| Livestock Research for Rural Development 35 (9) 2023 | LRRD Search | LRRD Misssion | Guide for preparation of papers | LRRD Newsletter | Citation of this paper |
Turmeric powder (TP) is considered an alternative to growth promoter antibiotics in layer diet. The objectives of this meta-analysis were to assess the effectiveness of supplementation with turmeric powder on feed intake (FI), hen day production (HDP), feed conversion ratio (FCR), egg weight (EW), and egg mass (EM) of laying hens. Peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English were found using databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, and Google Scholar. The meta-analysis required information on moderators (age of the hen at the start of the intervention, inclusion level, and turmeric powder treatment duration), a sufficient description of randomization, performance data, and associated measures of variance such as standard deviation (SD) or standard error (SE). All analyses were carried out using the Open Meta-analyst for Ecology and Evolution (OpenMEE) program. Data from the 17 studies included in the meta-analysis were pooled and presented as standardized mean differences (SMDs) at a 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random-effects model. Results indicate that dietary TP supplementation reduced FI (SMD=−0.28 g; 95% CI:−0.69 to 0.13) and FCR (SMD=−0.70 g; 95% CI:−1.37 to -0.028) and increased HDP (SMD=1.09%; 95% CI: 0.59 to 1.59), compared with the controls. In contrast, egg weight and egg mass were not significantly different from controls. Restricted subgroup analysis indicated that chosen moderators (age of hen, inclusion level, and supplementation duration) influenced the results of this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis explains that turmeric powder is an ingredient that could be used as a feed additive in laying hens to increase egg production.
Keywords: feed additives, turmeric powder, laying hens, egg production, meta-analysis
Antibiotic growth promoters (AGPs) have been widely used in animal production, including poultry farming, to improve growth performance and prevent diseases. However, the excessive use of antibiotics has led to the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, posing a significant threat to both animal and human health (Ducatelle et al 2023). Consequently, there is a global effort to reduce the use of AGPs and find sustainable alternatives (Abd El-Hack et al 2022). Turmeric (Curcuma longa), a widely used spice and medicinal plant, contains several bioactive compounds, including curcumin, that exhibit antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, and antioxidant properties (Sharifi-Rad et al 2020). Many studies on the effect of turmeric powder, essential oil, and active component on livestock have found that turmeric has the potential to increase digestive enzyme activity, improve liver integrity, performance, and feed use efficiency (Fawaz et al 2022; Lee et al 2004; Mosayyeb Zadeh et al 2022). These properties make turmeric an attractive candidate as a natural alternative to AGPs in animal production, including laying hens.
Several studies have shown that supplementing laying hen rations with turmeric powder can improve hen health and egg production as an alternative to antibiotics (Kosti et al 2020). However, the results of studies conducted in different locations and under different conditions may produce varying results, leading to ambiguous and unclear conclusions. Thus, conducting a meta-analysis of various studies can provide a more comprehensive and accurate picture of the effectiveness of turmeric powder on laying hen productivity.
A comprehensive search was conducted on several scientific web databases for studies discussing the effects of turmeric (Curcuma longa) powder supplementation on laying hen productivity characteristics, including PubMed (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov), Scopus (www.scopus.com), ScienceDirect (www.sciencedirect.com), and Google Scholar (scholar.google.com). The literature search was not restricted by date and the search terms used were "turmeric powder" and "laying hens". Inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis research were a randomized trial design with treatment and control groups, average data from the treatment and control groups and their variability (standard deviation and standard error), and sample size. The papers in this meta-analysis must include data on feed intake, egg production, feed conversion ratio, egg weight, and egg mass. In this study, the explanatory factors were the age of the laying hens, the amount of turmeric powder used, and the duration of administration. Exclusion criteria were a lack of knowledge of the study design and its variability. Based on the searches conducted, 17 studies were obtained that met the criteria shown in Table 1.
The turmeric powder supplementation rate, period of supplementation, and age of the hens utilized were obtained from each publication that met the inclusion criteria. The mean and standard deviations (SD or SE) of the outcome variables of interest for the treatment and control groups, as well as the surname of the first author and the year of publication, were retrieved. In studies where SE was utilized instead of SD, the SE values were converted to SD (Higgins & Deeks, 2008). The data from the 17 papers that satisfied the selection criteria were converted to a comma-separated value (CSV) file format of Microsoft Excel 2021, which is the enabled file format for the analysis using Brown University's OpenMEE (Open meta-analyst for ecology and evolution) software.
Data collected from each article was put into an Excel sheet, transformed into Comma-Separated Value (CSV) files, and then analyzed using OpenMEE, an open-source software (Wallace et al 2017). The continuous variable results were presented as a 95% confidence interval (CI) standardized mean difference (SMD) between the turmeric powder treatment and controls. To assess heterogeneity, the DerSimonian and Lard test (Chi-square (Q) - statistic) and the Inconsistency index (I2) – statistic were used (Higgins et al 2003). The I 2 statistic denotes the proportion of variance in a meta-analysis attributed to study heterogeneity. The random-effects model (REM) was chosen for the meta-analysis because heterogeneity occurs at varying levels in each pooled analysis. Meta-regression was performed to determine the origins of heterogeneity. The moderator factors employed in the subgroup analysis were also utilized to predict the study effects in the meta-regression.p<0.050 was regarded statistically significant in the current investigation.
