Battaa, A. M. El-Neney

th
7 International Poultry Conference - Proceeding

==========================================================================================================================
THE USE OF PROPOLIS AS A SOURCE OF NATURAL

ADDITIVES TO IMPROVE THE PRODUCTIVE
PERFORMANCE AND IMMUNE SYSTEM OF CHICKENS
LOCAL.1- Effect on laying hen performance.
Battaa, A. M. El-Neney1, Nasra B. Awadien2 and Yahya Z. Eid3

1 2
Dep. of Poult. Nutrition Res. Dep. of Poult. Breeding Res.
Anim. Prod. Res. Insti., Agric. Res. Centre, Dokki, Giza, Egypt.
3
Dep. of Poult. Production. Fac. of Agric., Kafrelsheikh Univ., Egypt.
Corresponding author email: drbattaaelneny@yahoo.com
Abstract: The study aimed to evaluate the effect of feeding administration of propolis
on productive performance, digestibility, egg qualities, semen quality, carcass traits, some
blood constituents and economic efficiency. A total of 132 Dokki 4 laying hens, aged 32
weeks, hens was divided into four groups of (30 hens+ 3 cocks). Chicks were randomly
divided into control and 3 treatment groups (basal diet containing 100, 200 and 300 mg
propolis/kg).
The results indicated that:-
1) Final body weight, body weight gain, egg production, egg weight and egg mass for the
layers fed diet supplemented with propolis were increased significantly than those fed control
diet. Feed intake was not influenced by treatments, whereas feed conversion ratios were
significantly improved.
2) Digestibility coefficient values significantly improved for hens fed diet supplemented
with propolis compared to those fed control diet.
3) Also, treatment diet supplemented with propolis had significant increased effect on egg
shape index (ESI), yolk percentages and shell thickness. However, no effect on albumen and
egg shell was found.
4) Moreover, supplementation layer diets with propolis at different levels significantly
improved semen quality, fertility and hatchability percentages compared to control.
5) Pre-slaughter weight, dressing, total giblets weight percentage, liver and spleen were
significantly (P<0.05) higher for the treatments received propolis than those fed on control.
6) Total microflora count and pH significantly decreased (P<0.05) with increasing
propolis.
7) Feeding at different levels propolis lead to significant (P<0.05) decreased of total plasma
and yolk total lipids and cholesterol. While, plasma protein, globulin, IgG, IgM, and total
plasma antioxidants capacity values were significantly (P<0.05) increased compared to the
control group.
8) The immunity responsiveness represented in leukocytes counts and mainly on
lymphocytes increased significantly with propolis treatments.
9) Better feed and economic efficiencies were observed with hens fed supplemented
propolis.
In conclusion: Supplemented diet with propolis significantly improved productive,
reproductive , physiological and immunological status of Dokki 4 chickens and could have
better economical efficiency.
Keywords: laying hens, propolis, blood components, egg production, digestibility, feed efficiency, immunity,
semen quality.
=================================================================================
3 – 6 November 2014, Ain Sukhna, Red Sea – Egypt -(58)-
th
==========================================================================================================================
INTRODUCTION
Natural additives have some properties as growth enhancers to replace
synthetic drugs. These additives are given to animals or birds to improve their
physiological and productive performance under normal or stress conditions.
Additives (ionophores) have been used as a promoter that increases feed efficiency. In
fact the residual effect of these additives goes to some extent in the final products
(meat and egg). These products are finally consumed by human and there might be a
chance to arise various types of health hazards or diseases. So production of safe and
hazard free animal products for human consumption hypothetically seems to be
beneficial by using natural resources as feed additives which provide natural additives
properties. Crane (1997) reported that propolis (Bee glue) is a resinous substance
collected by honeybees from buds and leaves of trees and plants, mixing with pollen
as well as enzymes secreted by bees its hives. Propolis has been developed for use as
an alternative to antibiotics in the animal industry because of its biological properties
such as antimicrobial, antioxidant and antiseptic activities, also the use of propolis
becomes widespread in medical science, apitherapy and in the bio-cosmetology
because of its antiviral, antibacterial, anti-fungal, antiinflammatory, anti-ulcer, anti-
tumour and immunity stimulating and local anaesthetic properties (Tatli Seven et al.,
2008 and Attia, et al., 2014a). The action of propolis may not be due to a specific
antibacterial effect but to the presence of several micronutrients with positive effects
on broiler health and metabolism (Attia, et al., 2014a).
Propolis is a complex resinous hive product and mixture of wax, sugars and
plant exudates collected by bees from certain plant sources. More than 300
constituents have been identified in different propolis samples. Flavonoids, aromatic
acids, caffeic acid, terpenes, and phenolic constituents appear to be the principal
components responsible for the biological and pharmacological activities of
propolis samples (Banskota et al., 2001and Khalil, 2006). Propolis is composed of
50% resin and vegetable balsam, 30% wax, 10% essential and aromatic oils, 5%
pollen and 5% various other substances, including organic debris (Burdock, 1998).
