Original study

Arch. Anim. Breed., 66, 225–232, 2023

Open Access
https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-66-225-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
Archives Animal Breeding
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

The effect of propolis addition to the laying-hen diet on

performance, serum lipid profile and liver fat rate
Şaziye Canan Bölükbaşı1 , Hilal Ürüşan2 , and Betül Apaydın Yıldırım3
1 Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Atatürk University, Erzurum, Türkiye
2 Plant and Animal Production Department, Technical Sciences Vocational School, Erzurum, Türkiye
3 Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Veterinary, Atatürk University, Erzurum, Türkiye

Correspondence: Şaziye Canan Bölükbaşı ([email protected])

Received: 4 May 2023 – Revised: 1 August 2023 – Accepted: 7 August 2023 – Published: 6 September 2023

Abstract. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of propolis (P) on performance, egg quality parame-
ters, serum lipid profile, some liver enzymes and liver fat ratio. One-hundred-and-twenty Lohmann (LSL) laying
hens were divided into five groups, and each group consisted of six subgroups. The control group was fed basal
diet. The other groups were fed high-energy (HE) diets to induce fatty liver syndrome, and 0, 100, 200 and
300 mg kg−1 of propolis were supplemented with high-energy feeds. During the 8-week trial, feed and water
were given ad libitum.
It was determined that egg production and feed conversion ratio were decreased in the high-energy feed group
without the addition of propolis. The highest egg production was found in HE + 100 and HE + 200 mg kg−1
of P groups. It was found that liver fat ratios were higher in the group fed with HE + 0 mg kg−1 of P feed
(P <0.01) than other groups. But the addition of P decreased the liver fat rate significantly. The highest very
low density lipoprotein (VLDL), triglyceride (TG) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) values were found for the
HE + 0 mg kg−1 of P group. The addition of 200 mg kg−1 of P to high-energy feed increased glutathione (GSH),
superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT) and glutathione peroxidase (GPx) values.
In conclusion, high-energy feed adversely affected egg production and liver fat ratio, but the addition of 100
or 200 mg kg−1 of propolis improved egg production and decreased liver fat ratio.

1 Introduction days and subsequent deaths (Crespo et al., 2013). It was re-
ported that the amount of liver fat is significantly affected by
dietary fat (Butler, 1976).
In order to meet egg requirements, which have an impor- This disease, which is associated with feeding birds with
tant place in human nutrition, the caged layer hen system is a high-energy feed, is most common during the summer pe-
widely practiced today. In caged layer hens, the amount of riod. The liver is usually enlarged, pale and fragile. Although
product obtained is high because more animals are housed there is no known method for the treatment of fatty liver
per unit area. However, this situation causes some problems syndrome, its development can be prevented by the use of
such as fatty liver syndrome. For laying hens raised in cages, lipotropic agents such as vitamin E, vitamin B12 and choline
fat can occur in the liver due to the restriction in the move- chloride.
ment area and the high-energy value of the feeds (Shini et al., Propolis (P) is a resinous substance collected by bees from
2019). “Fatty liver”, which is called hepatosteatosis in med- leaves, stems and buds of various plants, mixed with bee en-
ical language, means excessive accumulation of fat in liver zymes, pollen and wax. Propolis is composed of many com-
cells. Fatty liver is a disease characterized by an accumu- ponents, primarily polyphenol components, such as phenolic
lation of fat in the abdominal cavity and a decrease in egg acids, esters, phenolic aldehydes and ketones. The antiseptic,
production. The disease causes a shrinkage of egg numbers antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, antiox-
in laying hens, a drop of 45 % in egg production within a few

Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the Research Institute for Farm Animal Biology (FBN).
226 Ş. C. Bölükbaşı et al.: The effect of propolis addition to laying-hen diet

