved by the University of Animal Care Committee.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.

REFERENCES


  1. Ahmad, M., Chand, N., Khan, R.U., Ahmad, N., Khattak, I. and Naz, S. (2019). Dietary supplementation of Milk thistle (Silybum marianum): Growth performance, oxidative stress and immune response in natural summer stressed broilers. Tropical Animal health and  Production. 52(2): 711-715. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11250-019-02060-4.

  2. Alloui, M.N. (2011). Les phytobiotiques comme alternative aux antibiotiques promoteurs de croissance dans l’aliment des volailles. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 23(6): 133. http:// www.lrrd.org › lrrd23 › 6 › allo23133 enr ( dossier communication).

  3. Aman, R., Dinesh, R.C., Aparna, A. and Abhishek, T.D. (2023). Effect of Dietary Supplementation of Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) Seed on the Growth Performance, Blood Lipid and Meat Quality of Broiler Chickens. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 57(6): 742-748. doi: 10.18805/IJAR.B-4807.

  4. Askri, A., Fitouhi, N., Raach-Moujehed, A., Abbassi, M., Maaloui, Z. and Debbabbi, H. (2018).Effect of a commercial prebiotic «AVIATOR®» on zootechnical performances, caecal microflora and meat quality of broilers Effet d’un prébiotique commercial «AVIATOR®» sur les performances zootechniques,  la composition de la microflore caecale et la qualité de la viande des poulets de chair. Journal of New Sciences. 8(1): 161-168. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 328133444_ Effect_of_a_ commercial_ prebiotic_ AVIATORR_ on_zo_otechnical_performances_caecal_microflora_ and_ meat_quality_of_broilers_Effetd’_unprebiotique_ commercial_AVIATORR surles _performances _zootechniques  _lac.

  5. Bahmani, M., Shirzad, H., Rafieian, S. and Rafieian-Kopaei, M. (2015). Silybum marianum: Beyond hepatoprotection. Journal of Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 20(4): 292-301. doi: 10.1177/2156587215571116.

  6. Ding, T.M., Tian, S.J., Zhang, Z.X., Gu, D.Z., Chen, Y.F., Shi, Y.H. and Sun, Z.-. (2001). Determination of active component in silymarin by RP-LC and LC/MS. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis. 26(1): 155-161. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0731-7085(01)00364-8.

  7. Dupraz, P. (2004). Interdiction des promoteurs de croissance antibiotiques et commerce international. Journées  de la Recherche Porcine en France. 36: 151. http://www.journees-recherche- porcine.com ›.

  8. Erisir, Z., Mutlu, S.Ý, Þimþek, Ü.G., Ciftci, M., Azman, M.A., Benzer, F. and Erisir, M. (2016). Effects of milk thistle (Silybum marianum) seed supplementation to high-calorie basal diets of quails on egg production, egg quality traits, hatchability and oxidative stress parameters. Kafkas Universitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi. 22: 577-584. doi: 10.9775/kvfd.2016.15105.

  9. Fani Makki, O., Afzali, N. and Omidi, A. (2013). Effect of different levels of Silymarin (Silybum marianum) on growth rate, carcass variables and liver morphology of broiler chickens contaminated with aflatoxin B1. Poultry Science Journal.1(2): 105-116. doi: 10.22069/PSJ.2013.1480.

  10. Fehér, J. and Lengyel, G. (2012). Silymarin in the prevention and treatment of liver diseases and primary liver cancer. Current Pharma- ceutical Biotechnology. 13(1): 210-217. https://doi.org/10. 2174/138920112798868818.

  11. Gawel, A., Kotonski, B., Madej, J. and Mazurkiewicz, M. (2003). Effect of silimarin on chicken and turkey broilers’ rearing and the production indices of reproduction hen flocks. Medycyna Weterynaryjna. 59(6): 517-520. https://www. researchgate. net/publication/290317974 Effect of silimarin on chicken and turkey broilers’ rearing and the production indices of reproduction hen flocks.

  12. Grela, E.R., Œwi¹tkiewicz, M., Florek, M. and Wojtaszewska, I. (2020). Impact of milk thistle (Sihlybum marianum L.) seeds in fattener diets on pig performance and carcass traits and fatty acid profile and cholesterol of meat, backfat and liver. Livestock Science. 239: 104180. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.livsci.2020.104180.

  13. Janocha, A., Milczarek, A. and Pietrusiak, D. (2021). Impact of milk thistle (Silybum marianum [L.] Gaertn.) seeds in broiler chicken diets on rearing results, carcass composition and meat quality. Animals.11(6):1550.https://doi.org/ 10.3390/ani11061550.

  14. Kalantar, M., Salary, J., Sanami, M. N., Khojastekey, M. and Matin, H.H. (2014). Dietary supplementation of Silybum marianum or Curcuma spp. on health characteristics and broiler chicken performance.Global Journal of Animal Scientific Research. 2(1): 58-63. URL:http://www.gjasr.com/.../94.

  15. Kazazis, C.E., Evangelopoulos, A.A., Kollas, A. and Vallianou, N.G. (2014). The therapeutic potential of Milk thistle in diabetes. The review of Diabetic Studies: RDS.11(2):167-174. doi: 10. 1900/RDS.2014.11.167.