Flavonoids were reported to influence the colonic microflora (Parkar et al.,
2008), suggesting an important role in maintenance of colon health. Hegazi and Abd
El Hady (2002) reported that propolis contain enzymes such as glucose oxidase,
catalase and peroxidase. Propolis contains a range of biologically active compounds
like phenol compounds, flavonoids (primuletin, chrysine, tecochrysine, akacetine,
galangine, morin, robinetin),terpenes, lipid-wax substances, bioelements, vitamins (A,
D, F, K, E, B1 , B2 , B5 , B6 , B12 , C, H, P and biotin ), enzymes (alpha and beta
amylase, succinic dehydrogenase, glucose-6-phosphatase, adenosine triphosphatase
and acid phosphatase), protein, amino acids, sterols, steroids, essential fatty acids and
aromatic oils, minerals (Mg, Ca, I, K, Na, Cu, Zn, Mn, P, Fe, Si and Co) and it
contains more than 500 bioflavonoid, plant steroids and plant sterols (ergosterol,
stigmasterol, steroidal saponins, steroidal alkaloids) reported by (Marcucci, 1995 and
Khalil, 2006). Mathivanan et al. (2013) reported that dietary supplementation of
animal with propolis can increase growth performance and digestibility.
Many authors recorded the beneficial effect of bee propolis on growth
performance and immune response in poultry. Other observed that propolis is a
natural additive with natural antibiotic properties and may have potential in improving
growth performance and feed efficiency were significantly increased when propolis
=================================================================================
th
==========================================================================================================================
fed broilers (Daneshmand et al., 2012) laying hens-and egg production was increased
(Tatli Seven, 2008 and Galal et al., 2008a,b).
This study was carried out in order to evaluate the efficacy of supplemental
propolis on productive performance, egg quality, serum biochemical parameters,
immune response and economical efficiency of laying hens.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Animals, diet, and experimental design:-
This study was carried out at the Poultry Farm, Department of Animal
and Poultry Production, Faculty of Agriculture, Kafrelsheikh University, Egypt.
Dokki 4 laying hens provided by Sakha Animal Research Station, Animal Production
Research Institute, Ministry of Agriculture, Egypt. The chemical analyses were
carried out at Laboratories of the Animal Production Research Institute, Ministry of
Agriculture, Egypt. A total number of 120 Dokki 4 hens and 12 cocks, 32 wks of age
were randomly divided into four groups of (30 hens+ 3 cocks). The hens were fed basal
diet (control) or basal diet containing 100, 200 and 300 mg propolis/kg, respectively.
The experimental diets were formulated on the basis of a basal diet presented in
(Table 1) and to be isonitrogenous (16% CP) and isocaloric (2744 Kcal ME/Kg
diet) according to Feed composition Tables for animal & poultry feedstuffs used
in Egypt (2001). The birds were reared under the same managerial conditions in
open-sided house on floor. The minimum and maximum ambient temperatures were
26±1 and 32.2±1°C with 76±2.5% relative humidity. Feed and water were offered ad
libitum during the experimental period for 12 wks.
Propolis source:-
Bee propolis was purchased from a apiary in Agriculture Research Center,
Plant Protection Institute, from ministry of agriculture, Dokki, Egypt. The price of
commercial bee propolis in Egyptian market is 1000 L.E/ kg, during the experiment
time.
Productive and Reproductive Traits:-
Birds were weighted at 32 wks of age (the beginning of the experiment,
IBW) and then every 4 wks till the end of the experiment (FBW) after 12 wks of
beginning. Egg weight (EW), egg mass (EM= TEP x EW), total egg production
(TEP), egg production (EP), total feed intake (TFI) and feed conversion ratio
(FCR= TFI / EM) were recorded and calculated throughout the whole experimental
period (12 wks). Crude protein conversion (CPC) and caloric conversion ratio (CCR)
were also calculated. External and internal egg quality measurements were measured
at 44th wks of age using the eggs produced during three successive days per
treatment. Eggs were weighed individually then broken and the inner contents were
placed on a leveled glass surface to determine the inner egg quality. The weights
of yolk, albumen and shell weight were recorded and calculated as percentages
of egg weight. Egg yolk and albumen were separated and weighted on a fresh
matter basis. The thick albumen and yolk heights were measured to the nearest mm.
with a tripod micrometer; yolk diameter was also recorded to the nearest mm. with a
caliper. The shells were washed under slightly flowing water to remove albumen
remains and inner egg shell membrane were separated then air-dried for three
days then weighted to the nearest mg. Finally, samples taken from sharp, blunt and
equatorial parts were measured and the average shell thickness (mm) was
=================================================================================
th
==========================================================================================================================
obtained from the average values of these three parts (Tyler, 1961). At the end of
44 weeks of age, the 12 cocks (three cocks from each treatment) were used to
determine sperm concentration, mass motility, sperm abnormality and dead sperms
were measured according to Kamar (1959 and 1960). Semen was collected
individually twice per week from each cock using the massage method squeezing
the capulatory organs to obtain semen as described by Kalamah et al. (2002).
For evaluating egg fertility and hatchability, three hatches of eggs were made
every 4 weeks of the experimental period. Fertility was calculated as fertile eggs
percentage to total incubated eggs. Hatchability was calculated relative to total fertile
eggs. Weights of healthy chicks were also recorded.
Nutrients digestibility:-
Digestion coefficients of dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM), crude protein
(CP %), crude fibre (CF %), ether extract (EE %) and nitrogen free extract (NFE %)
were determined at the end of the study using 3 cockerels from each group. Faecal
nitrogen content was determined according to the method outlined by Jakobsen et
al. (1960), while the urinary organic matter fraction was calculated according to
Abou-Raya and Galal (1971). Proximate analyses of feed and excreta were carried
out following A.O.A.C. (1990).