idant, antimutagenic and cytotoxic effects of propolis have Table 1. Composition of feeds used in the trial (%).
been proven in scientific studies. In addition, its protective ef-
fect on liver has been reported by many researchers (Bhadau- Item Basal diet High-energy
ria et al., 2009; Kısmet et al., 2008; Paulino et al., 2014; Wali (control) diet
et al., 2015; Omar et al., 2016). Most of the biological effects Corn (8.5 % CP) 63 64.67
of propolis are related to its antioxidant capacity. Soybean meal (44 % CP–46 % CP) 16.39 13.50
To the best of our knowledge, there is no study on the ef- Corn gluten (60 % CP) 8.48 10.64
fect of propolis on fatty liver in laying hens. In this study, Limestone 9.68 7.65
in order to see the effect of propolis more clearly, we aimed DCP 18 1.44 1.44
to examine the effect of propolis supplementation on perfor- Soybean oil 0.17 1.68
mance, liver fat ratio, egg quality and some antioxidant en- Vitamin–mineral mixture∗ 0.25 0.25
zymes by promoting fatty liver in layer hens fed high-energy Salt 0.22 0.33
feed. Sodium bicarbonate 0.16 0.16
L-Lysine 0.11 0.10
DL-Methionine 99 % 0.10 0.08
2 Materials and methods
Calculated composition (%)
2.1 Experimental animals and experimental design Dry matter 88.41 88.24
Crude protein 17.52 17.48
The study was conducted in accordance with the ethics Ether extract 2.20 3.84
committee principles of Atatürk University veterinary fac- Crude ash 11.87 10.95
ulty (2018/1). The aim of this study was to evaluate the Crude fiber 2.78 2.97
effect of propolis on performance and fatty liver in lay- D-Methionine 0.38 0.38
ing hens. Laying hens were fed with a high-energy feed Methionine 0.40 0.41
(2850 kcal kg−1 ) to induce fatty liver. One-hundred-and- Lysine 0.76 0.70
twenty white Lohmann (LSL) laying hens at an age of ME kcal kg−1 2726 2850
70 weeks were used. The hens were divided into five groups, Analyzed composition (%)
and each group consisted of six subgroups. The birds were
Dry matter 88.78 88.00
placed in four-story battery cages (60 × 59 × 61 cm) with six
Crude protein 17.12 17. 34
hens in each as replicates. The first group was the control Ether extract 2.43 3.63
group where the birds were fed with basal feed (Table 1), Crude ash 11.24 11.45
while the other groups were fed with feeds that added 0, 100, Crude fiber 3.18 3.29
200 and 300 mg kg−1 of propolis (P) to high-energy feeds.
CP: crude protein. ME: metabolic energy. DCP: dicalcium phosphate.
During the 8-week trial, feed and water were given ad libi- IU: international unit. ∗ per kilogram diet added: 12 000 IU vitamin A; 2500 IU
tum. The propolis used in the diet was obtained from a com- vitamin D3; 30 IU vitamin E; 4 mg vitamin K3; 3 mg vitamin B1; 6 mg vitamin B2;
30 mg niacin; 10 mg calcium D-pantothenate; 5 mg vitamin B6; 0.015 mg vitamin
mercial company. B12; 1 mg folic acid; 0.050 mg D-biotin; 50 mg vitamin C; 300 mg choline chloride;
80 mg manganese; 60 mg iron; 60 mg zinc; 5 mg copper; 0.5 mg cobalt; 0.2 mg iodine;
0.15 mg selenium.
2.2 Performance analysis

Feed consumption, egg production, egg weight and feed con-

version ratio (kg feed kg−1 egg) values of the birds were de-
termined with the measurements made every 2 weeks. Like- (GPx) activity (Matkovics et al., 1988), catalase (CAT) ac-
wise, egg quality criteria such as shell thickness, breaking tivity (Goth, 1991), TP (total protein) levels (Lowry, 1951)
strength, albumen ratio, yolk ratio, shell ratio, shape index and non-esterified fatty acid (NEFA) levels in plasma (Biont
and Haugh unit were determined by the measurements made Chicken NEFA ELISA Kit, cat. no. YLA0179CH) were
every 2 weeks. measured with a BioTek ELISA reader (BioTek µQuant
MQX200 ELISA reader, USA). TP levels were used to calcu-
2.3 Blood parameter analysis
late the SOD and GPx activity. Plasma cholesterol, glucose,
LDL (low-density lipoprotein), HDL (high-density lipopro-
At the end of the experiment, blood samples that were taken tein), VLDL (very low density lipoprotein), AST (aspartate
from the vein of one animal from each subgroup (n = 6) and transaminase), ALT (alanine transaminase) and TG (triglyc-
placed into heparinized tubes were centrifuged (3000 rpm for eride) values were analyzed in a special laboratory.
10 min), and the samples were stored at −80 ◦ C. At the end of the experiment, one animal from each sub-
Superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity (Sun et al., 1988), group was slaughtered. Liver wet weights were determined
glutathione (GSH) level (Tietze, 1969), MDA (malondialde- (n = 6); then they were brought to the laboratory and dried
hyde) level (Yoshioka et al., 1979), glutathione peroxidase at 105 ◦ C where their dry weights were determined. Then,

Arch. Anim. Breed., 66, 225–232, 2023 https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-66-225-2023

