Research Article

 

Effect of in ovo Honey Administration on Fertility and Post Hatch Performance of Broiler Chickens

 

Sheeba Shams Memon1, Asghar Ali Kamboh1*, Faiz Muhammad Khand2, Kanwar Kumar Malhi1, Ambreen Leghari2, Shakeel Ahmed Lakho2, Muhammad Bilawal Arain3

1Department of Veterinary Microbiology, Sindh Agriculture University, 70060 Tandojam, Pakistan; 2Faculty of Veterinary Sciences, Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Sakrand, Pakistan; 3Department of Veterinary Pharmacology, Sindh Agriculture University, 70060 Tandojam, Pakistan.

 

Received | March 14, 2021; Accepted | April 15, 2021; Published | July 01, 2021

*Correspondence | Asghar Ali Kamboh, Department of Veterinary Microbiology, Sindh Agriculture University, 70060 Tandojam, Pakistan; Email: [email protected]

Citation | Memon SS, Kamboh AA, Khand FM, Malhi KK, Leghari A, Lakho SA, Arain MB (2021). Effect of in ovo honey administration on fertility and post hatch performance of broiler chickens. J. Anim. Health Prod. 9(3): 236-242.

DOI | http://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.jahp/2021/9.3.236.242

ISSN | 2308-2801

Copyright © 2021 Malhi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

 

INTRODUCTION

 

During development of the neonatal period, anything that delays or stimulates growth will have an obvious effect on overall performance and health status of poultry (Ferket, 2006). It has been proposed that 21 days incubation period and early post hatch period of the chick has significant contribution (about 50%) in performance of broilers in commercial production system (Karadas et al., 2011). In ovo administration is a type of feeding of exogenous nutrients directly given to the chicken embryo in the form of a suspension or solution. This supplemental nutrition alters the enteric development and improve the hatchling’s status, during the transition from embryonic nutrition to diet digestive competence (Foye et al., 2006; Uni and Ferket, 2002). Because the developmental environment of chicken embryo have insufficient nutrients and energy that may affect the production parameters during post hatch life (Gonzales et al., 2003).

 

During development, proper nutrition may help in regulating the immunity that cause the reduced incidence of diseases and increased the profitability of farmer (Ali et al., 2016; Korver and Klasing, 2001). Some natural products such as prebiotics (Gibson et al., 1995), probiotics (Nichols and Andrew, 2007), herbal extracts (Chang et al., 2007) and enzymes (Eisenthal and Danson, 2002) have been reported in various model animals for immune enhancing effects. In ovo feeding has been reported to improve intestinal health (Tako et al., 2004; Smirnov, et al., 2006), bone mineralization (Luqman et al., 2021), embryonic weight, pectorals muscles and post hatch performance (Kornasio et al., 2011). In a recent review, in ovo is declared as a most recent and convenient approach to accomplish the nutritional requirements of hatchling embryo (El-Sabrout et al., 2019).

 

Honey is a viscous and sweet natural product that is formed from the nectar of flowers by honeybees (Alvarez-Suarez et al., 2014). It is an important insect-derived natural product that has been reported as a traditional therapeutic food since ancient time. It contains significant amount of proteins, vitamins, dietary fibers, minerals and various biologically active ingredients like flavonoids, polyphenols, aromatic compounds and diterpene acids (Lofty et al., 2006; USDA nutrients database, 2014). It has shown many biological activities, like antioxidation, anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory and antimicrobial effects (Alvarez-Suarez et al., 2014; Saeed et al., 2017).

 

A number of nutrients like carbohydrates (Chen et al., 2009), ascorbic acid (Ipek et al., 2004), dextrin (Chen et al., 2009), glucose (Salmanzadeh, 2012), glycogen (Kornasio et al., 2011), glutamine (Santos et al., 2010), minerals (Yair et al., 2013) and multivitamin (Leitao et al., 2010) have been reported for their in ovo effects. However, little information is available on the in ovo effects of honey in chicken embryo. Keeping in view many health effects of honey we hypothesized that in ovo feeding of honey will improve the hatchling as well as performance of broilers. Therefore, the present study was designed to explore the effects of in ovo feeding of honey on hatchability, birth weight and post hatch performance of broiler chickens.