Carcass characteristics:-
At the end of the experimental period (44 wks of age), six birds were chosen
randomly from each treatment for slaughter test and carcass weights were
determined and presented as a percentage of live body weight. Meat of birds was
analyzed for moisture, crude protein, ether extract and ash content. Colon content
samples were collected by pressing the outer wall of cut ileum to push its
content into sterile glass bottle. pH value was determined in colon samples at once
then frozen until used for microbiological examination.
Biochemical Parameters:-
At the end of the experimental period, individual blood samples were taken
from six birds from each treatment. The biochemical characteristics of blood were
determined colorimetrically, using commercial kits. Blood samples were centrifuged
at 3000 rpm for 20 minutes. Plasma was decanted and stored frozen at -20°C until the
time of analysis. After measuring the egg quality, three yolk samples from each
treatment were separated from the broken eggs and extracted to determine yolk
cholesterol and total lipids according to Folch et al. (1957), while plasma cholesterol,
total lipids, total protein, albumin, globulin, transamiase (AST) and alanine
transamiase (ALT), were determined in blood plasma using commercial kits
(Produced by Bio-Diagnostics Company, Egypt). Total antioxidant capacity
(mmol/L), IgG and IgM in plasma were determined using commercial kit. Non-
coagulated blood was tested shortly after collection for determination blood pictures
including, red blood cells count (RBCs, 106 /mm3), white blood cells count (WBCs,
103/mm3), different subclasses of WBC's (lymphocyte, neutophils, monocytes,
eosinophils and basophil percentages), hemoglobin concentration (Hb) and
hematocrite value (Ht) according to Drew et al. (2004).
=================================================================================
th
==========================================================================================================================
Economical Efficiency:-
The total feed cost (L.E/hen) at the end of the experiment for each treatment
was calculated depending on the local market prices of the ingredients used for
formulating the experimental diet. Economical efficiency (EE) and relative economic
efficiency (REE) were calculated.
Statistical analysis:-
Data were statistically analyzed according to SPSS (2012) computer program
using the following fixed model: Yij=µ + Ti + eij
Where: Yij = the observation; µ = overall mean; Ti = effect of treatments; eij=
random error component assumed to be normally distributed.
Duncan's multiple range tests was performed (Duncan, 1955) to detect
significant differences among means.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

1- Production Performance:
1-1. Body weight and body weight gain:-
Improving the productive traits in local chicken strain by using levels propolis
is summarized in Table (2 ) . Hens fed propolis diet recorded significantly heavier
FBW and BWG. These results are well agreed with the previous results of Khojasteh
and Shivazad (2006), Galal, et al. (2008b) Mathivanan et al. (2013), Tatli Seven
(2013) and Attia et al. (2014a). Ozkok, et al. (2013) they said that this improved
effect is partially due to its high content of flavonoids and increase feed intake of
propolis diets than the control. Also, they suggest that propolis has positive effect on
performance. Izabella et al. (2012) suggested that the improvement in breeding
parameters results from the antioxidant properties of flavonoids, which positively
affect the condition of the alimentary canal (mainly through anti-microbial
activity), digestion processes, and absorption of nutrients. Additionally, the high
palatability of propolis components (waxes, resins, honey, and vanillin) was
thought to increase fodder consumption, causing improvement in growth rates and
increased body mass.
In the present experiment, increased BW and BWG with propolis may be due
to improve their crude protein digestibility and attributed to the antibacterial,
antioxidant, antagonistic, antimicrobial, antifungal, antiviral, immunostimulatory and
anti-inflammatory activity and improving nutrient utilization due to the presence of
flavonoids and phenolic acids (Banskota et al. 2001; Atungulu et al. 2007,
Mathivanan, et al. 2013 and Attia, et al. 2014a). Such factors may positively affect
digestion and/or absorption of feed ingredients in the digestive tract. Also, the
improvement of BW and BWG of propolis levels may be due to a beneficial microbial
environment in the gut, which might have enhanced digestion, absorption and
utilization of nutrients (Table 3). Also, improved animal performance depending on
increased FI might be associated with the taste of feed. The improvement in growth
performance of hens may be attribute with containing the propolis on the unlimited
nutritive compounds. On contrary, Ziaran et al. (2005) also reported that propolis
supplementation did not have any effect on BWG.
=================================================================================
th
==========================================================================================================================
1-2. Egg Production:

Data of Table (2) indicated that there were significant increases of TEP and
EP % for hens fed diet supplemented with propolis compared with those fed the
control diet. The highest values were recorded with 200 or 300 mg/Kg of propolis
diet. Our results are in agreement with the results of Tatli Seven (2008) observed that
positive effects of supplementation with propolis (especially 5 g/kg diet) on bird EP,
and Galal, et al. (2008a, b) reported that dietary supplemental propolis at 100 and
150 mg significantly increased number of eggs compared to control-group. Bonomi et
al. (1976) reported that supplemental 30 mg propolis in diet significantly increased
EP by 6.07% compared with control. This effect is due to high content of flavonoids
and healthy conditions of birds fed propolis. On the other hand, Ozkok, et al. (2013)
reported that the mean EP of the groups (control, 100, 200 and 4 0 0 ) mg kg-1 of
propolis did not differ from each other significantly (P>0.05). Silici and Guclu-
Kocaoglu, ( 2010) indicating that supplementation of quail rations with 1 and 4 g
kg -1 of propolis did not have any significant effect on egg production. The highest
production in treated groups can be discussed from the point that propolis contains
digestive enzymes (glucose oxidase, catalase and peroxidase), 10% essential and
aromatic oils and 5% pollen from the bees which may be associated with
improvement in digestibility of all nutrients (Burdock, 1998, Hegazi and Abd El
Hady, 2002 and Khojasteh and Shivazad, 2006).