Ş. C. Bölükbaşı et al.: The effect of propolis addition to laying-hen diet 227

the fat ratio was determined by ether extraction in the dried est GSH, SOD, CAT and GPx values were detected in the
samples (Kutlu, 2008). HE + 300 mg kg−1 of P group.
Contrary to expectations, the MDA value in this study was
2.4 Statistical analyses determined to be the highest in the HE + 300 mg kg−1 of P
group, not in the HE + 0 % P group. It was observed that
For performance values, egg quality criteria, some blood pa- MDA levels increased significantly in parallel with the NEFA
rameters and antioxidant enzyme values, variance analyses value in the HE + 300 mg kg−1 of P group (Table 5).
were performed by the “general linear model” procedure,
and the importance controls of the important data were per-
formed using the SPSS 17 program. Differences between 4 Discussion
groups were found by Duncan’s multiple comparison test.
It has been reported that propolis has antioxidant, antimuta-
3 Results genic and immunomodulatory properties, and these proper-
ties are due to its rich flavonoid, phenolic acid and terpenoid
The values of the feed consumption, egg weight, egg produc- content (Prytzyk et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2003). The antiox-
tion and feed conversion ratio of the experimental groups are idant properties of propolis are thought to be the cause of the
given in Table 2. increase in egg production and feed conversion ratio. In ad-
No significant difference was found between the con- dition, the increase in feed consumption has been attributed
trol group, the HE + 0 mg kg−1 of P group and the to the aroma and anti-lipidemic effect of propolis. Similarly
HE + 300 mg kg−1 of P group in terms of feed intake. How- to this study, Galal et al. (2008) reported that the addition of
ever, it was determined that adding 100 and 200 mg kg−1 propolis to laying-hen rations increased feed consumption,
of P to feed increased feed intake significantly (P <0.05). egg production, egg weight and improved feed efficiency. El-
There was no significant difference between groups in terms Neney and Awadien (2016) reported that layer hens fed di-
of egg weight. It was determined that egg production was ets supplemented with different levels of propolis (0.1, 0.2
significantly lower in HE + 0 and HE + 300 mg kg−1 of P or 0.3 g kg−1 ) significantly improved feed efficiency per hen,
groups compared to the control group, but the addition of egg production, egg weight and egg mass. It has been re-
100 and 200 mg kg−1 of P to a high-energy diet significantly ported that the addition of 1 g kg−1 of P in Japanese quails
increased egg production (P <0.01). In the HE + 0 mg kg−1 (Denli et al., 2005) and 2 g kg−1 of P in ducks improved feed
of P and HE + 300 mg kg−1 of P groups, the degree of feed conversion ratio (Abdel-Rahman and Mosaad, 2013). Abdel-
conversion ratio decreased significantly (P <0.05). Kareem and El-Sheikh (2017) found that adding different
There was no significant difference between the groups in levels of propolis to laying-hen feed did not affect feed in-
terms of values of egg quality criteria such as albumen ratio, take but increased egg production and feed conversion ratio.
yolk ratio, shell ratio, Haugh unit, shell breaking strength or Contrary to these studies, Belloni et al. (2015) reported that
shell thickness (Table 3). as the level of dietary propolis content (1.0 % to 3.0 %) in
The means of wet weight, dry weight and fat ratio of the layer’s diet increased, feed intake decreased. They sug-
liver are given in Table 4. The lowest values in terms of gested that this decrease in feed consumption may be due
wet and dry liver weights were determined in the control to the aroma of propolis. Navarro-Villa et al. (2019) reported
and HE + 300 mg kg−1 of P groups. The difference among that egg production decreased significantly in laying hens fed
the experimental groups in terms of liver fat ratio was with high-energy and low-protein feed to promote liver for-
significant (P <0.01); the highest value was found in the mation.
HE + 0 mg kg−1 of P group, while the lowest value was ob- In this study, no effect of propolis on egg quality criteria
served in the HE + 300 mg kg−1 of P group. Liver fat ratios was detected. Similarly, it has been reported that the addition
of the HE + 100 and HE + 200 mg kg−1 of P groups were of propolis to laying-hen rations does not affect the albumen,
found to be considerably lower than the HE + 0 mg kg−1 of yolk or egg shell ratio but does increase the Hough unit and
P group. shell thickness (Galal et al., 2008). Özkök et al. (2013) re-
There was no significant difference between the groups ported that propolis doses (0.1, 0.2 or 0.4 g kg−1 ) had no di-
in terms of ALT, AST, glucose, total cholesterol and HDL etary effect on quality criteria such as Haugh units or shell
cholesterol. The difference between the groups in terms of thickness. However, Vilela et al. (2012) reported that propo-
VLDL, TG and LDL cholesterol was significant (P <0.01), lis has a positive effect on the internal content of egg and
with the highest values seen in the HE + 0 mg kg−1 of P quality of the egg shell. Abdel-Kareem and El-Sheikh (2017)
group. It was observed that the NEFA level increased sig- reported that the addition of 1000 mg kg−1 of P to laying-hen
nificantly in the HE + 300 mg kg−1 of P group. diets increased the weight of yolk and shell and the Haugh
There was a significant difference (P <0.01) between the unit but did not affect albumen weight.
groups in terms of MDA, GSH, SOD, CAT and GPx val- It was determined that the addition of propolis to the diet
ues (Table 6). The highest plasma MDA value and the low- increased the wet and dry weights of the liver in this study.

https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-66-225-2023 Arch. Anim. Breed., 66, 225–232, 2023

228 Ş. C. Bölükbaşı et al.: The effect of propolis addition to laying-hen diet

Table 2. The effect of propolis on the performance of laying hens consuming high-energy feed.

Groups Feed Egg Egg Feed

consumption weight production conversion
(g) (g) (%) ratio (g : g)
Control 115.01b 61.58 79.97b 2.35b
HE + 0 mg kg−1 of P 110.26b 61.46 71.51c 2.62a
HE + 100 mg kg−1 of P 127.16a 61.67 87.19a 2.38b
HE + 200 mg kg−1 of P 128.88a 63.29 86.33a 2.39b
HE + 300 mg kg−1 of P 109.44b 60.53 68.57c 2.77a
SE 2.61 0.35 1.95 0.06
P ∗ ns ∗∗ ∗

a–c: the averages shown with different letters in the same column are different from each other. HE: high
energy. P: propolis. Control: basal-fed group. HE + 0 mg kg−1 of P: high-energy-fed group + 0 mg kg−1
of propolis. HE + 100 mg kg−1 of P: high-energy-fed group + 100 mg kg−1 of propolis.
HE + 200 mg kg−1 of P: high-energy-fed group + 200 mg kg−1 of propolis. HE + 300 mg kg−1 of P:
high-energy-fed group + 300 mg kg−1 of propolis. SE: standard error. ns: not significant. ∗ P <0.05.
∗∗ P <0.01.