 

MATERIAL AND METHODS

 

Experimental design and in ovo feeding

The whole experimental protocol was approved by the Board of Advanced Studies, Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam. A total of 160 fertile Hubbard breeder eggs (wt. 46-52 g) of 34 weeks age were purchased from a commercial breeder farm, and brought to the Poultry Experimental Station, SAU, Tandojam. The eggs were first fumigated, weighed, candled, and equally divided into two groups. The first group was inoculated with a 0.5 ml of diluted honey (20%; Marhaba Laboratories Lahore, Pakistan) while second group served as control and was inoculated with the same quantity of normal saline through injection in the yolk sac. The eggs were inoculated on day 15 of incubation by puncturing with a sterilized egg shell boring needle. Honey supplementation was done with the help of disposable 24G needle into the egg yolk sac and were sealed immediately with molten paraffin. For in ovo injection honey dose was adopted from a recent study (Abdullah et al., 2018). All the eggs were incubated according to standard hatchery practices (99.9 to 100.0°F; 60 to 70% humidity) up to 21 d.

 

Post-hatch rearing of chicks

On day 1 post-hatching, the chicks of both groups were transferred to farm to evaluate the growth performance. A floor space of ½ sq. ft. per broiler was provided during the brooding period, while 1 sq. ft. per broiler during the later stage of rearing. The chicks were reared for six weeks of age, and supplied with a standard commercial broiler feed. Both temperature and humidity were maintained according to standard farming conditions. Feed and water were provided ad libitum. Body weight and feed consumption were recorded on daily basis that were used to calculate the feed conversion ratio (FCR). On day 21 and 42, ten chicken from each group were randomly selected, weighed and humanly slaughtered. Hot carcass weight was measured that was used to calculate carcass percentage.

 

Statistical analysis

The data was collected and analyzed using the student T-test through JMP statistical package software (version 5.0.1.a, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Significance level was determined at P < 0.05. All the results were presented as mean and pooled standard error of means (mean ± SEM).

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

 

Hatchability percentage

There are various aspects that may affect hatchability of chicks such as availability of nutrient inside the egg, egg turning, and relative position of egg during incubation (Uni and Ferket, 2004). Moreover, Cardeal et al. (2015) and Ingram et al. (1997) determined that hatching process requires sufficient amount of energy, and in ovo supplementation provide extra energy to the chick to hatch out properly, thus leading to greater hatching percentage. In present study, eggs treated with in ovo honey showed a significantly (P < 0.05) higher hatchability percentage as compared to saline treated eggs (control group; Table 1). As compared to control group (75.0±0.43) honey inoculated group (87.5±0.25) exhibited a 16.67% increase in hatchability percentage. Similar findings were also reported by Ohta and Kiddt, (2001), Bhanja and Mandal, (2005), Tako et al. (2004), Smirnov et al. (2006), Hajati et al. (2014) and Yair et al. (2013) who examined higher hatching percentage and better post hatch performance through in ovo supplementation of nutrients like carbohydrate, amino acid, vitamin C, minerals like Zn, Mn Cu, P, K, Na and grape seed extract. Positive effects of in ovo feeding on hatchability were also been reported by Uni et al. (2005) and Ferket, (2006) in their studies.

 

Table 1: Effects of in ovo honey administration on the hatchability and initial birth weight of chicks.

 

Parameter	Groups*		P value
	Control	Honey treated
Hatchability (%)	75.0±0.43b	87.5±0.25a	0.016
Birth weight (g/bird)	44.5±0.33b	47.0±0.45a	0.046

*Results were presented as mean ± standard error of mean

a-b Means in a row not sharing common superscript letter are significantly different.

 

Carbohydrates (2.5% maltose + 2.5% sucrose) injection in pigeon’s eggs during embryonic development (in ovo) is known to improve (P < 0.05) the hatching percentage from 82.50% to 88.75% (Dong et al., 2013). Noy and Sklan, (1998) reported that the chicken embryo has limited energy resources in amniotic fluid and the yolk sac. Honey is a rich energy source containing many nutrients viz., carbohydrates, amino acids, vitamins, and minerals (USDA nutrients database, 2014), that could be potential cause of hatchability improvement as observed in in present study. It is well established that scarcity of nutrients during late incubation period may be overcome by in ovo supplementation that result improved hatching and growth as well (Foye et al., 2006; Luqman et al., 2021). Further in ovo studies should be warranted using individual honey components (carbohydrates, amino acids, vitamins, minerals etc) to investigate which honey constituent influenced the physiological process of hatchling and resulted in improved percentage of hatching.