The increase in EP with propolis supplementation may be due to higher
nutrients digestibility (Table 4). Also, propolis consist of flavonoids, enzymes,
vitamins and amino acids this component increased from digestibility and may be due
to an increase in the efficiency of nutrition absorption and/or nutrients utilization thus
may be reflected on better performance production and reproductive animal. Also,
increase in the EP percent in the treated groups with the propolis could have been due
to its antibacterial and antifungal effects which can lead to decrease the amount of
harmful microbes in digestive system and improve their immunity and performance.
Also, increase in the EP may be due to the presence of vitamins and fat soluble
unidentified factors (a mixture of unsaturated fatty acids including linoleic,
linolenic, palmitic, stearic, oleic acid and arachidonic acids) which have been
determined as essential for egg production (Attia, et al., 2014a).
1-3. Egg weight and egg mass:
In the present study, it was observed that the EW and EM measured at
the end of the trial of the laying hens given feed supplemented with propolis
displayed statistically significant differences (Table 2). The trial group which was
given feed containing propolis at a dose of 200 and 300 mg / kg displayed the highest
EW my improve the productive performance; health and immunity in poultry. These
results are well agreed with the previous results of Bonomi et al. (1976), Galal, et al.
(2008a, b), Tatli Seven (2008), Silici and Guclu-Kocaoglu ( 2010) and Seven, et
al. (2011).
Increase EM with propolis supplementation can be due to the increase of
laying rate rather than the individual EW. Likewise, the tendency for improvement in
FCR was mainly due to the increased EM rather than the effect on FI. Increase EP
may be due to that propolis contain of 10% essential and aromatic oils that have been
identified as essential for the production of eggs (Burdock, 1998).
=================================================================================
th
==========================================================================================================================
1-4. Feed intake and feed conversion:

The data showed that there are significant effect of natural propolis on FCR,
CPC and CCR (Table 2). However, TFI increased but no significant effect was
observed. Hens fed propolis diet recorded significantly better FCR values, CPC and
CCR. This could be due to the antioxidant and palatable properties of propolis. These
affirmative findings on FI are similar to the previous findings stating that broilers
supplemented with propolis had higher FI (Khojasteh and Shivazad, 2006). Abdel-
Rahman and Mosaad (2013) and Ozkok, et al. (2013) the data indicated a non
significant difference in FI fed control and propolis added diets (2 gm / Kg of diet) of
ducks and laying hen at doses of 100, 200 and 400 mg kg-1. Tatli Seven et al.
(2008), Khojasteh and Shivazad (2006), Yousef, et al. (2010) and Seven, et al.
(2012) who suggested that the increase in FI of animals treated with propolis due to
high content of ﬂavonoids.
Bonomi et al. (1976), Khojasteh and Shivazad (2006) and Galal, et al.
(2008a) found an increase in FI when laying hens were fed propolis versus control
groups. They concluded that increase in FI in the propolis groups may be due to
improved birds health and higher palatability of propolis diets due to mixture of
resine, wax, honey and vanillin content of propolis. Izabella et al. (2012) suggested
that the improvement in breeding parameters results from the antioxidant properties of
flavonoids, which positively affect the condition of the alimentary canal (mainly
through anti-microbial activity), digestion processes, and absorption of nutrients.
Additionally, the high palatability of propolis components (waxes, resins, honey and
vanillin) was thought to increase fodder consumption, causing improvement in growth
rates and increased body mass. On the other hand, El-Hanoun et al. (2007) and Attia
et al. (2014a) they reported that decrease in feed intake of animals treated with
propolis compared to control.
The present result indicated that the propolis supplementation at all levels had
significantly improved FCR compared to control. These results are well agreed with
the previous results of Bonomi et al. (1976), Ziaran et al. (2005), Tatli-Seven
(2008), Galal, et al. (2008 a,b) and Ozkok, et al. (2013). The increase FI and egg
mass in propolis groups, resulting in significantly improve FCR compared to control-
group. Also, this effect is due to high content of flavonoids and healthy conditions of
birds fed propolis.
In the present experiment, improved FCR with propolis may be due to
improve their crude protein digestibility and attributed to the antibacterial, antioxidant
and improving nutrient utilization due to the presence of flavonoids and phenolic
acids propolis. Also, the improvement of FCR of propolis levels may be due to a
beneficial microbial environment in the gut, which in might have enhanced digestion,
absorption and utilization of nutrients. Also, the improvement of FCR which obtained
may be due to the antibacterial, antioxidant, antagonistic, antimicrobial, antifungal,
antiviral, immunostimulatory and anti-inflammatory activity and improving nutrient
utilization due to the presence of flavonoids and phenolic acids and content of the
essential oil in propolis (Banskota et al. 2001; Atungulu et al. 2007, Mathivanan, et
al. 2013 and Attia, et al. 2014a).
The improvement FCR in treated groups can be discussed from the point that
propolis contains digestive enzymes (glucose oxidase, catalase and peroxidase), 10%
essential and aromatic oils, 5% pollen from the bees which may be associated with
=================================================================================
th
==========================================================================================================================

Hady, 2002) and Khojasteh and Shivazad, 2006).
