AMELERIOATIVE EFFECTS OF COW URINE DISTILLATE IN IMMUNOLOGICAL PARAMETERS OF TRIAZOPHOS INTOXICATED WHITE LEGHORN COCKERELS

A. CHANDRA¹*, S. AGARWAL², A. ARORA³, S. CHOUDHARY^4
1Department of Pathology, College of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, 263145, Uttarakhand India
²Department of Pathology, College of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, 263145, Uttarakhand India
³Department of Pathology, College of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, 263145, Uttarakhand India
⁴Department of Livestock Production & Management, College of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, 263145
* Corresponding Author : aastha.chandra14@gmail.com

Received : 29-05-2018     Accepted : 07-06-2018     Published : 15-06-2018
Volume : 10     Issue : 11       Pages : 6215 - 6219
Int J Agr Sci 10.11 (2018):6215-6219

Keywords : Triazophos toxicity, White Leghorn Cockerels, lymphocyte stimulation test, delayed test of hypersensitivity, Total immunoglobulin
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Author thankful to G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, 263145, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand, India
Author Contribution : All author equally contributed

Pesticides are present everywhere in our daily life due to which they leave their residue in food chain causing deleterious effects on the health status of man and animals including poultry. Triazophos the pesticide of study is one of the most commonly used Organophosphate pesticide. Organophosphates compounds produce toxicity directly by inhibiting the acetylcholine esterase. In this study Twenty five white leg horn male chicken of one month old weighing about 150 to 200 gms were procured and kept at Instructional Poultry Farm Nagla, Pantnagar. The birds in poultry shed were reared in deep litter system and were kept under standard managemental conditions. They were randomly divided into five groups of 5 birds each. After one week of adaptation period, different doses of Triazophos and Cow urine distillate were administered orally through feed at 2.5, 5 ppm levels to groups G2, G3 and cow urine distillate through drinking water to groups G4,G5 respectively for 100 days daily. The birds of group “G1” served as control. After every 25 days blood was taken from each bird including day zero for study of different parameters. All the immunological parameters viz. lymphocyte stimulation test, delayed test of hypersensitivity, total immunoglobulins by Zinc sulfate turbidity method were done as per the standard method. The cell-mediated immune response of the birds were estimated using lymphocyte stimulation test and delayed type hypersensitivity. At day 50 Delayed test of hypersensitivity DTH & lymphocyte stimulation test LST were performed twice on 50 & 100 day while total immunoglobulins were estimated on 0, 25,50,75 and 100 days. Immunological parameters showed significant(P<0.01) decrease leading to Immunosupression in different doses of Triazophos treated birds in comparison to birds of control group while a significant increase(P<0.01) in all test values was observed in cow urine treated groups(G4, G5) as compared to non cow urine treated groups (G2 and G3).

1. Randhava G.K. and Sharma R. (2015) Journal of Intercultural Ethnopharmacology, 4(2), 180-186.
2. Ambawani S., Ambawani T., Singhal L. and Chauhan R.S. (2006). International Journal of Cow science, 2(1),45-48.
3. Tiwari S., Aggarwal S. and Shukla A. (2016) Ecology, Environment and Conservation, 22(3),1253-1256.
4. Khanduja S., Jain P., Sachdeva S. and Phogat J. (2017) Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research,11(4), ND 03- ND 04.
5. Linda B., Nakure H.S., Matsumoto M., Gainer J.H. and Kerkuliet N.I. (1989) Fundamentals of applied Toxicology,12, 773-786.
6. Chauhan R.S. (1998) Laboratory manual of immunopathology, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, 96.
7. Boyse E.A., Old L.J. and ChouroulinkovI. (1964) Methods in Medical Research,10, 39-47.
8. Rai-el-Balhaa G., Pellerin J.L., Bodin G. and Abdulla A. (1987) Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infes. Dis., 8, 311-318.
9. Phanuphak P., Moorhead J.W. and Clamam H.N. (1974) Journal Immunology, 112(1),115-123.
10. McEven A.D., Fisher W., Selman I.F. and Perihale W.J. (1969) Clinical Chem. Acta., 27,155-163.
11. Saxena S. (2005) Thesis, M.V.Sc. G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, 41-43.
12. Garg N. (2004)Thesis, M.Sc. G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar.54- 86.
13. Dhama K., Rathore R., Chauhan R.S. and Tomar S. (2005) .International Journal of Cow Science,1(1), 1-15.
14. Gosavi D.D., Sachdeva D. and Salwe K. (2011) J. MGIMS.,16, 37- 41.
15. Street J.C. and Sharma R.P. (1975) Toxicology Applied Pharmacol.,32, 587-602.
16. Chauhan R.S., Singh B.P. and Singh G.K. (2001) Journal of Immunology and Immunopathology,71, 89-92.
17. Chauhan R.S., Singh B.P. and Singhal L.K. (2001) Journal of Immunology and Immunopathology, 3, 74-77.