 

Initial birth weight

In current study, weight of newly hatched chicks is shown in Table 1. Results showed that in ovo honey treated group (47.0±0.45) has a 5.6% higher (P < 0.05) birth weight as compared to control group (44.5±0.33). In some other in ovo trials, higher birth weights were observed after administration of nutrients like vitamins, carbohydrates and trace elements (Foye et al., 2006; Uni et al., 2005; Bhanja and Mandal, 2005). The increase in birth weight after in ovo supplementation indicated the availability of additional energy required to complete the incubation period. This additional energy source probably supported the late-term development of the embryo, resulting in a significant increase in body weight of the day old chicks (Uni et al., 2005).

 

Dong et al. (2013) reported that in ovo injection of carbohydrates (mixture of 2.5% maltose + 2.5% sucrose) significantly improved the body weight of pigeons at hatch from 15.56g to16.45g. Similarly, in a recent study, coenzyme Q10 was known to improve body weight of chicks, up to 4.74% increase at hatching (Kalantar et al., 2019).

 

Studies suggested that hatching weight is a major indicator of chickens marketing. Wilson, (1991) stated that each gram of increase in body weight at hatching leads to 8 to 13 g of body weight at marketing age. While Uni et al. (2005) reported that each gram of increased hatching weight due to in ovo feeding leads to a 25 to 30 g increased weight gain at d 25 in broiler chicks. From our results and that of aforementioned researchers, it could be suggested that in ovo supplementation is a useful tool to get the market weight of poultry in least time.

 

Post hatch performance

Results presented in Table 2 showed that in 1st week, in ovo honey treated group exhibited higher (P < 0.05) body weight as compared to control group. While FCR and mortality were significantly (P < 0.05) improved and reduced, respectively, in honey treated broilers compared to the control group. In 2nd week, body weight and feed intake were significantly improved (P < 0.05), while FCR and mortality were significantly (P < 0.05) improved in honey treated group as compared to control group. In 3rd week, body weight and FCR were significantly improved (P < 0.05) by supplementation of in ovo honey as compared to control group. In 4th and 5th week, body weight and feed intake were significantly (P < 0.05) improved in honey inoculated group and compared to saline inoculated group (control). In 6th week, body weight and FCR were significantly improved in honey treated group as compared to control group. These results are in agreement with the findings of a previous study who reported that in ovo feeding of the exogenous nutrients increase the intestinal development thus improved villi size may help in improving the digestion, which ultimately results improved weight gain, feed intake and better FCR (Kornasio et al., 2011).

 

Results of overall performance showed that in ovo honey inoculation remarkably improved (P < 0.05) the performance of broilers by improving weight gain, feed intake, FCR and lowered (P < 0.05) the mortality as compared to saline treated (control) group broilers (Table 2). These results are in accordance with a recent study of Kalantar et al. (2019) who reported that in ovo inoculation of Q10 at the rate of 0.1 to 0.2 ml per egg significantly improve the post hatch performance of broilers at 21d, 42d and 1-42d. The authors reported 5.63 to 6.84g increase in weight gain at 21d and 5.63 to 7.73g increase in weight gain at 42d by the inoculation of Q10 coenzyme. Similarly, 0.11 and

 

Table 2: Effects of in ovo honey administration on the performance of broiler chickens.

 

Parameters	Groups*		P value
	Control	Honey treated
1st week
Body weight (g/bird)	111±1.67b	145±1.82a	0.030
Feed intake (g/bird)	208±2.76	210±3.07	0.119
FCR (g/g)	1.87±0.04a	1.45±0.3b	0.021
Mortality	5.00±0.00a	2.00±0.00b	0.004
2nd week
Body weight (g/bird)	201±2.19b	244±2.95a	0.017
Feed intake (g/bird)	394±3.86b	411±3.55a	0.048
FCR (g/g)	1.96±0.07a	1.60±0.05b	0.027
Mortality	2.00±0.00a	0.00±0.00b	0.000
3rd week
Body weight (g/bird)	268±2.19b	302±3.16a	0.022
Feed intake (g/bird)	539±7.30	555±8.04	0.083
FCR (g/g)	2.05±0.02a	1.84±0.02b	0.032
Mortality	0.00±0.00	0.00±0.00	-
4th week
Body weight (g/bird)	325±3.22b	369±4.05a	0.018
Feed intake (g/bird)	634±5.66b	724±6.11a	0.030
FCR (g/g)	1.95±0.01	1.96±0.02	0.107
Mortality	0.00±0.00	0.00±0.00	-
5th week
Body weight (g/bird)	387±3.99b	442±4.46a	0.009
Feed intake (g/bird)	782±6.89b	920±8.00a	0.026
FCR (g/g)	2.02±0.03	2.08±0.02	0.099
Mortality	0.00±0.00	0.00±0.00	-
6th week
Body weight (g/bird)	456±5.77b	490±4.08a	0.021
Feed intake (g/bird)	985±9.95	1011±9.98	0.064
FCR (g/g)	2.16±0.02a	2.06±0.01b	0.044
Mortality	0.00±0.00	0.00±0.00	-
Overall
Body weight (g/bird)	1748±15.03b	1992±20.51a	0.038
Feed intake (g/bird)	3542±22.93b	3831±29.39a	0.029
FCR (g/g)	2.00±0.00a	1.85±0.01b	0.037
Mortality	7.00±0.00a	2.00±0.00b	0.001

