YUMURTACI TAVUK RASYONLARINA PROPOLIS VE KAFEIK ASIT İLAVESININ PERFORMANS, YUMURTA KALITESI VE SERUM DEĞIŞKENLERI ÜZERINE ETKILERI

Öz

Bu çalışma, yumurta tavuğu yemlerine ilave edilen propolis ve kafeik asitin performans, yumurta kalitesi ve serum değişkenlerine etkisini araştırmak amacıyla yapıldı. Çalışmada 40 haftalık yaşta 192 adet beyaz Leghorn yumurta tavuğu dört tekrarlı altı gruba ayrıldı. Tavuklar bazal yem (kontrol grubu) veya bazal yeme sırasıyla 0,5, 1, 3, 6 g/kg propolis ve 0,5 mg/kg kafeik asit ilave edilerek (deneme grupları) 12 hafta beslendi. Propolis ve kafeik asit ilavesi canlı ağırlık, yem tüketimi, yumurta verimi ve yemden yararlanma oranını etkilemedi (P<0.05). Ancak yumurta ağırlığı 0,5 g/kg kafeik asit katılan grupta önemli oranda arttı (P<0.01). En yüksek ak indeksi ve Haugh birimi 6 g/kg propolis katılan grupta belirlendi (P<0.001). Serum aspartat aminotransferaz (AST), alkali fosfataz (ALP) ve laktat dehidrogenaz (LDH) aktiviteleri yönünden kontrol ve deneme grupları arasında önemli bir farklılık belirlenmedi. Yeme farklı dozlarda propolis ve kafeik asit ilavesi serum alanin aminotransferaz (ALT) (P<0.01), trigliserit (TG) ve total kolesterol (TC) düzeyini (P<0.05) azalttı, serum yüksek dansiteli lipoprotein (HDL) düzeyini artırdı (P<0.001). Serum glikoz düzeyi 6 g/kg propolis ve kafeik asit grubunda kontrol grubuna göre düşük iken 0,5 ve 3 g/kg propolis grubunda yüksek bulundu (P<0.001). Öte yandan 3 g/kg propolis grubu dışındaki propolis ve kafeik asit gruplarında total protein (P<0.01) ve albumin (P<0.001) kontrol grubuna göre düşük bulundu. Propolis (1 g/kg dozu hariç) ve kafeik asit serum kalsiyum (Ca) ve magnezyum (Mg) düzeylerini artırdı (P<0.001). Ancak serum inorganik fosfor (Pi) düzeyi muamelelerden etkilenmedi. Ayrıca 3 ve 6 g/kg propolis ve 0,5 mg/kg kafeik asit katılan gruplarda serum malondialdehit (MDA) düzeyi önemli oranda azaldı (P<0.01). Sonuç olarak, yumurta tavuklarının yemlerine propolis katılması performansı olumsuz etkilemeksizin yumurta kalitesini ve bazı serum parametrelerini olumlu etkiledi.  

Anahtar Kelimeler

• MDA,performans,propolis,yumurta kalitesi,yumurtacı tavuk

THE INFLUENCE OF PROPOLIS AND CAFFEIC ACID SUPPLEMENTATION TO LAYING HENS DIET ON PERFORMANCE, EGG QUALITY AND SERUM VARIABLES

Öz

This study was conducted to investigate the influence of dietary propolis and caffeic acid supplementation on performance, egg quality and serum variables of laying hens. One hundred and ninety two, 40 weeks old, White Leghorn hens were assigned to 6 groups with 4 replicates. Hens were fed basal diet (control group) or 0.5, 1, 3, 6 g/kg propolis and 0.5 mg/kg caffeic acid supplemented basal diets (treatment groups) for 12 weeks. Propolis and caffeic acid addition did not affect live weight, feed consumption, egg yield and feed efficiency (P>0.05). However, egg weight increased significantly in the 0.5 g/kg caffeic acid suplemented group (P<0.01). The highest egg albumen index and Haugh unit were determined in the 6 g/kg propolis supplemented group (P<0.001). There were no significant differences among control and treatment groups for serum aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) activities. Addition of propolis at different doses and caffeic acid to diet reduced serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) (P <0.01), triglyceride (TG) and total cholesterol (TC) levels (P<0.05) and increased serum high density lipoprotein (HDL) (P<0.001). Serum glucose levels were significantly low in the 6 g/kg propolis and caffeic acid groups of than that of the control group, but higher in the 0.5 and 3 g/kg propolis groups (P<0.001). On the other hand, total protein (P<0.01) and albumin (P<0.001) were low in propolis and caffeic acid groups except 3 g/kg propolis group than control group. Propolis (excluding 1 g/kg level) and caffeic acid increased serum calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) levels (P<0.001). However, serum inorganic phosphorus (Pi) levels were not affected by treatments. In addition, serum malondialdehyde (MDA) levels decreased in groups supplemented with 3 and 6 g/kg propolis and 0.5 mg/kg caffeic acid (P <0.01). As a result, the addition of propolis to the diet of laying hens effected positively egg quality and some serum parameters without adversely affecting performance