1-5. Mortality rate:
Results indicated that there was no dead birds for 200 and 300 treated propolis
birds (Table 2). Similar reports were drawn by Giurgea et al. (1981), Khojasteh and
Shivazad (2006) and Tatli Seven et al. (2008) they reported that addition of propolis
stimulated the immune system and decreased mortality rate by improving immunity.
These results may be due to antimicrobial effect of propolis which could stimulate
the immune system and increase vitality, regulation of the intestinal microflora by
reducing count of Entero bacteriaceae family in chicken’s crops, and increasing
number of beneficial lactic acid bacteria (Basim et al., 2006 and Kročko et al.,
2012). Also, it may be due to propolis supplementation to diets which may result
in lower pH values in chicken’s crops, which in turn regulate the intestinal micro-
flora and protect chicks from many diseases (Perić et al., 2009). Also, this may be
due to the antioxidant, antibacterial, antifungal, antagonistic, antiinflammatory,
immunomodulatory, essential oil and to known antibiotics as well as, flavenoids,
polyphenolic compounds and certain alkaloids which stimulate immune function
(Banskota et al. 2001; Atungulu et al. 2007, Mathivanan, et al. 2013 and Attia, et
al. 2014a). They indicated that stimulation the immune system which this effect
resulted decreased in mortality as compared to the control. On the other hand, Seven
et al. (2011) reported that mortality rates were significantly increased, ranged from
3.33% on propolis groups compared to control 0.00%.
2- Digestibility coefficient:
Table (3) shows that the digestibility of all nutrients were significantly (P≤0.05)
increased by propolis inclusion, being optimized for 300 mg/kg diet. These results are
in agreement with Bonomi et al. (2002) in ducks, Mathivanan et al. (2013) who
reported that dietary supplementation of animal with propolis can increase
digestibility. Tatli Seven (2008) showed that propolis supplementation
significantly improved nutrient digestibility (except of ash and CF). The highest
digestibility of all nutrients in treated groups can be discussed from the point that
propolis contains digestive enzymes (glucose oxidase, catalase and peroxidase),
minerals (Mg, Ca, I, K, Na, Cu, Zn, Mn, P, Fe, Si and Co), 10% essential and
aromatic oils and 5% pollen from the bees which may be associated with
Hady, 2002, Khalil, 2006 and Khojasteh and Shivazad, 2006).
Propolis contains a range of biologically active compounds like phenol
compounds, flavonoids (primuletin, chrysine, tecochrysine, akacetine, galangine,
morin, robinetin),terpenes, lipid-wax substances, bioelements, vitamins (A, D, F, K,
E, B1, B2, B5, B6, B12, C, H, P), enzymes (alpha and beta amylase, succinic
dehydrogenase, glucose-6-phosphatase, adenosine triphosphatase and acid
phosphatase), amino acids, essential fatty acids and aromatic oils, sterols, steroids,
plant steroids and plant sterols (ergosterol, stigmasterol, steroidal saponins, steroidal
alkaloids) reported by (Marcucci, 1995 and Khalil, 2006). Nonetheless, the
compounds with antimicrobial effect maintained the health of the digestive tract
and improved both digestion and absorption. Izabella et al. (2012) suggested that the
improvement in breeding parameters results from the antioxidant properties of
flavonoids, which positively affect the condition of the alimentary canal (mainly
=================================================================================
th
==========================================================================================================================
through anti-microbial activity), digestion processes, and absorption of nutrients.

Additionally, the high palatability of propolis components (waxes, resins, honey,
and vanillin) was thought to increase fodder consumption, causing improvement
in growth rates and increased body mass.
Bonomi et al. (1976) reported that flavonoid content of propolis improving
digestive system health in return increasing feed consumption. Consequently, the
improving in the nutrients digestibility for treated groups may be reflected on better
growth performance as shown in Table (2). The partially positive effects of propolis
on the nutrient digestibility may be associated to its palatable, antimicrobial,
antioxidant antibacterial, antioxidant, antagonistic, antimicrobial, antifungal, antiviral,
immunostimulatory and anti-inflammatory activity and improving nutrient utilization
due to the presence of flavonoids and phenolic acids and content of the essential oil
in propolis (Banskota et al. 2001; Atungulu et al. 2007 and Attia, et al. 2014a). On
the other hand, Daneshmand et al. (2012) found that propolis extract has no effect (P
> 0.05) on CP or OM retention when compared to control.
3- Egg Quality:
As shown in Table (4) indicate that there were significantly (P≤0.05) increased
differences on egg shape index (ESI), yolk percentages and shell thickness. While,
treatments had no significant effect on egg shell percentage and albumen. Tatli
Seven et al. (2008) observed that significantly improved egg qualities (weight, ESI,
yolk, shell thickness). These positive effects were evidenced by increases of growth
performances and digestibility together with improvement of egg shell thickness and
egg weight in comparison to non-supplemented birds (Tatli Seven, 2008). Galal, et
al. (2008a, b) noticed that there was no significant difference among treatment groups
for albumen percentage. However, the eggshell thickness from laying hens fed diet
containing either 100 or 150 mg propolis were significantly higher compared to other
groups. Silici and Guclu-Kocaoglu, ( 2010) demonstrate that propolis addition
positive effected egg shell quality.
The egg shell is constituted by approximately 95% calcium carbonate, 0.3%
P, 0.3% Mg, and traces of Na, K, Zn, Mn, Fe and Cu (O’connor-Dennie, 2004).