Table 3. The effect of propolis on egg quality of laying hens consuming high-energy feed.

Groups Albumen Yolk Egg shell Hough Shell Shell

(%) (%) (%) unit breaking thickness
strength (mm)
(kg cm2 )
Control 61.25 28.66 10.09 80.21 2.40 0.449
HE + 0 mg kg−1 of P 57.45 31.91 10.63 83.55 2.11 0.472
HE + 100 mg kg−1 of P 56.57 32.23 11.19 83.58 3.21 0.481
HE + 200 mg kg−1 of P 58.16 31.37 10.46 85.75 3.15 0.431
HE + 300 mg kg−1 of P 58.45 29.97 11.61 81.03 2.91 0.482
SE 0.60 0.50 0.20 0.90 0.26 0.008
P ns ns ns ns ns ns
a–c: the averages shown with different letters in the same column are different from each other. HE: high energy. P: propolis.
Control: basal-fed group. HE + 0 mg kg−1 of P: high-energy-fed group + 0 mg kg−1 of propolis. HE + 100 mg kg−1 of P:
high-energy-fed group + 100 mg kg−1 of propolis. HE + 200 mg kg−1 of P: high-energy-fed group + 200 mg kg−1 of
propolis. HE + 300 mg kg−1 of P: high-energy-fed group + 300 mg kg−1 of propolis. SE: standard error. ns: not significant.

Similarly, Hassan and Abdulla (2011) found that the addition Unlike mammals, fat synthesis is high in the liver of birds
of 400 mg kg−1 of P to broiler diets increased liver weight. (Hermier, 1997). The liver plays a major role in fat synthe-
It has been reported that the rate of liver fat exceeds 40 % sis and metabolism in laying hens. Similar to mammals, in
of the dry weight and can even reach 70 % in the case of avian species the digestion and absorption of dietary fat oc-
fatty liver (Ivy and Nesheim, 1973). In the present study, it curs in the small intestine (Tancharoenrat et al., 2014). How-
was determined that the liver fat ratio (56.66 %) was higher ever, due to the poorly developed intestinal lymphatic system
in the group fed with high-energy feed (HE + 0 % P) com- in birds, dietary fatty acids are discharged directly into the
pared to the other groups. Zhuang et al. (2019) observed that portal blood system (instead of the lymphatic system) in the
the rate of liver fat increased significantly in their study in form of very low density lipoproteins (VLDL) called “por-
which they fed laying hens with a high-energy low-protein tomicrons” (Bensadoun and Rothfeld, 1972). Bird livers be-
diet to induce fatty liver hemorrhagic syndrome. Similarly, come more prone to fat accumulation, as most portomicrons
in many studies conducted in previous years, it was reported travel from the portal blood system to the liver before reach-
that the rate of liver fat increased in animals fed with high- ing the rest of the circulation (Cherian et al., 2002).
energy feed (Splittgerber et al., 1969; Jensen et al., 1970; Similar to this study, Navarro-Villa et al. (2019) reported
Akkılıç and Tanyolaç, 1975). Rozenboim et al. (2016) re- that liver fat ratio increased significantly in laying hens fed
ported that in laying hens fed a high-fat diet, the liver fat with high-energy and low-protein feed to promote fatty liver
rate in young animals was not affected by diet, but the liver formation. In the current study, it was determined that adding
fat rate in old animals was lower than in the control group. propolis to the high-energy diet significantly reduced the

Arch. Anim. Breed., 66, 225–232, 2023 https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-66-225-2023

Ş. C. Bölükbaşı et al.: The effect of propolis addition to laying-hen diet 229

Table 4. The effect of propolis on wet weight (g), dry weight (g) and fat ratio (%) of liver of laying hens consuming high-energy feed.

Groups Wet weight Dry weight Fat ratio of

of liver (g) of liver (g) liver % (DM)
Control 21.34b 8.16b 25.52c
HE + 0 mg kg−1 of P 32.75a 13.00a 56.66a
HE + 100 mg kg−1 of P 35.02a 10.74a 32.00b
HE + 200 mg kg−1 of P 31.03a 11.26a 28.50b
HE + 300 mg kg−1 of P 25.50b 8.74b 21.00d
SE 1.84 0.82 3.65
P ∗ ∗ ∗∗

a–c: the averages shown with different letters in the same column are different from each
other. DM: dry matter. HE: high energy. P: propolis. Control: basal-fed group.
HE + 0 mg kg−1 of P: high-energy-fed group + 0 mg kg−1 of propolis. HE + 100 mg kg−1 of
P: high-energy-fed group + 100 mg kg−1 of propolis. HE + 200 mg kg−1 of P:
high-energy-fed group + 200 mg kg−1 of propolis. HE + 300 mg kg−1 of P: high-energy-fed
group + 300 mg kg−1 of propolis. SE: standard error. ns: not significant. ∗ P <0.05.
∗∗ P <0.01.

Table 5. The effect of propolis on some blood plasma biochemistry parameters of laying hens consuming high-energy feed.