*All results were presented as mean ± standard error of mean.

a-b Means in a row not sharing common superscript letter are significantly different.

 

0.08 percent increase in FCR was recorded at 21 and 42d respectively as compared to control group. Also, improved performance of pullets (Bhattacharyya et al., 2018) and broilers (Abdullah et al., 2018) was reported in post hatch period resulting from in ovo injection of nutrients during embryonic life.

 

Results regarding effects of in ovo honey inoculation on carcass weight and dressing out percentage of broilers have been presented in Table 3. In ovo honey inoculation significantly (P < 0.05) improved the live weight and hot carcass weight at both 21 and 42 day as compared to control. However, it has non significant effects (P >0.05) on the dressing percentage of broilers on day 21 and 42 (Table 3). In contrast to these results another study reported significant effects of in ovo honey administration on carcass

 

Table 3: Effects of in ovo honey administration on carcass weight and dressing percentage of broiler chickens.

 

Parameters	Groups*		P value
	Control	Honey treated
21 day
Live weight (g)	567±6.19b	680±8.06a	0.034
Hot carcass weight (g)	399±4.99b	491±7.20a	0.037
Carcass (%)	70.4±1.04	72.2±1.8	0.071
42 day
Live weight (g)	1761±16.17b	1998±17.09a	0.026
Hot carcass weight (g)	1241±10.82b	1452±13.43a	0.036
Carcass (%)	70.5±0.07	72.7±0.08	0.055

*Results were presented as mean ± standard error of mean.

a-b Means in a row not sharing common superscript letter are significantly different.

 

weight of broilers at market age (Abdullah et al., 2018). Previous researches reported that the degree of response to in ovo injection solely depend on egg size, genetics and age of parent stock, and incubation conditions like disinfection e.t.c (Uni and Ferket, 2004; Salary et al., 2014).

CONCLUSIONS

 

From the results of current investigation, it could be concluded that in ovo supplementation of honey had significant positive effects on hatchability, hatching weight and post hatch performance of broiler chickens. Results also shows that honey inoculation is safe as it has no negative effect on hatching, as well as early chick mortality.

 

acknowledgements

 

The Central Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory and Department of Poultry Husbandry, SAU, Tandojam is highly appreciated for assistance in this research.

 

conflict of interest

 

There are is conflict of interest to declare.

 

authors contribution

 

SSM carried out the experiments; AAK conceived the experiment; FMK and KKM helped in data.

 

REFERENCES

 

• Abdullah S, Leghari IH, Moriani AA, Rajput N, Gandahi J, Nisa M (2018). Effect of in ovo supplementation of honey in fertile eggs on post hatch growth performance of broiler chickens. J. Anim. Plant Sci. 2(8):1584-1590.

• Adnan Y, Adnan J, Imdad HL, Abbas M (2017). Effect of incubation duration on broiler breeder eggs hatchability and post-hatch performance. J. Anim. Health Prod. 5(4): 127-131. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.jahp/2017/5.4.127.131

• Ali AH, Abdul-Azeez LA, Humood JK, Ali ZA, Helal ZH, Wahab FL (2016). The effect of ethanolic extract of Hibiscus sabdariffa on some physiological and antioxidant parameters in female rabbits. J. Anim. Health Prod. 4(2): 37-41. https://doi.org/10.14737/journal.jahp/2016/4.2.37.41

• Alvarez-Suarez JM, Massimiliano G, Tamara YF, Luca M, Francesca G (2014). The composition and biological activity of honey: a focus on Manuka honey. Foods. 3(3):420-432. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods3030420