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Egg quality,laying hen,MDA,performance,propolis

Kaynakça

1. 1. Kumova U, Korkmaz A, Avcı BC, ve ark. Önemli bir arı ürünü: Propolis. U Arı D 2002; 2:10-23. 2. Greenaway W, May J, Scaysbrook T, et al. Identification by gas chromatography mass spectrometry of 150 compounds in propolis. Z Naturforsch 1991; 46:111-121. 3. Saeed M, Arain MA, Kamboh AA, et al. Raw propolis as a promising feed additive in poultry nutrition: Trends and advances. J Anim Health Prod 2017; 5:132-142. 4. Khan SH. Recent advances in role of propolis as natural additive in poultry nutrition. J Apic 2017; (61):2. 5. Galal A, Abd El-Motaal AM, Ahmed AMH, et al. Productive performance and ımmune response of laying hens as affected by dietary propolis supplementation. Int J Poult Sci 2008; 7:272-278. 6. Seven PT. The effects of dietary Turkish propolis and vitamin C on performance, digestibility, egg production and egg quality in laying hens under different enviromental temperatures. Asian-Aust J Anim Sci 2008; 21:1164-1170. 7. Abdel-Kareem AA, El-Sheikh TM. Impact of supplementing diets with propolis on productive performance, egg quality traits and some haematological variables of laying hens. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 2017; 101:441–448. 8. Özkök D. Yumurta Tavuğu Rasyonuna Propolis İlavesinin Performans ve Yumurta Kalitesi Üzerine Etkileri. Doktora Tezi, Erciyes Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Kayseri 2010; ss 1-65. 9. Belloni M, Almeida Paz ICL, Nääs IA, et al. Productive, qualitative, and physiological aspects of layer hens fed with propolis. Braz J Poultry Sci 2015; 7:467-472. 10. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis (18 nd ed). Horwitz W. (Ed) Arlington, VA, Association of Analytical Chemists, AOAC International 2005 11. Ohkawa H, Ohishi N, Yagi K. Assay for lipid peroxides in animal tissues by thiobarbituric acid reaction. Anal Biochem 1979; 95:351-358. 12. Shalmany SK, Shivazad M. The effect of diet propolis supplementation on Ross broiler chicks performance. Int J Poultry Sci 2006; 5:84-88. 13. Silici S, Güçlü BK. Yumurtacı damızlık japon bıldırcın (coturnix coturnix japonica) rasyonlarına propolis ve kafeik asit katılmasının verim ve kuluçka performansı ile yumurta kalitesi ve bazı serum parametrelerine etkisi. Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi 2010; 19:140-150. 14. Zeweil HS, Zahran SM, Abd El-Rahman MHA, et al. Effect of using bee propolis as natural supplement on productive and physiological performance of japanese quail Egypt Poult Sci 2016; 36:161-175. 15. Haro A, Lo´Pez-Aliaga I, Lisbona F, et al. Beneficial effect of pollen and/or propolis on the metabolism of iron, calcium, phosphorus, and magnesium in rats with nutritional ferropenic anemia. J Agric Food Chem 2000; 48:5715-5722. 16. Seven I, Seven PT, Silici S. Effects of dietary Turkish propolis as alternative to antibiotic on growth and laying performances, nutrient digestibility and egg quality in laying hens under heat stres. Revue Méd Vét 2011; 162:186-191 17. Mujica V, Orrego R, Pérez J, et al. The role of propolis in oxidative stress and lipid metabolism: a randomized controlled trial. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2017; 6:1-11. 18. Kalafova A, Hascik P, Kacaniova M, et al. The effect of propolis on biochemical parameters and antioxidant status of the blood of broiler chickens. J Apic Res 2015; 54:173–178. 19. Doğanyiğit Z. Propolis ve karaciğere koruyucu etkisi. U Arı D 2013; 13(2):70-78. 20. Arslan AS, Seven PT. The effects of propolis on serum malondialdehyde, fatty acids and some blood parameters in japanese quail (coturnix coturnix japonica) under high stocking density. J Appl Anim Res 2017; 45:417–422. 21. Bozkurt AF. Farklı Düzeylerde Propolis Uygulamalarının Farelerde Lipid Peroksidasyonu (MDA) ile Bazı Biyokimyasal Parametrelere Etkilerinin Değerlendirilmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Konya 2010; ss 1-53.