Control HE + 0 mg kg−1 of P HE + 100 mg kg−1 of P HE + 200 mg kg−1 of P HE + 300 mg kg−1 of P SEM P

VLDL (mg dL−1 ) 96.00b 304.50a 157.33b 65.66b 113.66b 26.36 0.020
ALT U (L−1 ) 3.00b 7.00b 3.00 3.66 3.66 0.66 ns
AST U (L−1 ) 256.6 314.50 218.33 313.33 265 18.92 ns
Glucose (mg dL−1 ) 257.00 245.50 259.33 288.00 277.66 6.64 ns
Total cholesterol (mg dL−1 ) 130.9 124.00 70.33 138.00 102.00 11.33 ns
TG (mg dL−1 ) 419.60b 1323.00a 785.00b 328.66b 568.00b 131.87 ∗
HDL (mg dL−1 ) 43.00 35.5 27 49.66 30.66 4.96 ns
LDL (mg dL−1 ) 100.20b 198.00a 113.33b 48.66b 55.00b 17.52 ∗∗
NEFA (ng L−1 ) 0.219b 0.220b 0.221b 0.211b 0.505a 0.035 ∗∗

a–c: the averages shown with different letters in the same row in the are different from each other. HE: high energy. P: propolis. Control: basal-fed group. HE + 0 mg kg−1 of P: high-energy-fed group + 0 mg kg−1 of
propolis. HE + 100 mg kg−1 of P: high-energy-fed group + 100 mg kg−1 of propolis. HE + 200 mg kg−1 of P: high-energy-fed group + 200 mg kg−1 of propolis. HE + 300 mg kg−1 of P: high-energy-fed
group + 300 mg kg−1 of propolis. SE: standard error. ns: not significant. ∗ P <0.05. ∗∗ P <0.01.

liver fat ratio compared to the control group. Lin et al. (1997) ducing the harmful effects on the tissues by propolis treat-
reported that 30 mg kg−1 of P can prevent fatty liver degen- ment.
eration caused by prolonged alcohol intake in humans. Koya-Miyata et al. (2009) found that propolis (5 mg kg−1
Studies on the properties of propolis have shown that its for 10 d) significantly reduced triglyceride, cholesterol, and
addition to the diet protects liver tissue against the negative NEFA levels in high-fat-diet mice. Hashem et al. (2013) re-
effects of various hepatotoxic factors (Banskota et al., 2000; ported in a study they conducted on rabbits that the addi-
Bazo et al., 2002; Bhadauria et al., 2009). tion of 150 mg kg−1 of P reduced cholesterol and triglyceride
Unlike this study, in a study in which different levels of levels; it had no effect on LDL cholesterol and increased
propolis were added to laying-hen diets, it was reported that HDL cholesterol. In a study conducted in patients with non-
a level of 1000 mg kg−1 of P increased total protein level and alcoholic fatty liver disease, it was reported that the addition
decreased ALT, AST and cholesterol levels (Abdel-Kareem of propolis to the diet reduced the level of total cholesterol
and El-Sheikh, 2017). Galal et al. (2008) reported that blood (Nikbaf-Shandiz et al., 2022). Kısmet et al. (2017) reported
triglyceride, cholesterol and ALT levels were significantly in their study on mice with non-alcoholic fatty liver syn-
reduced in laying hens consuming 100–150 mg kg−1 of P. drome that the addition of 100 and 200 mg of propolis to the
Zhuang et al. (2019) found that the amount of ALT increased ration reduced total cholesterol, triglyceride, HDL choles-
significantly in layer hens fed with a high-energy low-protein terol, ALT and AST levels in serum.
diet compared to the control group. In a study by Attia et In fatty liver symptom, overload of the non-esterified fatty
al. (2014), it was reported that blood triglyceride and choles- acid (NEFA) level has been reported to trigger reactive oxida-
terol concentrations were significantly reduced in chickens tive stress formation through mitochondria-dependent oxida-
supplemented with 300 mg kg−1 of P continuously for 35 d. tion or microsomal enzymes (Kısmet et al. 2017). Contrary
The researchers argued that the decrease in these values was to this study, Hashem et al. (2013) reported that the addition
beneficial and safe by minimizing the liver function and re- of 150 mg kg−1 of P reduced MDA level in rabbits.

https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-66-225-2023 Arch. Anim. Breed., 66, 225–232, 2023

230 Ş. C. Bölükbaşı et al.: The effect of propolis addition to laying-hen diet

Table 6. The effect of propolis on MDA and some enzyme activity of liver of laying hens consuming high-energy feed.

Groups MDA GSH SOD CAT GPx

(nmol L−1 ) (nmol L−1 ) (U L−1 ) (U L−1 ) (U L−1 )
Control 7.64b 2.30b 58.16ab 147.29b 1.47b
HE + 0 mg kg−1 of P 7.34b 2.49a 58.12ab 152.63ab 1.47b
HE + 100 mg kg−1 of P 7.84b 2.15c 55.94b 152.83ab 1.46b
HE + 200 mg kg−1 of P 7.55b 2.57a 60.12a 162.97a 1.57a
HE + 300 mg kg−1 of P 20.39a 1.61d 50.47c 110.09c 1.20c
SEM 1.55 0.10 1.08 5.86 0.038
P ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗

a–d: the averages shown with different letters in the same column are different from each other. HE: high energy. P:
propolis. Control: basal-fed group. HE + 0 mg kg−1 of P: high-energy-fed group + 0 mg kg−1 of propolis.
HE + 100 mg kg−1 of P: high-energy-fed group + 100 mg kg−1 of propolis. HE + 200 mg kg−1 of P: high-energy-fed
group + 200 mg kg−1 of propolis. HE + 300 mg kg−1 of P: high-energy-fed group + 300 mg kg−1 of propolis. SE:
standard error. ns: not significant. ∗∗ P <0.01.