Propolis contains minerals (Mg, Ca, I, K, Na, Cu, Zn, Mn, P, Fe, Si and Co) reported
by Khalil (2006). The increased digestibility of calcium and phosphorus when
propolis is added to the diet could be due to the acid derivatives, such as benzoic, 4-
hydroxy-benzoic, etc., which are found in propolis (Haro et al., 2000 and Seven et
al., 2011) and that favor the solubility of calcium and phosphorus salts in the diet,
thus increasing the absorption of calcium. Propolis may improve the small
environment in uterus (Site of calcium deposition) and consequently increase shell
thickness. On the other hand, Ozkok, et al. (2013) demonstrated that egg shell
thickness values and egg weight were not affected by the supplementation of
laying hen rations with propolis.
4- Reproductive Traits::
Table (5) reports the influence of different levels of propolis on semen quality,
fertility, hatchability and hatching chick weight. Results obtained declared that
supplementation layer diet with propolis had significant effect on semen quality,
fertility percentage, hatchability and chick weight. El-Hanoun et al. (2007) reported
that the highest fertility rate was observed in rabbits treated of propolis compared to
untreated group. The positive effects of propolis on semen quality observed in the
=================================================================================
th
==========================================================================================================================
present study are in accordance with those obtained by Hashema, et al. (2013) when
propolis was fed to male rabbits. Sperm motility is an important functional
measurement to predict sperm fertilizing capacity. Any negative impact on motility
would seriously affect fertilizing ability. Sperm motility may be affected by altered
enzymatic activities of oxidative phosphorolytic process.
Kamel et al. (2007) reported that the highest fertility rate, increasing litter
size, born alive per litter for with treated rabbit does with bee propolis. Silici and
Guclu-Kocaoglu, ( 2010) reported that propolis addition positive effected fertility
egg rate. Propolis contains a range of biologically active compounds like phenol
compounds, flavonoids (primuletin, chrysine, tecochrysine, akacetine, galangine,
morin, robinetin),terpenes, lipid-wax substances, bioelements, vitamins (A, D, F, K,
E, B1, B2, B5, B6, B12, C, H, P), minerals, enzymes (alpha and beta amylase), amino
acids, sterols, steroids, plant steroids and plant sterols (ergosterol, stigmasterol,
steroidal saponins, steroidal alkaloids) reported by (Marcucci, 1995 and Khalil,
2006). Flavonoids may possess anti-inflammatory, estrogenic, enzyme-inhibitory,
antimi-crobial, immunostimulatory, antiallergic, antioxidant and antitumour activities
reported by (Banskota et al. 2001; Atungulu et al. 2007, Mathivanan, et al. 2013
and Attia, et al. 2014a).
5- Carcass traits and Chemical analysis of meat:
Effect of propolis supplementation to the diets on relative weights of
some carcass traits of laying hens are presented in Table (6). The observed
dressing percentage values were 54.0, 56.40, 61.93 and 67.30 % of the groups fed
diets for control, 100, 200 and 300 mg propolis /kg diet, respectively, it was
improved by about 4.44, 14.68 and 24.63%, respectively as compared to the
control group, While, there were no significant differences between propolis diets in
gizzard and heart. The increase in carcass traits for treated groups may be mainly
related to the increase in growth performance and digestibility. Also, the improvement
in growth performance resulted from the addition of propolis could be due to the
better absorption of amino acids or/and due to antibacterial properties of propolis.
The increase of spleen weight % may be due to immunostimulate activity of propolis
compound. This indicated that decrease mortality with supplemented propolis (Table
2). Hens fed propolis had significantly (P<0.05) low abdominal fat%. The low fat
percentage may be due to the effect of essential oil compounds of propolis on lipid
metabolism. The results were supported by Attia, et al. (2014b) in rabbits.
On the other hand, Coloni et al. (2006) showed that the levels of propolis
alcohol extract (PAE; 0, 0.8 ml and 1.5 ml) did not affect the carcass characteristics
(carcass edible viscera yields, skin, head, lungs, stomach, legs and caecum relative
weights of growing NZW rabbits slaughtered at 84 days of age). In addition, Coloni
et al. (2007) found that the oral administration of PAE to growing NZW rabbits did
not affect the carcass traits compared to control, expect for the body weight, that was
higher in the rabbits given PAE, and for the gut, that had a higher weight in the
rabbits received no addition to their diet.
Lower abdominal fat percent obtained with supplemented propolis in hens
might be due to the lower digestible energy intake by hens compared to the control as
shown in Table (2). Also, the decrease the fat content, because the propolis content
flavonoids, and the flavonoids are decrease plasma lipid levels or yolk and
attenuate obesity.
=================================================================================
th
==========================================================================================================================
Effects of propolis supplementation on some chemical analysis of laying

hens meat are presented in Table (6). Protein content of meat was improved by
about 4.84, 12.97 and 14.02 %,whereas, EE was significantly decreased (P<0.05) by
46.88, 52.04 and 61.72% for the groups fed 100, 200 and 300 mg BB/kg diets as
compared to the control, respectively. These results are in agreement with those
obtained by Awad et al. (2013). The increase in protein in rabbit meat (with
increasing propolis level) improves the value and quality of rabbit meat. This could
be explained by the decrease in creatinin and blood urea as an indication of higher
protein anabolism of rabbits. Also, this increase in protein in rabbit meat can be
attributed mainly to the presence of amino acids, vitamins, increase of protein
digestibility as mentioned in Table (3) and trace elements of propolis are nutritionally
beneficial for improving intestinal absorption and digestion of all nutrient due the
stimulus to the development, proliferation and differentiation of intestinal cells and
because they improve the environmental conditions for the intestinal microbial
ecosystem.