|
| Figure 1. Flow charts of the articles selection process utilized for the meta-analysis |
|
Table 1. Characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis |
||||||||
|
Study |
Reference |
Country |
Breed |
Age |
Dose |
Duration |
Variables |
|
|
1 |
(Moorthy et al 2009) |
India |
White Leghorn |
21 |
0, 1.0 |
31 |
FI, HDP, FCR |
|
|
2 |
(Riasi, 2012) |
Iran |
Hy-Line W-36 |
100 |
0, 0.5,1.0, 1.5, 2.0 |
4 |
FI, FCR, EM |
|
|
3 |
(Park et al 2012) |
Korea |
Lohman Brown |
60 |
0, 1.0, 2.5, 5.0 |
7 |
FI, HDP, EW, EM |
|
|
4 |
(Malekizadeh et al 2012) |
Iran |
Hy-Line W-36 |
103 |
0, 10, 30 |
9 |
FI, HDP, FCR, EW, EM |
|
|
5 |
(Rahardja et al 2015) |
Indonesia |
Hisex Brown |
80 |
0, 10, 20, 40 |
12 |
FI, HDP, EW |
|
|
6 |
(Hassan, 2016) |
Saudi Arabia |
Hisex White |
52 |
0, 20, 40 |
8 |
FI, HDP, FCR, EW, EM |
|
|
7 |
(Mirbod et al 2017) |
Iran |
Hy-Line W-36 |
37 |
0, 2.0, 4.0, 6.0 |
11 |
FI, HDP, FCR, EW, EM |
|
|
8 |
(Hadj Ayed et al 2018) |
Iran |
Novogen White |
27 |
0, 5.0, 10,15,20 |
7 |
FI, HDP, FCR, EW |
|
|
9 |
(Ooi et al 2018) |
Malaysia |
Bovans Brown |
32 |
0, 10 |
4 |
FI, HDP, FCR, EW, EM |
|
|
10 |
(Mutlag et al 2018) |
Iraq |
Shaver White |
24 |
0, 5.0 |
16 |
FI, HDP, FCR, EW, EM |
|
|
11 |
(Attia, 2018) |
Egypt |
Lohman White |
43 |
0, 1.5, 3.0 |
8 |
FI, HDP, FCR, EW, EM |
|
|
12 |
(Singh et al 2019) |
India |
White Leghorn |
28 |
0, 10 |
12 |
FI, HDP, FCR, EW |
|
|
13 |
(Ayeni et al 2020) |
Nigeria |
Isa Brown |
64 |
0, 30 |
12 |
FI, HDP, FCR, EW |
|
|
14 |
(Kujero et al 2021) |
Nigeria |
Isa Brown |
23 |
0, 15, 30 |
37 |
FI, HDP, FCR, EW, EM |
|
|
15 |
(Kinati et al 2021) |
Ethiopia |
White Leghorn |
26 |
0, 5.0 |
11 |
FI, HDP, FCR, EW, EM |
|
|
16 |
(Fawaz et al 2022) |
Egypt |
Bovans Brown |
55 |
0, 2.5, 5.0, 7.5 |
12 |
FI, HDP, FCR, EW, EM |
|
|
17 |
(Mosayyeb Zadeh et al 2022) |
Iran |
Hy-Line W-36 |
53 |
0, 2.5, 5.0 |
10 |
FI, HDP, FCR, EW, EM |
|
| FI, feed intake; HDP, hen day production; FCR, feed conversion ratio; EW, egg weight; EM, egg mass | ||||||||
|
Table 2. Number of studies and hens included in the meta-analysis |
||||||||
|
Response |
Number |
Comparison |
Number of hens |
Total |
||||
|
control |
treatment |
|||||||
|
Feed intake |
17 |
36 |
582 |
1246 |
1828 |
|||
|
HDP |
16 |
32 |
534 |
1054 |
1588 |
|||
|
FCR |
15 |
30 |
522 |
1066 |
1588 |
|||
|
Egg weight |
15 |
31 |
494 |
1014 |
1508 |
|||
|
Egg mass |
12 |
26 |
461 |
1033 |
1494 |
|||
| HDP, hen day production; FCR, feed conversion ratio | ||||||||
This study included 17 studies from various strains predominantly by Hy-Line W-36 (23.5%) while the rest were White Leghorn (11.8 %), Bovans Brown (11.8%), and Isa Brown (11.8%). Inclusion levels of turmeric powder varied among studies, from 0.1 g/kg diet to 40 g/kg diet. The duration of turmeric powder treatment varies from 4 to 31 weeks (Table 1). Information on the nutrient composition of each study was summarized and is presented in Table 3 for ME (kcal/kg), CP (%), methionine (%), lysine (%), met-cys (%), calcium (%), and available phosphor (%). As indicated in Table 3, the nutritional specifications were appropriate to the nutrient recommendation of NRC(1994).