Catalase (CAT), glutathione peroxidase (GPx) and super- Competing interests. The contact author has declared that none
oxide dismutase (SOD) are involved in the enzymatic antiox- of the authors has any competing interests.
idant defense system of the body (Arya et al., 2021). While
the highest SOD, CAT and GPx values were found in the
200 mg kg−1 of P group, the lowest values were found in the Ethical statement. The study was conducted in accordance with
300 mg kg−1 of P group in this study. And the lowest GSH the ethics committee principles of Atatürk University veterinary
value was determined in the 300 mg kg−1 of P group. faculty (no. 2018/1).
On the other hand, Arya et al. (2021) reported in a study
they conducted on patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver syn-
Disclaimer. Publisher’s note: Copernicus Publications remains
drome that SOD and GPx levels were lower than the control
neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
group, and the MDA value was higher. Similar to this study, institutional affiliations.
it has been reported that there is a negative correlation be-
tween MDA and SOD in some other studies (Koruk et al.,
2004; Videla et al., 2004). Review statement. This paper was edited by Manfred Mielenz
and reviewed by Unal Kilic and one anonymous referee.
5 Conclusions

As a result, it was determined that the liver fat ratio increased References
significantly and egg production decreased in laying hens fed
with a high-energy feed. However, it has been determined Abdel-Kareem, A. A. A. and El-Sheikh, T. M.: Impact of sup-
that the addition of 200 mg kg−1 of propolis to the high- plementing diets with propolis on productive performance, egg
energy diet increases egg production; significantly reduces quality traits and some haematological variables of laying hens,
the liver fat rate; decreases the amounts of LDL and triglyc- J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr., 101, 441–448, 2017.
erides; and increases SOD, CAT, and GPx activities. It has Abdel-Rahman, M. A. and Mosaad, G. M.: Effect of propolis as
been determined that especially 200 mg kg−1 of propolis may additive on some behavioural patterns, performance and blood
parameters in Muscovy broiler ducks, J. Adv. Vet. Res., 3, 64–
be used in laying-hen rations since it has a positive effect on
68, 2013.
many parameters, but it has also been concluded that more Akkılıç, M. and Tanyolaç, A.: Kafeste beslenen tavuk rasyonların-
studies are needed on the subject. daki enerji düzeyinin karaciğer yağlanması üzerine etkisi, J.
Ankara Univ. Vet. Fac., 71, 370–389, 1975.
Arya, A., Azarmehr, N., Mansourian M., and Doustimotlagh, A. M.:
Data availability. The data presented in this study are available Inactivation of the superoxide dismutase by malondialdehyde
free of charge for any user upon reasonable request from the corre- in the nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a combined molecular
sponding author. docking approach to clinical studies, Arch. Physiol. Biochem.,
127, 557–564, https://doi.org/10.1080/13813455.2019.1659827,
2021.
Author contributions. ŞCB and HÜ designed the study, ŞCB Attia, Y. A., Al-Hamid, A. E. A., Ibrahim, M. S., Al-Harthi, M.
performed the statistical analysis, ŞCB, HÜ and BAY made labo- A., Bovera, F., and Elnaggar, A. S.: Productive performance,
ratory analyzes and ŞCB wrote the paper. biochemical and hematological traits of broiler chickens supple-

Arch. Anim. Breed., 66, 225–232, 2023 https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-66-225-2023