6- Microbial determination:
Data presented in Table (7) showed that the total microflora count (104 cfu/g)
significantly decreased (P<0.05) with increasing propolis up to 300 mg propolis/
kg diet in colon of laying hens fed dietary treatments compared with the control
group. It was 1.48 for control group, 1.25, 1.16 and 0.88 (104 cfu/g) for propolis
level 100, 200 and 300 mg propolis/ kg diet, respectively in colon. In the present
experiment, decreased pH and total microflora count with propolis may be due to the
antibacterial, antioxidant and the presence of flavonoids and phenolic acids. Also, the
low pH of propolis levels may be due to a beneficial microbial environment in the
gut, which might have enhanced digestion, absorption and utilization of nutrients.
Concerning the antimicrobial effect of propolis, it was attributed to increase the
immune status of the host through activation of the macrophages, increase phagocytic
activity. It could be declared that decreasing pH may increase the beneficial bacteria
and decrease the harmful one.
Abdel–Mohsein et al. (2014) concluded that propolis might alleviate
hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) through increasing both lactobacilli and
bifidobacteria and reducing total aerobics and coliform bacteria within the gut of
broiler chicks. In addition, the positive effect of propolis in suppressing the total
aerobic and coliform bacterial counts in broilers litter has been clearly shown at the
end of the experiment. Also, added that phenolic compounds can especially be
used to reduce the bacterial population in the proximal and more acidic parts of
the gastrointestinal tract. The mechanism of action of antibacterial properties of
flavonoid is by interfering bacterial cell wall permeability, microsome, and lysosome
as a result of its interaction with bacterial DNA (Bryan, 1982).
7- Total lipids and cholesterol in plasma and yolk:
Table (8) shows the effect of different dietary levels of propolis on
blood and yolk total lipids and cholesterol. Plasma and yolk total lipids and
cholesterol were significantly reduced (P<0.05) of laying hens fed propolis compared
to control. The decrease in plasma lipids and cholesterol of hens fed propolis could be
attributed to increasing the intake of unsaturated fatty acids. Results of serum lipids
revealed that the propolis has a decreasing effect on total cholesterol which may
be attributed to the presence of flavonoids, steroids, phenolic acids and their
=================================================================================
th
==========================================================================================================================
esters among propolis constituents. Similar results were reported by Awad et al.
(2013), Hashem et al. (2013) and Attia, et al. (2014a, b) they reported that the
treatment with propolis caused significant decrease in serum total lipids and
cholesterol compared to control group. The highest biological activity in propolis is
the flavonoids. In fact these compounds are responsible for the prevention of lipid
peroxidation.
Seven et al., (2010) they determined that there is decrease in plasma
cholesterol of hens fed propolis. However, it was reported that propolis increased the
blood lipid, cholesterol levels, and blood viscosity, and decreased the arteriosclerosis
(Burdock, 1998 and Tatlı Seven et al., 2009). The decrease of total lipid and
cholesterol may be due to the effect of essential oil compounds a n d flavonoids
present in propolis on lipid metabolism. Also, the decrease of total lipid and
cholesterol in plasma was found to be correlated to decreasing these parameters in
yolk egg. These finding may be due to the effect of essential oil components present
in propolis on lipid metabolism. Also, propolis contains some components such as
essential fatty acids which inhibit hepatic 3- hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme
A (HMG-CO A) reductase activity (Crowell, 1999) which is a key regulatory
enzyme in cholesterol synthesis. This may lead to produce enriched eggs that are
healthier for human consumption and seful for those suffering from heart diseases.
8- Blood constituents:
8-1. Protein fractions:
Table (9) shows that total plasma protein, albumen and globulin were
significantly (P<0.05) lower for control than those fed propolis. The increase of total
protein, albumin and globulin within normal range in blood hens received propolis
diet may be associated with improvement of crude protein synthesis, and digestion of
protein as shown in Table (4). This result is in harmony with finding of Kamel et al.
(2007), El-Hanoun et al. (2007), Galal, et al. (2008a, b) and Abdel-Rahman and
Mosaad (2013) they reported that improvement total protein, albumin and globulin.
The increase in plasma protein and albumin may be due to increasing in protein
and/or amino acids supply due to propolis administration (Marcucci, 1995 and
Khalil, 2006). On the other hand, Seven et al. (2010) reported that no significant
changes were found in plasma albumin of doe rabbits treated with bee propolis
compared to control group.
Increased globulin concentration with increased propolis inclusion which was
observed in the present study may be an indication of increased immunity in laying
hens since the liver will be able to synthesize enough globulins for immunologic
action. This explains the decrease in the mortality with increased propolis. In my
opinion the increase in total protein, albumin and globulin with propolis addition may
be due to the improving microbial activity in gut and microbial protein yield, then
increased total protein synthesis and increase in digestion of protein in digestive tract
of hens fed diet supplemented with propolis. These results may be due to flavonoids,
essential fatty acids and aromatic oils in propolis which may play role in protection
the feed passage in digestive tract from bacteria attack since fatty acids have been
identified as bactericidal factors.