|
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of nutrient specifications of the diets used in the meta-analysis |
|||||
|
Nutrient |
N |
Mean |
SD |
Min |
Max |
|
ME (kcal/kg) |
26 |
2719 |
87 |
2460 |
2815 |
|
Protein (%) |
28 |
16.7 |
1.1 |
15.0 |
18.5 |
|
Methionine (%) |
16 |
0.40 |
0.04 |
0.54 |
0.72 |
|
Met-Cys (%) |
14 |
0.62 |
0.06 |
0.72 |
0.54 |
|
Lysine (%) |
22 |
0.83 |
0.11 |
0.70 |
1.1 |
|
Calcium (%) |
28 |
3.9 |
0.21 |
3.6 |
4.6 |
|
Available Phosphor (%) |
16 |
0.40 |
0.08 |
0.3 |
0.5 |
| Max, maximum; Min, minimum; n, number of samples; SD, standard deviation; ME, metabolizable energy | |||||
A total of 17 studies consisting of 36 comparisons were eligible to evaluate the TP treatment effect on feed intake, as summarized in Table 4. The pooled effect estimates from SMD revealed that TP supplementation did not alter FI (SMD = -0.28; 95% CI = -0.69 to 0.13; p=0.18) at the degree of heterogeneity of 77.4% (Q = <0.01). However, when it turned to > 50-week hens old, turmeric powder significantly decreased the FI (SMD = -0.48, 95% CI: -0.48 to -0.89, p= 0.02) with high heterogeneity (I 2 = 69.1%, Q = <0.01), but it did not affect other hens old. TP supplementation above 11 to 20 g/kg reduced FI (SMD = -0.82, 95% CI: -1.46 to -1.67, p= 0.01) with low heterogeneity (I 2 = 46.7%, Q = 0.11).
Meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of TP on hen day production (HDP) of laying hens was performed using 16 articles where the pooled mean effect estimate was 1.09 (95% CI = 0.59 to 1.59). Overall, there was an increasing effect of dietary TP inclusion on HDP (p<0.01). Moreover, TP treatment increased the HDP of laying hens in all ages (p<0.01). Sub-group analysis of the inclusion rate showed that 1 to 20 g/kg increased HDP (p<0.05). However, when observed on treatment duration, we found a significantly increased HDP in 5 to 8 weeks (SMD = 1.26, 95% CI: 0.21 to 2.31, P=0.02) and 9-12 weeks (SMD = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.47 to 1.69, p<0.05) in low heterogeneity.
|
Table 4. Subgroup analysis of the effect of turmeric powder on feed intake in laying hens |
||||||||
|
Covariates |
N |
SMD |
CI 95% |
SE |
p- value |
Heterogeneity |
||
|
Lower |
Upper |
I2 |
p- value |
|||||
|
Overall |
36 |
-0.28 |
-0.69 |
0.13 |
0.21 |
0.18 |
77.4 |
<0.01 |
|
Hens age |
||||||||
|
21 - 30 week |
10 |
-0.16 |
-0.66 |
0.34 |
0.25 |
0.53 |
44.2 |
0.06 |
|
31 - 40 week |
4 |
-4.74 |
-21.28 |
11.80 |
8.44 |
0.57 |
95.2 |
<0.01 |
|
41 - 50 week |
2 |
0.80 |
-0.04 |
1.64 |
0.43 |
0.06 |
0.0 |
0.35 |
|
>50 weeks |
20 |
-0.89 |
-0.07 |
0.21 |
0.02 |
69.1 |
<0.01 |
|
|
Inclusion rate |
||||||||
|
<1 g/kg |
1 |
-0.60 |
-1.41 |
0.22 |
0.42 |
NA |
NA |
NA |
|
1 – 10 g/kg |
25 |
-0.12 |
-0.67 |
0.42 |
0.28 |
0.65 |
78.5 |
<0.01 |
|
11 – 20 g/kg |
5 |
-0.82 |
-1.46 |
-0.17 |
0.33 |
0.01 |
46.7 |
0.11 |
|
>20 g/kg |
5 |
-0.38 |
-1.55 |
0.80 |
0.60 |
0.60 |
85.1 |
<0.01 |
|
Treatment duration |
||||||||
|
1 – 4 week |
5 |
-0.51 |
-1.43 |
0.41 |
0.47 |
0.28 |
79.4 |
<0.01 |
|
5 – 8 week |
12 |
-0.20 |
-0.70 |
0.30 |
0.26 |
0.44 |
60.0 |
<0.01 |
|
9 – 12 week |
15 |
-0.26 |
-1.10 |
0.58 |
0.43 |
0.54 |
85.1 |
<0.01 |
|
>12 weeks |
4 |
-0.45 |
-1.51 |
0.62 |
0.54 |
0.41 |
46.6 |
0.13 |
| SMD and I 2 were considered significant at p< 0.01; SMD, standardized mean differences between the turmeric powder and controls; FI, feed intake; CI, confidence interval; kg, kilogram; g, gram; P, probability value, SE, standard error; NA, not available | ||||||||
Grand estimates obtained from SMD suggested that TP decreased on FCR of laying hens (SMD = –0.70, 95% CI: –1.37 to -0.03, p = 0.04). Restricted subgroup analysis on hens age also showed that TP decreased FCR both in 31-40 week and 41 to 50 week hens old (p<0.01). Sub-group analysis of the inclusion rate showed that 1-10 g/kg decreased FCR (p<0.01) in high heterogeneity (I 2 = 86.0%, Q = <0.01). Moreover, TP supplementation for 9 to 12 weeks decreased FCR (p<0.001) in high heterogeneity (I2 = 91.2%, Q = <0.001).
The pooled SMD estimates indicated that dietary turmeric powder had no effect on EW of laying hens (SMD=0.08; 95% CI = -0.41 to 0.57; p=0.75). Restricted analysis considering the hen's age showed that turmeric powder increases egg weight in 41 50-week hens old (p=0.01) in low heterogeneity.
Assessing the effect of turmeric powder supplementation on EM in laying hen eggs, 12 articles with 26 comparisons that met the eligibility rule for inclusion in the meta-analysis were used. The Grand mean estimate revealed no evidence of treatment effect on EM (SMD = 0.46; 95% CI -0.34 to 1.27; 0.26). Hens aged 31 to 40 weeks and 41 to 50 weeks old showed a significant effect when given turmeric powder (p<0.05).