• Bhanja Sk, Mandal AB (2005). Effect of in ovo injection of critical amino acids on pre-and post-hatch growth, immunocompetence and development of digestive organs in broiler chickens. Asian Australian J. Anim. Sci. 1(8):524-531. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2005.524

• Bhattacharyya A, Majumdar S, Bhanja SK, Mandal AB, Kadam M (2018). Effect of maternal dietary manipulation and in ovo injection of nutrients on the hatchability indices, post-hatch growth, feed consumption, feed conversion ratio and immunocompetence traits of turkey poults. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 146(1):287-94. https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2017.1296843

• Cardeal PC, Caldas EO, Lara LJ, Rocha JS, Baiao NC, Vaz DP, Martins ND (2015). In ovo feeding and its effects on performance of newly-hatched chicks. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 71(4):655-62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933915002445

• Chang HF, Lin YH, Chu CC, Wu SJ, Tsai YH, Chao JC (2007). Protective effects of Ginkgo biloba, Panax ginseng and Schizandra chinensis extract on Liver Injury in Rats. Am. J. Chinese Med. 35(6): 995-1009. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0192415X07005466

• Chen W, Wang R, Wan HF, Xiong XL, Peng P, Peng J (2009). Influence of in ovo injection of glutamine and carbohydrates on digestive organs and pectoralis muscle mass in the duck. British Poult. Sci. 50(4):436-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660903114341

• Dong XY, Jiang YJ, Wang MQ, Wang YM, Zou XT (2013). Effects of in ovo feeding of
carbohydrates on hatchability, body weight, and
energy status in domestic pigeons. Poult. Sci. 92(08): 2118–2123.

• Eisenthal R, Danson MJ (2002). (Eds), Enzyme assays: A practical approach. Oxford University Press 2002.

• El-Sabrout K, Ahmad S, El-Deek A (2019). The in ovo feeding technique as a recent aspect of poultry farming. J. Anim. Health Prod. 7(4): 126-
130. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.jahp/2019/7.4.126.130

• Ferket PR (2006). Incubation and in ovo nutrition affects neonatal development. 33rd Annual Carol ina Poultry Nutrition Conference New York. 1(8):30.

• Foye OT, Uni Z, Ferket PR (2006). Effect of in ovo feeding egg white protein, β-hydroxy-β-ethylbutyrate, and carbohydrates on glycogen status and neonatal growth of turkeys. Poult. Sci. 85 (1):185-1192. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/85.7.1185

• Gibson GR, Roberfroid MB (1995). Dietary modulation of the human colonic microbiota: Introducing the concept of prebiotics. J. Nutrit. 125(6): 1401-1412. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/125.6.1401

• Gonzales E, Kondo N, Saldanha ES, Loddy MM, Careghi C, Decuypere E (2003). Performance and physiological parameters of broiler chickens subjected to fasting on the neonatal period. Poult. Sci. 82(8):1250-6. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/82.8.1250

• Hajati H, Hassanabadi A, Golian A, Nassiri-Moghaddam H, Nassiri MR (2014). The effect of in ovo injection of grape seed extract and vitamin C on hatchability, antioxidant activity, yolk sac absorption, performance and ileal micro flora of broiler chickens. Res. Opin. Anim. Vet. Sci. 4(12): 633-638.

• Ingram DR, Floyd SA, Barr JW, Pittman ST (1997). Influence of in-ovo injection of glucose on subsequent body weight”. Proceedings of the Poultry Science Association 86th Annual Meeting Abstracts; Athens, Georgia. USA. 1151.

• Ipek A, Sahan U, Yilmaz B (2004). The effect of in ovo ascorbic acid and glucose injection in broiler breeder eggs on hatchability and chick weight. Archiv fur Geflugelkunde. 68: 132-135.

• Kalantar M, Hosseini SM, Hosseini MR, Kalantar MH, Yang LG (2019). Effects of In Ovo Injection of Coenzyme Q10 on Hatchability, Subsequent Performance, and Immunity of Broiler Chickens. BioMed. Res. Int. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/7167525

• Karadas F, Surai PF, Sparks NH (2011). Changes in broiler chick tissue concentrations of lipid-soluble antioxidants immediately post-hatch. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecul. Integrat. Physiol. 160(1):68-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2011.05.006

• Korver D, Klasing (2001). Influence of nutrition on immune status of the bird. Proceedings of the 24th Technical Turkey Conference. 43.