Ş. C. Bölükbaşı et al.: The effect of propolis addition to laying-hen diet 231

mented with propolis, bee pollen, and mannan oligosaccharides Hermier, D.: Lipoprotein metabolism and fattening in poultry, J.
continuously or intermittently, Livestock Sci., 164, 87–95, 2014. Nutr., 127, 805–808, 1997.
Banskota, A. H., Tezuka, Y., Adnyana, I. K., Midorikawa, K., Mat- Ivy, C. A. and Nesheim, M. C.: Factors influencing the liver fat
sushige, K., Message, D., Huertas, A. A. G., and Kadota, S.: content of laying hens, Poultry Sci., 52, 281–291, 1973.
Cytotoxic, hepatoprotective and free radical scavenging effects Jensen, L. S., Sehuınaier, G. W., Funk, A. D., and Smith, T. C.: A
of propolis from Brazil, Peru, the Netherlands and China, J. new lipotl’llpir agelZtfor tlıe lay’ing Izen, Poultry Sci., 49, 1401,
Ethnopharmacol., 72, 239–246, 2000. I970.
Bazo, A. P., Rodriges, M. A. M., Sforcin, J. M., de Camargo, J. L. Kısmet, K., Sabuncuoglu, M. Z., Kilicoglu, S. S., Kilicoglu, B.,
V., Ribeiro, L. R., and Salvadori, D. M. F.: Protective action of Devrim, E., Erel, S., Sunay, A. E., Erdemli, E., Durak, I., and
propolis on the rat colon carcinogenesis, Tera Carcin Mutagen, Akkus, M. A.: Effect of propolis on oxidative stress and histo-
22, 183–194, 2002. morphology of liver tissue in experimental obstructive jaundice,
Belloni, M., Almeida, P. I. C. L., Nääs, I. A., Alves, M. C. F., Garcia, Eur. Surg. Res., 41, 231–237, 2008.
R. G., Caldara, F. R., and Seno, L. O.: Produc-tive, qualitative, Kısmet, K., Ozcan, Ç., Kuru, S., Celemli, O. G., Celepli, P., Senes,
and physiological aspects of layer hens fed with propolis, Braz. M., Güçlü, T., Sorkun, K., Hucumenoglu, S., and Besler, T.:
J. Poultry Sci., 17, 467–472, 2015. Does propolis have any effect on non-alcoholic fatty liver dis-
Bensadoun, A. and Rothfeld, A.: The form of absorption of lipids in ease, Biomed. Pharmacother., 90, 863–871, 2017.
the chicken, Gallus domesticus, Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med., 141, Koruk, M., Taysi, S., Savaş, M. C., Yılmaz, O., Akçay, F., and
814–817, 1972. [CrossRef] Karakök, M.: Oxidative stress and enzymatic antioxidant sta-
Bhadauria, M. and Nirala, S. K.: Reversal of acetaminophen in- tus in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, Ann. Clin. Lab.
duced subchronic hepatorenal injury by propolis extract in rats, Sci., 34, 57–62, 2004.
Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 27, 17–25, 2009. Koya-Miyata, S., Arai, N., Mizote, A., Taniguchi, Y., Ushio, S.,
Butler, E.: Lipid metabolism in the fowl under normal and abnormal Iwaki, K., and Fukuda, S.: Propolis prevents diet-induced hyper-
circumstances, Proc. Nutr. Soc., 34, 29–34, 1975. lipidemia and mitigates weight gain in diet-induced obesity in
Cherian, G., Holsonbake, T. B., Goeger, M. P., and Bildfell, R.: Di- mice, Biol Phar. Bul., 32, 2022–2028, 2009.
etary CLA alters yolk and tissue FA composition and hepatic Kutlu, H.: Yem Değerlendirme ve Analiz Yöntemleri. Çukurova
histopathology of laying hens, Lipids, 37, 751–757, 2002. University, Agricultural Faculty, Animal Science Department,
Crespo, R. and Shivaprasad, H. L.: Developmental, metabolic, Lecture Notes, Adana-Turkey, 7, 12–76, http://www.zootekni.
and other noninfectious disorders, in: Diseases of Poul- org.tr/upload/File/sunular/tm.pdf (last access: 16 November
try, 11th Edn., Iowa State Press, Ames, IA, USA, 1233– 2022), 2008.
1270, edited by: Swayne, D. E., ISBN: 9780470958995, Lin, S. C., Lin, Y. H., Chen, C. F., Chung, C. Y., and
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119421481.ch30, 2013. Hsu, S. H.: The hepatoprotective and therapeutic ef-
Denli, M., Çankaya, S., Silici, S., Okan, F., and Uluocak, A. N.: fects of propolis ethanol extract on chronic alcohol-
Effect of dietary addition of Turkish propolis on the growth per- induced liver injuries, Am. J. Chin. Med., 25, 325–332,
formance, carcass characteristics and serum variables of quail https://doi.org/10.1142/S0192415X97000366, 1997.
(Coturnix coturnix japonica), Asian-Austral. J. Animi. Sci., 18, Lowry, O. H., Rose Brough, N. J., Farr, A. L., and Randall, V.
848–854, https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2005.848, 2005. J.: Protein Measurement with the Folin Phenol, J. Biol. Chem.,
El-Neney, B. A. and Awadien, N. B.: The use of propolis as 193, 265–275, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9258(19)52451-6,
a source of natural additives to improve the productive per- 1951.
formance and 40 immune system of chickens local, 2 – Ef- Matkovics, B., Szabo, L., and Varga, I. S.: Determination of enzyme
fect on growing Dokki4, 9th International Poultry Conference- activities in lipid peroxidation and glutathione pathways, Lab.
Proceedings, organized by Animal Production Research In- Diagnoszt., 15, 248–249, 1988.
stitute (APRI), Ain Sukhna, Egypt, 62–78, 7–10 Novem- Navarro-Villa, A., Mica, J. H., de los Mozos, J., den Hartog, L. A.,
ber, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320258260 (last and García-Ruiz, A. I.: Nutritional dietary supplements to reduce
access: 12 March 2023), 2016. the incidence of fatty liver syndrome in laying hens and the use
Galal, A., Abd El-Motaal, A. M., Ahmed, A. M. H., and Zaki, T. G.: of spectrophotometry to predict liver fat content, J. Appl. Poult.
Productive performance and immune response of laying hens as Res., 28, 435–446, https://doi.org/10.3382/japr/pfz005, 2019.
affected by dietary propolis supplementation, Int. J. Poult. Sci., Nikbaf-Shandiz, M., Tutunchi, H., Khoshbaten, M., Bonaba, H.
7, 271–278, 2008. N., and Ebrahimi-Mameghan, M.: Propolis supplementation in
Goth, L.: A simple method for determi-nation of serumcatalase ac- obese patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: effects on
tivity and revision of reference range, Clin. Chim. Ac., 196, 143– glucose homeostasis, lipid profile, liver function, anthropometric
152, 1991. indices and meta-inflammation, Food Funct., 13, 11568–11578,
Hashem, N. M., Abd El-Hady, A., and Hassan, O.: Effect of vitamin 2022.
E or propolis supplementation on semenquality, oxidative status Omar, N. A. A., Allithy, A. N. E. A., Baghdadi, H., Zolaly,
and hemato-biochemical changesof rabbit bucks during hot sea- M., Abdel-haleem, M., Helmy, M. M., Ayat, M. M. A., and
son, Livestock Sci., 157, 520–526, 2013. El Sayed, S. M.: Hepatoprotective effects exerted by propolis
Hassan, M. and Abdulla, T.: The effect of propolis feed supplemen- against doxorubicin-induced rat liver toxicity: a biochemical and
tation on hygiene and performance of broiler chickens, Iraqi. J. histopathological study, Am. J. Cancer Prev., 4, 36–40, 2016.
Vet. Sci., 25, 77–82, 2011.