In the meta-regression analysis, we analyzed the relationship between the Hedges’ g effect size from the outcome variables with the inclusion levels of turmeric powder in the diet as a predictor variable considering there were wide ranges of inclusion rates of turmeric powder in the layer diet (g/kg diet, Table 1). As displayed in Figure 2, the results of the meta-regression revealed that inclusion levels had no effects on final FI (p = 0.33), HDP (p = 0.47) and EW (p = 0.14). However, the inclusion level showed a increased FCR (p = 0.03) and decrease EM (0.01) (Table 9; Figure 3).
The funnel plots of the influence of turmeric powder supplementation on all parameters (Fig.2) in laying hens suggest that funnel plots were near symmetrical. There was no publication bias in the studies used in the analysis to determine the effect of turmeric powder on EW in laying hens since the observed significance level (P=0.1766) of Rosenberg’s fail-safe number was higher than the target significance level of p=0.05 needed to establish the existence of publication bias in the meta-analysis. There was evidence of publication bias in the studies used in the analysis to assess the effect of turmeric powder treatment on FI, HDP, FCR, and EM in laying hens, as affirmed by Rosenberg’s Nfs observed significance level of p-value being lower than the target significance level of p<0.050 needed to show the presence of publication bias. However, the Rosenberg Nfs of 461 for HDP and 102 for EM, and 19,5% and 68.6 % are above the threshold of 90, and 70 and needed to consider the results of the pooled effect size robust. The existence of publication bias was therefore not a concern in this meta-analysis as large number of unpublished studies would be needed to change the statistically significant results.
|
Table 5. Subgroup analysis of the effect of turmeric powder on hen day production in laying hens |
||||||||
|
Covariates |
N |
SMD |
CI 95% |
SE |
p- value |
Heterogeneity |
||
|
Lower |
Upper |
I2 |
p- value |
|||||
|
Overall |
32 |
1.09 |
0.59 |
1.59 |
0.25 |
<0.01 |
79.8 |
<0.01 |
|
Hens age |
||||||||
|
21 - 30 week |
10 |
0.49 |
0.12 |
0.86 |
0.19 |
0.01 |
6.5 |
0.38 |
|
31 - 40 week |
4 |
2.45. |
1.45 |
3.46 |
0.51 |
<0.01 |
33.6 |
0.21 |
|
41 - 50 week |
2 |
1.58 |
0.66 |
2.50 |
0.47 |
<0.01 |
0.0 |
0.95 |
|
>50 weeks |
16 |
1.10 |
0.20 |
2.00 |
0.46 |
0.02 |
87.4 |
<0.01 |
|
Inclusion rate |
||||||||
|
1 – 10 g/kg |
22 |
1.31 |
0.55 |
2.07 |
0.39 |
<0.01 |
82.2 |
<0.01 |
|
11 – 20 g/kg |
6 |
0.97 |
0.26 |
1.68 |
0.36 |
0.01 |
54.1 |
0.07 |
|
>20 g/kg |
4 |
0.48 |
-0.19 |
1.16 |
0.34 |
0.16 |
56.1 |
0.06 |
|
Treatment duration |
||||||||
|
1 – 4 week |
1 |
4.14 |
2.14 |
6.15 |
1.02 |
NA |
NA |
NA |
|
5 – 8 week |
12 |
1.26 |
0.21 |
2.31 |
0.54 |
0.02 |
86.4 |
<0.01 |
|
9 – 12 week |
15 |
1.08 |
0.47 |
1.69 |
0.31 |
<0.01 |
74.9 |
<0.01 |
|
>12 weeks |
4 |
0.26 |
-0.53 |
1.05 |
0.40 |
0.52 |
12.2 |
0.33 |
| SMD and I 2 were considered significant at p< 0.01; SMD, standardized mean differences between the turmeric powder and controls; HDP, hen day production; CI,confidence interval; kg, kilogram; g, gram; p, probability value, SE, standard error; NA, not available | ||||||||
The aim of literature study to investigate the effect of turmeric powder as a potential antibiotic alternative on growth performance in layer diet due to their beneficial effects on laying hens performance. The present meta-analysis confirmed that turmeric powder supplementation can effectively improve the FCR and HDP of laying hens. The increases in HDP and FCR could be explained by the nutritional content of turmeric powder. Curcumin is the main active compound in turmeric which has several pharmacological effects including anti-bacterial, anti-oxidant, and anti-inflammatory (Kocaadam and Şanlier 2017). Previous studies have shown that turmeric powder can increase intestinal villi growth and nutrient absorption in broilers (Kpomasse et al 2023). Administrating turmeric powder at 2.5, 5 and 7.5 g/kg improved the nutrient digestibility of laying hens (Fawaz et al 2022).