• Kornasio R, Halevy O, Kedar O, Uni O (2011). Effect of in ovo feeding and its interaction with timing of first feed on glycogen reserves, muscle growth, and body weight. Poult. Sci. 90(1):467-1477. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-01080

• Leitao RA, Nadja SML, José HS, Marcos BC, Maria AA (2010). “Effect of maltose, sucrose and glucose supplementation in embryonated low-weight eggs”. Acta Scientia rum. Anim. Sci. 32 (1): 93-100.

• Lofty M (2006). Biological activity of bee propolis in health and disease. Asian Pacific J. Cancer Preval. 7(2):2-31.

• Luqman Z, Masood S, Hameed S, Zaneb H, Aktar RW, Shah SAH, Hussan N, Aslam S, Iqbal N (2021). Effect of in-ovo administration of L-arginine on the gross anatomy of tibia bone, alkaline phospahtase and growth performance in japanese quail (Coturnix japonica). J. Anim. Health Prod. 9(1): 22-26. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.jahp/2021/9.1.22.26

• Nichols, Andrew W (2007). Probiotics and athletic performance: A systematic review. Current Sports Med. Rep. 6(4): 269-273. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.CSMR.0000306483.85035.b7

• Noy Y, Skland D (1998). Yolk utilization in the newly hatched poultry British Poult. Sci. 39: 446–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071669889042

• Ohta Y, Kidd MP, Ishihashi T (2001). Embryo growth and amino acid concentration profiles of broiler breeder eggs, embryos, and chicks after in ovo administration of amino acids. Poult. Sci. 80(1):430-1436. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/80.10.1430

• Saeed M, Arain MA, Kamboh AA, Memon SA, Umar M, Rashid M, Babazadeh D, El-Hack ME, Alagawany M (2017). Raw propolis as a promising feed additive in poultry nutrition: trends and advances. J. Anim. Health Prod. 5(4):132-42. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.jahp/2017/5.4.132.142

• Salary J, Sahebi-Ala F, Kalantar M, Matin HRH (2014). In ovo injection of vitamin E on post-hatch immunological parameters and broiler chicken performance. Asian Pacific J. Trop. Biomed. 6(1):6–619. https://doi.org/10.12980/APJTB.4.2014APJTB-2014-0088

• Salmanzadeh M (2012). The effects of in ovo injection of glucose on hatchability, hatching weight and subsequent performance of newly-hatched chicks. Brazilian J. Poult. Sci. 14(2):71-158. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-635X2012000200008

• Santos TTd, Corzo A, Kidd MT, McDaniel CD, Torres Filho RA, Araujo LF (2010). Influence of in ovo inoculation with various nutrients and egg size on broiler performance. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 19:1–12. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr.2009-00038

• Smirnov A, Tako E, Ferket PR, Uni Z (2006). Mucin gene expression and mucin content in the chicken intestinal goblet cells are affected by in ovo feeding of carbohydrates. Poult. Sci. 1 Apr85(4):669-73. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/85.4.669

• Tako E, Ferket PR, Uni Z (2004). Effects of in ovo feeding of carbohydrates and beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate on the development of chicken intestine. Poult. Sci. 1 Dec 83(12):2023-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/83.12.2023

• Uni Z, Ferket PR (2002). Early enteric development of turkeys. Proceedings of the 25th technical turkey conference held at Shrigley Hall Hotel on. 24-26 April 5(9):64.

• Uni Z, Ferket PR (2004). “Methods for early nutrition and their potential,” World’s Poult. Sci. J. 60 (1): 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1079/WPS20038

• Uni Z, Ferket PR, Tako E, Kedar O (2005). In Ovo Feeding Improves Energy Status of Late-Term Chicken Embryos. Poult. Sci. 84:764-770. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/84.5.764

• USDA (2014). Nutrient data for honey. USDA nutrient data laboratory, version SR- 27, in USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference 2014.

• Yair R, Shahar R, Uni Z (2013). Prenatal nutritional manipulation by in ovo enrichment influences bone structure, composition, and mechanical properties. Journal of Animal Science 2013; 91: 2784-2793. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2012-5548

• Wilson JH (1991). Bone strength of caged layers as affected by dietary calcium and phosphorus concentrations, reconditioning, and ash content. Br. Poult. Sci., 32:501–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071669108417374