  16. Kralik, Z., Kralik, G., Radišiæ, Ž., Kralik, I. and Hanžek, D. (2015). Influence of dietary replacement of sunflower oil with Milk thistle (Silybum marianum) oil on fattening characteristics and market value of broiler carcasses. Poljoprivreda. 21(2): 61-65. https://doi.org/10.18047/poljo.21.2.10.

  17. Li, J. (2017). Current status and prospects for in-feed antibiotics in the different stages of pork production-A review. Asian- Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences. 30(12): 1667. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5666167/.

  18. Mehboob,S., Ganai, A.M., Sheikh, G.G., Beigh, Y.A., Nissa, S.S., Shubeena, S. (2025). Effect of herb urtica dioica as feed additive on growth performance, serum biochemical, immune response and oxidative parameters of broilers. Agricultural Science Digest. doi:  10.18805/ag.D-6178.

  19. Mojahedtalab, A., Mohammadi, M., Mehr, M. and Asadi, M. (2013). Effect of Silymarin on performance and immune responses of broilers. Animal Production Research. 2(3): 49-58. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309663240  Effect of  silymarin  on performance and immune responses of broilers.

  20. Opletal, L. (2010). Pøírodní látky a jejich biologická aktivita.1ére édt:vol3. Karolinum Press. https://karolinum.cz/en/books/ opletal-prirodni-latky-a-jejich-biologicka-aktivita-sv-3-16675.

  21. Radko, L. and Cybulski, W. (2007). Application of silymarin in human and animal medicine. Journal of Pre-Clinical and Clinical Research. 1(1): 22-26. https://agro.icm.edu.pl/agro/element/ bwmeta1.element.agro-621b288e-7922-467b-89fb- e818cdfb1340.

  22. Rashidi, N., Bujarpoor, M., Chaji, M. and Aghaei, A. (2015). Effect of Silybum marianum seed on performance, carcass characteristics and blood parameters of broiler chickens. Animal Production Research. 3(4): 11-21. https://ar.guilan. ac.ir/article_18.html?lang=en.

  23. Saadh, M.J. (2020). Hypoglycemic and hypolipidemic activity of combined Milk thistle and fenugreek seeds in alloxan-induced diabetic albino rats. Veterinary World. 13(8): 1732-1736. doi: 10. 14202/vetworld.2020.1732-1736.

  24. Sayin, F.K., Buyukbas, S., Basarali, M.K., Alp, H., Toy, H. and Ugurcu, V. (2016). Effects of Silybum marianum extract on high- fat diet induced metabolic disorders in rats. Polish Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences.66(1): 43. doi:  10.1515/ pjfns-2015-0014.

  25. Schiavone, A., Righi, F., Quarantelli, A., Bruni, R., Serventi, P. and Fusari, A. (2007). Use of Silybum marianum fruit extract in broiler chicken nutrition: Influence on performance and meat quality. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition. 91(5-6): 256-262. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439- 0396.2007.00701.x.

  26. Skomorucha, I. and Sosnówka-czajka, E. (2013). Effect of water supplementation with herbal extracts on broiler chicken welfare/Wp³yw Dodatku Do Wody Ekstraktów Zio³owych Na Dobrostan Kurcz¹t Brojlerów. Annals of Animal Science. 13(4): 849-857. doi: https://doi.org/10.2478/aoas-2013-0057.

  27. Sťastník, O., Jùzl, M., Karásek, F., Štenclová, H., Nedomová, Š., Pavlata, L., Mrkvicová. E., Doležal,P., Jarošová, A. (2016). The effect of feeding Milk thistle seed cakes on quality indicators of broiler chikens meat. Potravinarstvo.10(1): 248-254. doi: 10. 5219/579.

  28. Suchý, P., Straková, E., Kummer, V., Herzig, I., Písaøíková, V., Blechová, R. and Mašková, J. (2008). Hepatoprotective effects of milk thistle (Silybum marianum) seed cakes during the chicken broiler fattening. Acta Veterinaria Brno. 77(1): 31-38. https://doi.org/10.2754/avb200877010031.

  29. Tavakolinasab, F., Khosravinia, H. and Masouri, B. (2020). Effects of milk thistle, artichoke and olive extracts in comparison with atorvastatin and gemfibrozil on liver function in broiler chicken. Poultry Science Journal. 8(1):109-117. doi:10.22069/psj.2020.17689.1545.

  30. Tedesco, D. (2001). The potentiality of herbs and plant extracts as feed additive in livestock production. Zootecnica e Nutrizione Animale. 27(3-4): 111-113. https://agris.fao.org/agrissearch/ search.do?recordID=IT2002061936.

  31. Vicente-Martínez, J.G., Pinos-Rodriguez, J.M., García-López, J.C., León-Cabada, V.R., Martínez-Hernández, J.M. andLópez- Aguirre, S. (2022). Effect of a feed additive based on papaveracea roots and nanoclays on broiler performance. Agricultural Science Digest. 42(4): 516-517. doi: 10. 18805/ag.D-351.

  32. Wang, X. Zhang, Z and Wu, S.C. (2020). Health beneûts of Silybum marianum; Phytochemistry, Pharmacology and Applications. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 68(42):11644- 11664.https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.0c04791.

  33. Zaker-Esteghamati, H., Seidavi, A. and Bouyeh, M. (2020). A review on the effect of Silybum marianum and its derivatives on broilers under healthy and aflatoxicosis conditions: Part 1: Performance, carcass and meat characteristics, and intestinal microflora. World’s Poultry Science Journal. 76(2): 318-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/00439339. 2020. 1740068.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)