|
Table 6. Subgroup analysis of the effect of turmeric powder on feed conversion ratio in laying hens |
||||||||
|
Covariates |
N |
SMD |
CI 95% |
SE |
p- value |
Heterogeneity |
||
|
Lower |
Upper |
I2 |
p- value |
|||||
|
Overall |
30 |
-0.70 |
-1.37 |
-0.03 |
0.34 |
0.04 |
87.9 |
<0.05 |
|
Hens age |
||||||||
|
21 - 30 week |
10 |
-0.46 |
-0.95 |
0.03 |
0.25 |
0.07 |
40.8 |
0.09 |
|
31 - 40 week |
4 |
-4.51 |
-7.74 |
-1.28 |
1.65 |
0.01 |
87.0 |
<0.01 |
|
41 - 50 week |
2 |
-1.95 |
-2.93 |
-0.98 |
0.50 |
<0.01 |
0.0 |
0.75 |
|
>50 weeks |
14 |
0.08 |
-1.07 |
1.22 |
0.58 |
0.90 |
91.7 |
<0.01 |
|
Inclusion rate |
||||||||
|
<1 g/kg |
1 |
-0.17 |
-0.97 |
0.63 |
0.41 |
NA |
NA |
NA |
|
1 – 10 g/kg |
21 |
-1.57 |
-2.46 |
-0.69 |
0.45 |
<0.01 |
86.0 |
<0.01 |
|
11 – 20 g/kg |
4 |
0.81 |
-0.82 |
2.44 |
0.83 |
0.33 |
87.1 |
<0.01 |
|
>20 g/kg |
4 |
1.45 |
-0.68 |
3.57 |
1.08 |
0.18 |
90.7 |
<0.01 |
|
Treatment duration |
||||||||
|
1 – 4 week |
5 |
-0.22 |
-0.60 |
0.17 |
0.19 |
0.27 |
0.0 |
0.69 |
|
5 – 8 week |
9 |
0.95 |
-0.54 |
2.45 |
0.76 |
0.21 |
91.8 |
<0.01 |
|
9 – 12 week |
12 |
-3.11 |
-4.66 |
-1.56 |
0.79 |
<0.01 |
91.2 |
<0.01 |
|
>12 weeks |
4 |
0.24 |
-0.77 |
1.25 |
0.52 |
0.64 |
41.7 |
0.16 |
|
SMD and I2 were considered significant at p< 0.01; SMD, standardized mean differences between the turmeric powder and controls; FCR, feed conversion ratio; CI, confidence interval; kg, kilogram; g, gram; p, probability value, SE, standard error; NA, not available |
||||||||
|
Table 7. Subgroup analysis of the effect of turmeric powder on egg weight in laying hens |
||||||||
|
Covariates |
N |
SMD |
CI 95% |
SE |
p- value |
Heterogeneity |
||
|
Lower |
Upper |
I2 |
p- value |
|||||
|
Overall |
31 |
0.08 |
-0.41 |
0.57 |
0.25 |
0.75 |
80.9 |
<0.01 |
|
Hens age |
||||||||
|
21 - 30 week |
8 |
0.51 |
-0.04 |
1.07 |
0.28 |
0.07 |
51.8 |
0.04 |
|
31 - 40 week |
4 |
0.99 |
-0.86 |
2.83 |
0.94 |
0.29 |
84.8 |
<0.01 |
|
2 |
1.15 |
0.28 |
2.02 |
0.44 |
0.01 |
0.0 |
0.50 |
|
|
>50 weeks |
16 |
-0.50 |
-1.26 |
0.25 |
0.38 |
0.19 |
85.0 |
<0.01 |
|
Inclusion rate |
||||||||
|
1 – 10 g/kg |
21 |
0.50 |
-0.09 |
1.10 |
0.30 |
0.10 |
77.5 |
<0.01 |
|
11 – 20 g/kg |
5 |
-1.27 |
-2.73 |
0.19 |
0.75 |
0.09 |
87.1 |
<0.01 |
|
>20 g/kg |
5 |
-0.37 |
-1.30 |
0.57 |
0.48 |
0.44 |
76.1 |
<0.01 |
|
Treatment duration |
||||||||
|
1 – 4 week |
1 |
4.06 |
2.08 |
6.03 |
1.01 |
NA |
NA |
NA |
|
5 – 8 week |
12 |
-0.26 |
-1.26 |
0.74 |
0.51 |
0.61 |
87.4 |
<0.01 |
|
9 – 12 week |
15 |
0.17 |
-0.36 |
0.71 |
0.27 |
0.53 |
71.6 |
<0.01 |
|
>12 weeks |
3 |
-0.03 |
-1.24 |
1.19 |
0.62 |
0.97 |
48.1 |
0.15 |
| SMD and I2 were considered significant at p< 0.05; SMD, standardized mean differences between the turmeric powder and controls; EW; egg weight CI, confidence interval; kg, kilogram; g, gram; p, probability value, SE, standard error; NA, not available | ||||||||
|
Table 8. Subgroup analysis of the effect of turmeric powder on egg mass in laying hens |
||||||||
|
Covariates |
N |
SMD |
CI 95% |
SE |
p- value |
Heterogeneity |
||
|
Lower |
Upper |
I2 |
p- value |
|||||
|
Overall |
26 |
0.46 |
-0.34 |
1.27 |
0.41 |
0.26 |
88.8 |
<0.01 |
|
Hens age |
||||||||
|
21 - 30 week |
4 |
0.44 |
-0.33 |
1.21 |
0.39 |
0.26 |
34.9 |
0.20 |
|
31 - 40 week |
4 |
1.75. |
1.03 |
2.48 |
0.37 |
<0.01 |
0.0 |
0.40 |
|
41 - 50 week |
2 |
1.92 |
0.95 |
2.89 |
0.49 |
<0.01 |
0.0 |
0.82 |
|
>50 weeks |
16 |
-0.05 |
-1.31 |
1.21 |
0.64 |
0.93 |
92.2 |
<0.01 |
|
Inclusion rate |
||||||||
|
<1 g/kg |
1 |
0.50 |
-0.32 |
1.31 |
0.41 |
NA |
NA |
NA |
|
1 – 10 g/kg |
20 |
1.12 |
0.29 |
1.95 |
0.42 |
0.01 |
86.2 |
<0.01 |
|
11 – 20 g/kg |
2 |
-2.94 |
-8.36 |
2.49 |
2.77 |
0.29 |
95.0 |
<0.01 |
|
>20 g/kg |
3 |
-2.08 |
-6.12 |
1.96 |
2.06 |
0.31 |
93.7 |
<0.01 |
|
Treatment duration |
||||||||
|
1 – 4 week |
5 |
0.48 |
-0.46 |
1.41 |
0.48 |
0.32 |
81.0 |
<0.01 |
|
5 – 8 week |
8 |
0.19 |
-3.29 |
3.68 |
1.78 |
0.91 |
95.4 |
<0.01 |
|
9 – 12 week |
10 |
0.90 |
-0.04 |
1.85 |
0.48 |
0.06 |
78.2 |
<0.01 |
|
>12 weeks |
3 |
-0.06 |
-0.90 |
0.78 |
0.43 |
0.89 |
0.00 |
0.94 |
| SMD and I2 were considered significant at p< 0.05; SMD, standardized mean differences between the turmeric powder and controls; EM, egg mass; CI,confidence interval; kg, kilogram; g, gram; p , probability value, SE, standard error; NA, not available. | ||||||||