https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-66-225-2023 Arch. Anim. Breed., 66, 225–232, 2023

232 Ş. C. Bölükbaşı et al.: The effect of propolis addition to laying-hen diet

Özkök, D., Iscan, K. M., and Ilici, S.: Effects of di-etary propolis Videla, L. A., Rodrigo, R., Orellana, M., Fernandez, V., Tapia,
supplementation on performance and egg quality in laying hens, G., Quiñones, L., Varela N., Contreras, J., Lazarte, R., Csendes,
J. Anim. Vet. Adv., 12, 269–275, 2013. A., Rojas, J., Maluenda, F., Burdiles, P., Diaz, J. C., Smok, G.,
Paulino, N., Barbosa, A. P., Paulino, A. S., and Marcucci, M. C.: Thielemann, K., and Poniachik, J.: Oxidative stress-related pa-
Hepatoprotective effect of green propolis is related with antiox- rameters in the liver of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease patients,
idant action in vivo and in vitro, Oxid. Antioxid. Med. Sci., 3, Clin. Sci., 106, 261–268, 2004.
43–50, 2014. Vilela, C., Vargas, G., Fischer, G., Ladeira, S., de Faria, R., Nunes,
Prytzyk, E., Dantas, A. P, Salomao, K., Pereira, A. S., Bankova, C., Lima, M., Hübner, S., Luz, P., and Osório, L.: Propo-
V. S., Castro, S. L. D., and Neto, F. R. A.: Flavonoids and try- lis: a natural product as an alternative for disinfection of em-
panocidal activity of bulgarian propolis, J. Ethnopharmacol., 88, bryonated eggs for incubation, Arq. Inst. Biol., 79, 161–167,
189–193, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1808-16572012000200003, 2012.
Rozenboim, I., Mahato, J., Cohen, N. A., and Tirosh, O.: Low pro- Wali, A. F., Avula, B., Ali, Z., Khan, I. A., Mushtaq, A.,
tein and high-energy diet: a possible natural cause of fatty liver Rehman, M. U., Akbar, S., and Masoodi, M. H.: Antioxi-
hemorrhagic syndrome in caged White Leghorn laying hens, dant, hepatoprotective potential and chemical profiling of propo-
Poultry Sci., 95, 612–621, 2016. lis ethanolic extract from Kashmir Himalaya region using
Shini, A., Shini, S., and Bryden, W. L.: Fatty liver haem- UHPLC-DAD QToF-MS, Biomed. Res. Int., 2015, 393–462,
orrhagic syndrome occurrence in laying hens: im- https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/393462, 2015.
pact of production system, Avian Pathol., 48, 25–34, Wang, B. J., Lien, Y. H., and Yu, Z. R.: Supercritical fluid extractive
https://doi.org/10.1080/03079457.2018.1538550, 2019. fractionation-study of the antioxidant activities of propolis, Food
Splittgerber, H., Wein, F. K., and Arhelger, R.: Untersuebungen Chem., 86, 237–243, 2003.
über die Hö’he des Fettgehaltes der Lebern von Hemzen bei Yoshioka, T., Kawada, K., Shimada, T., and Mori, M.: Lipid per-
versehiedenen Futlermisc!wngen, Deutsche Geflügclwirtschaft, oxidation in maternal and cord blood and protective mechanism
12, 1021–1022, 1969. against activatedoxygen toxicity in the blood, Am. J. Obstet. Gy-
Sun, Y., Oberley, L. W., and Li, Y. A.: Simple method for clinical necol., 135, 372–376, 1979.
assay of superoxide dismutase, Clin. Chem., 34, 497–500, 1988. Zhuang, Y., Xing, C., Cao, H., Zhang, C., Luo, J., Guo,
Tancharoenrat, P., Ravindran, V., Zaefarian, F., and Ravindran, G.: X., and Hu, G.: Insulin resistance and metabonomics analy-
Digestion of fat and fatty acids along the gastrointestinal tract of sis of fatty liver haemorrhagic syndrome in laying hens in-
broiler chickens, Poult. Sci., 93, 371–379, 2014. duced by a highenergy low-protein diet, Sci. Rep., 9, 10141,
Tietze, F.: Enzymic method for quantitative determination of https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-46183-y, 2019.
nanogram amounts of total and oxidized glutathione, applica-
tions to mammalian blood and other tissues, Anal. Biochem., 27,
502–522, 1969.

Arch. Anim. Breed., 66, 225–232, 2023 https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-66-225-2023