Turmeric also protects the liver from damage. The addition of turmeric powder to layer diet reduced serum AST and ALT levels as liver indices for liver damage (Fawaz et al 2022; Mirbod et al 2017). Primary hepatic detoxification processes include xenobiotic biotransformation (phase I metabolism) and the subsequent conjugation of the resulting metabolites (phase II metabolism), making them more water-soluble and available for excretion from the body. The microsomal cytochrome P450 (CYP)-dependent monooxygenase system in the liver plays an essential role in phase I metabolism (Akahori et al 2005). Turmeric (0.5%) in the basal diet reduced the expression of hepatic genes cytochrome P450 1A1 (CYP1A1) and cytochrome P450 2H1 (CYP2H1) (Yarru et al 2009). The cytochrome P450 enzymes are associated with several biological interactions involving hydroxylation, epoxidation, oxygenation, dehydrogenation, nitrogen dealkylation, and oxidative deamination (Hari Kumar & Kuttan, 2006). The basis of hepatoprotective action was suggested to be the antioxidant action of curcumin (Ali et al 2006).
In the current study, the results also emphasized that the age of laying hens can affect the effectiveness of turmeric powder supplementationThe addition of turmeric powder to laying hens aged 31 to 50 has an influence on the feed conversion ratio. After the peak laying rate of high-intensity metabolism, laying hens occupied a lengthy period in the whole production cycle. Laying hens were more vulnerable to external stimuli in the late stage of laying due to decreased ovarian function and diminished tolerance to stress and disease, which were usually accompanied with low laying rate, low albumen height, poor eggshell quality, and a variety of disorders. (Liu et al 2013). Furthermore, late-stage laying hens' digestive systems may have become exhausted, decreasing feed absorption efficiency. (Abdelqader et al 2013).
 |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
| Figure 2. Funnel plots analysis on (a) feed intake, (b) hen day production, (c) feed conversion ratio, (d) egg weight, and (e) egg mass to detect publication bias between-study | |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Figure 3. Meta-regression analysis to evaluate the relationship between turmeric powder inclusion levels in the layer diet as predictor variable with outcome variables (a) feed intake, (b) hen day production, (c) feed conversion ratio, (d) egg weight, and (e) egg mass |
|
Table 9. Meta-regression analysis for moderator variable that influenced the effect of turmeric powder inclusion on laying hens performance (standardized mean differences) |
||||||
|
Response Variable |
Parameter Estimates |
p-value |
||||
|
Intercept |
SE Intercept |
Slope |
SE Slope |
|||
|
Feed intake |
-0.11 |
0.24 |
-0.02 |
0.02 |
0.33 |
|
|
HDP |
1.42 |
0.51 |
-0.02 |
0.03 |
0.47 |
|
|
FCR |
-2.24 |
0.85 |
0.13 |
0.06 |
0.03 |
|
|
Egg weight |
0.54 |
0.44 |
-0.04 |
0.03 |
0.14 |
|
|
Egg mass |
1.64 |
0.74 |
-0.14 |
0.06 |
0.01 |
|
| HDP, hen day production; FCR, feed conversion ratio; P, probability value; SE, standard error | ||||||
Furthermore, the administration of turmeric powder at doses of 1 to 10 g/kg of feed showed a beneficial effect on laying hen production. In addition, turmeric powder supplementation must pay attention to the duration of administration in the ration. Supplementating turmeric powder for 9 to 12 weeks can increase the productivity of laying hens. The use of turmeric powder must be limited so as not to affect the nutrient content of the ration and also affect the price of feed (Puvača et al 2013). In addition, the provision of phytogenic feed additives in livestock must be limited to avoid negative effects due to excessive administration (Gonzalez-Suarez et al 2016; Knox et al 2021). Administration of high doses of Turmeric for variable periods has been found to induce hepatotoxic effects in mice and rats (Deshpande et al 1998).
The authors are grateful to The Directorate General of Higher Education, Research, and Technology, Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology, Indonesia, for financial support through the Pendidikan Magister menuju Doktor untuk Sarjana Unggul (PMDSU) research scheme with the contract number: 018/E5/PG.02.00.PL/2023; 2204/UN1/DITLIT/Dit-Lit/PT.01.03/2023.
Abd El-Hack M E, El-Saadony M T, Salem H M, El-Tahan A M, Soliman M M, Youssef G B A, Taha A E, Soliman S M, Ahmed A E, El-Kott A F, Al Syaad K M and Swelum A A 2022 Alternatives to antibiotics for organic poultry production: types, modes of action and impacts on bird’s health and production. Poultry Science, Volume 101, Article #4, from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2022.101696
Abdelqader A, Irshaid R and Al-Fataftah A R 2013 Effects of dietary probiotic inclusion on performance, eggshell quality, cecal microflora composition, and tibia traits of laying hens in the late phase of production. Tropical Animal Health and Production, Volume 45, Article #4, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-012-0326-7
Akahori M, Takatori A, Kawamura S, Itagaki S and Yoshigawa Y 2005 No Regional Differences of Cytochrome P450 Expression in the Liver of Cynomolgus Monkeys (Macaca fascicularis). Experimental Animals, Volume 54, Article #2, from https://doi.org/10.1538/expanim.54.131
Ali B H, Marrif H, Noureldayem S A, Bakheit A O and Blunden G 2006 Some Biological Properties of Curcumin: A Review. Natural Product Communications, Volume 1, Article #6, from https://doi.org/10.1177/1934578X0600100613
Attia F A 2018 The influence of supplementing chamomile and turmeric powder on productive performance and egg quality of laying hens. Egypt. Poult. Sci, Volume 38, Article #2 from http://www.epsj.journals.ekb.eg/
Ayeni A O, Oladedun A E and Agbede J O 2020 Performance and egg qualities of old-laying hens fed with diets containing selected phytogenic feed additives. Journal of Food, Nutrition and Agriculture, from https://doi.org/10.21839/jfna.2020.v3.330
Deshpande S S, Lalitha V S, Ingle A D, Raste A S, Gadre S G and Maru G B 1998 Subchronic oral toxicity of turmeric and ethanolic turmeric extract in female mice and rats. Toxicology Letters, Volume 95, Article #3, from https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4274(98)00035-6
Ducatelle R, Goossens E, Eeckhaut V and Van Immerseel F 2023 Poultry gut health and beyond. Animal Nutrition, Volume 13, from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2023.03.005
Fawaz M A, Südekum K, Hassan H A and Abdel‐Wareth A A A 2022 Productive, physiological and nutritional responses of laying hens fed different dietary levels of turmeric powder. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition. From https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.13686
Gonzalez-Suarez I, Martin F, Hoeng J and Peitsch M C 2016 Mechanistic network models in safety and toxicity evaluation of nutraceuticals. Nutraceuticals: Efficacy, Safety and Toxicity, from https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802147-7.00022-X
Hadj Ayed M, Aïssa A and Noumi M 2018 A comparative study between the effects of feed inclusion with garlic (Allium sativum), cloves and turmeric (Curcuma longa) rhizome powder on laying hens’ performance and egg quality. Iranian Journal of Applied Animal Science, Volume 8, Article #4, 693–701.
Hari Kumar K B and Kuttan R 2006 Inhibition of Drug Metabolizing Enzymes (Cytochrome P450) in Vitro as Well as in Vivo by Phyllanthus amarus SCHUM & THONN. Biological and Pharmaceutical Bulletin, Volume 29, Article #7, from https://doi.org/10.1248/bpb.29.1310
Hassan S M 2016 Effects of adding different dietary levels of turmeric ( Curcuma longa Linn) powder on productive performance and egg quality of laying hens. International Journal of Poultry Science, Volume 15, Article #4, from https://doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2016.156.160
Higgins J P and Deeks J J 2008 Selecting Studies and Collecting Data. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (pp. 151–185). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470712184.ch7
Higgins J P T, Thompson S G, Deeks J J and Altman D G 2003 Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses Testing for heterogeneity. Education and Debate,Volume 327, from https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
Khan K and Ahmad N 2022 Using cinnamon (Cinnamomum zeylanicum) and turmeric (Curcuma longa L) powders as an antibiotic growth promoter substitutions in broiler chicken’s diets. Animal Biotechnology, from https://doi.org/10.1080/10495398.2022.2157282
Kinati C, Ameha N, Girma M and Nurfeta A 2021 Effective microorganisms, turmeric (Curcuma longa) as feed additives on production performance and sensory evaluation of eggs from White Leghorn hens. Livestock Research for Rural Development, Volume 33, Article #1
Knox C, Bertouch J and Almeida J 2021 Turmeric hepatotoxicity cause or coincidence? Internal Medicine Journal, Volume 51, Article #, from https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.15029
Kocaadam B and Şanlier N 2017 Curcumin, an active component of turmeric (Curcuma longa), and its effects on health. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, Volume 57, Article #13), from https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2015.1077195
Kosti D, Dahiya D S, Dalal R, Tewatia B S and Vijayalakshmy K 2020 Role of turmeric supplementation on production, physical and biochemical parameters in laying hens. World’s Poultry Science Journal, Volume 76, Article #3, from https://doi.org/10.1080/00439339.2020.1764460
Kpomasse C C, Oso O M, Lawal K O and Oke O E 2023 Juvenile growth, thermotolerance and gut histomorphology of broiler chickens fed Curcuma longa under hot-humid environments. Heliyon, Volume 9, Article #2, from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13060
Kujero G O, Oke O E, Adeyemi O A, Sogunle O M and Sobayo R O 2021 Reproductive and physiological responses and egg quality traits of isa brown chickens fed diets supplemented with ginger or turmeric powder. Research Square, from https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-985543/v
Lee K-W, Everts H and Beynen A C 2004 Essential Oils in Broiler Nutrition. International Journal of Poultry Science, Volume 3, Article #12.
Liu Y, Li Y, Liu H N, Suo Y L, Hu L L, Feng X A, Zhang L and Jin F 2013 Effect of quercetin on performance and egg quality during the late laying period of hens. British Poultry Science, Volume 54, Article #4, from https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2013.799758
Malekizadeh M, Moeini M M and Ghazi S 2012 The effects of different levels of ginger (Zingiber officinale Rosc) and Turmeric (Curcuma longa Linn) rhizomes powder on some blood metabolites and production performance characteristics of laying hens. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, Volume 14, Article#1, 127–134.
Mirbod M, Mahdavi A H, Samie A H and Mehri M 2017 Effects of Curcuma longa rhizome powder on egg quality, performance and some physiological indices of laying hens fed different levels of metabolizable energy. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, Volume 97, Article #4, from https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.7862
Moorthy M, Saravanan S, Mehala C, Ravi S, Ravikumar M, Viswanathan K and Edwin S 2009 Performance of single comb white leghorn layers fed with aloe vera, Curcuma longa (Turmeric) and Probiotic. International Journal of Poultry Science, Volume 8, Article 8, 775–778.
Mosayyeb Zadeh A, Mirghelenj S A, Hasanlou P and Shakouri Alishah H 2022 Effects of turmeric (Curcuma longa) powder supplementation in laying hens’ diet on production performance, blood biochemical parameters and egg quality traits. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, from https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.13746
Mutlag N A, Al-Norri M A and Farhan S M 2018 The effect of adding turmeric and artemisia herba powder to ration on productive performance of white laying hens. Iraqi Journal of Veterinary Sciences, Volume 32, Article #2, from http://www.vetmedmosul.com
NRC 1994 Nutrient requirements of poultry (9th ed.). National Academy Press.
Ogbuewu I P, Mokolopi B G and Mbajiorgu C A 2022 Meta-analysis of growth performance indices of broiler chickens in response to turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) supplementation. Animal Feed Science and Technology, Volume 283, from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2021.115155
Ooi P S, Rohaida A R, Nur Hardy A D, Devina D, Borhan A H, Kartini S, Jupikely J S, Abdul Rahman M and Alimon A R 2018 Effect of local medicinal herbs as feed additives on production performance and faecal parameters in laying hens. Mal. J. Anim. Sci., Volume 21, Article #2, 59–67.
Park S S, Kim J M, Kim E J, Kim H S, An B K and Kang C W 2012 Effects of Dietary Turmeric Powder on Laying Performance and Egg Qualities in Laying Hens. KoreanJournal of Poultry Science, Volumee 39, Article #1, from https://doi.org/10.5536/KJPS.2012.39.1.027
Puvača N, Stanac̈ev V, Glamočic̈ D, Levic̈ J, Peric̈ L, Stanac̈ev V and Milic̈ D 2013 Beneficial effects of phytoadditives in broiler nutrition. World’s Poultry Science Journal, Volume 69, Article #1, from https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933913000032
Rahardja D P, Hakim M R and Lestari V S 2015 Egg Production Performance of Old Laying Hen Fed Dietary Turmeric Powder. International Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences , Volume 9, Article #7 from https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-1206.1000133
Riasi A 2012 Production performance, egg quality and some serum metabolites of older commercial laying hens fed different levels of turmeric rhizome (Curcuma longa) powder. Journal of Medicinal Plants Research, Volume 6, Article #11 from https://doi.org/10.5897/jmpr11.1316
Sharifi-Rad J, Rayess Y E, Rayess A A, Sadaka C, Zgheib R, Zam W, Sestito S, Rapposelli S, Neffe-Skocińska K, Zielińska D, Salehi B, Setzer W N, Dosoky N S, Taheri Y, El Beyrouthy M, Martorell M, Ostrander E A, Suleria H A R, Cho W C, Maroyi A, and Martins N 2020 Turmeric and Its Major Compound Curcumin on Health: Bioactive Effects and Safety Profiles for Food, Pharmaceutical, Biotechnological and Medicinal Applications. Frontiers in Pharmacology, Volume 11 from https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2020.01021
Singh P K, Kumar A and Tiwari D P 2019 Effects of dietary supplementation of black cumin, garlic and turmeric on the production performance and egg quality of white leghorn hens. Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology, Volume 19, Article #3, from https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-181X.2019.00034.9
Van Phuoc T, Dung N N X, Manh L H and Tu N N V 2019 Effect of dietary turmeric (Curcuma longa) extract powder on productive performance and egg quality of black-bone chicken (ac chicken). Livestock Research for Rural Development, Volume 31, Article #2.
Wallace B C, Lajeunesse M J, Dietz G, Dahabreh I J, Trikalinos T A, Schmid C H and Gurevitch J 2017 Open MEE: Intuitive, open-source software for meta-analysis in ecology and evolutionary biology. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, Volume 8, Article 8, from https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12708
Yarru L P, Settivari R S, Gowda N K S, Antoniou E, Ledoux D R and Rottinghaus G E 2009 Effects of turmeric (Curcuma longa) on the expression of hepatic genes associated with biotransformation, antioxidant, and immune systems in broiler chicks fed aflatoxin. Poultry Science, Volume 88, Article #12, from https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2009-00204