=================================================================================
th
==========================================================================================================================
8-2. Humoral immune response:

The analysis of variance indicated that there were significantly (P<0.05)
increased differences between IgG, IgM and total antioxidants capacity values (Table
9). Concentrations of IgG, IgM and total antioxidants capacity values in plasma were
higher in 300 followed by 200 and 100 mg propolis /kg diet, while they lower in
control. These results are in agreed with those obtained by Fan et al. (2013). Çetin
et al. (2010) reported that IgG and IgM levels were significantly higher (P< 0.05) in
the group receiving 3 g/kg of propolis in the diets laying hens when compared with
the control and other treatment groups (0.50, 1,6 g/kg). Therefore, in our study, the
increased levels of IgG and IgM in birds of groups given of propolis may be related to
the stimulation of B lymphocytes by these cytokines. ziaran et al. (2005) who
reported that humoral immunity was modulated by different levels of propolis in
the diet of broilers. On the other hand, Taheri et al. (2005) observed that a relatively
negative effect of a higher concentration of propolis on humoral immunity of broilers
and concluded that the broiler’s immune system may respond to propolis on a crucial
dosage. In this study, the suppressive effect of 300 mg /kg of propolis on T
lymphocytes could be attributed to caffeic acid phenethyl ester. Because of the high
chemical complexity of propolis, it is difficult to identify which components are
responsible for its biological activities.
8-3. Enzymatic profile:
The analysis of variance indicated that there were not significant differences
(P<0.05) between AST and ALT (Table 9). Values AST and ALT were within the
normal range and indicated that the chicks were generally in a good nutritional status
and their livers were in a normal health condition. These results may dedicated to
improvement of liver function in hens. The highest biological activity in propolis is
the flavonoids. Also, these results may explain that propolis treatment is safe with
liver functions and so it had not any harmful effect on liver tissues. These results are
in agreed with those obtained by Hashem et al. (2013) and Seven et al. (2010)
determined that there is no effect on AST and ALT to propolis supplementation
conducted in broilers. Tatli Seven (2009) and Attia, et al. (2014a) showed that is no
effect on ALT to propolis supplementation conducted in broilers. On the other hand,
Kamel et al. (2007) and El-Hanoun et al. (2007) reported that treatment with bee
propolis caused significant (P<0.05) decreases in serum liver enzymes activity (AST
and ALT) compared with control group. Galal, et al. (2008a) noticed that
supplemental Propolis at 100 and 150 mg significantly reduced AST and ALT
concentration compared to control-group.
8-4. Blood components:
Results of Table (9) indicate that using different dietary propolis levels of
Dokki 4 resulted in a significant increase (P≤0.05) in RBC and WBC, Hb, Ht,
lymphocytes, eosinophils, neutrophils and monocytes percentages, while the basophils
percentage was not significantly influenced. The immunity responsiveness
represented in leukocytes counts and mainly on lymphocytes increased with
increasing propolis.
These results are in accordance with Kamel et al. (2007), El-Hanoun et al.
(2007), Galal, et al. (2008a), Awad et al. (2013) and Attia, et al. (2014a, b) they
reported that improvement in the RBC, WBC, Hb and leukocytes counts. The
=================================================================================
th
==========================================================================================================================
improvement in hematological parameters of hens treated by bee propolis may be due

to that bee propolis is rich in most microelements including iron and selenium who
reported by (El-Ansarey, 2004). Also, propolis consist of flavonoids, enzymes,
vitamins and amino acids this components increased from digestibility and may be
due to an increase in the efficiency of nutrition absorption and/or nutrients utilization
thus may be reflected on better performance production. Bee propolis feeding
caused increase in lymphocyte count as it contains antioxidant materials which
affected on antioxidative processes and immunity. Propolis improves the digestive
utilization of iron and increases the regeneration efficiency of hemoglobin especially
during recovery from an anemic syndrome (Haro et al., 2000).
These results may be due to bee propolis offer indirect protection by activating
endogenous defensive systems. Also, this might be due to the effects on hemopoietic
organs because it contains some vitamins such as vitamins (A, D, F, K, E, B 1, B2,
B5, B6, B12, C, H, P, biotin pantothenic acid, folic acid and biotin, which are essential
for normal growth of the haemopoietic organs and erythropoiesis. Also, the
improvements in the blood components as a result of treatment with propolis may be
due to improvement in the immune response (minerals and flavonoids have a role in
enhancing immune system). The increase in WBCs in treated groups can be
attributed mainly to the antibacterial functions, antibiotic, antineoplasic, antifungal,
antidiarrhoeic and antioxidant of propolis. The lymphocyte is considered the main
type of white blood corpuscles and a good indicator of increasing the immunity
efficiency.
Economical Efficiency:
Data illustrated in Table (10) showed that hens fed ration supplemented with
propolis gave more egg number than the control group. Moreover, propolis
supplementation tended to get more economic efficiency (1.31, 1.33 and 1.39) and
increase in net revenue. These results were agreement with those obtained by Kamel
et al. (2007), El-Hanoun et al. (2007) and Zeedan and Komonna (2013) they found
that the rabbits and buffalos treated with propolis showed a higher value of
economical efficiency than in the control group.
In conclusion:
It could be recommended that using propolis supplementation in hens diet
tended to improve the productive performance, digestion, immunity, and economic
efficiency. Also, produce eggs with lower yolk cholesterol that are healthier for
human. More studies are required in this field to confirm the present results.
=================================================================================
th
==========================================================================================================================
Table1. Composition and calculated chemical analyses of the experimental basal diet.
Ingredients %
Yellow corn 65.14

Soybean meal (44%) 25.10
Limestone 7.60
NaCl 0.30
Di-Calcium Phosphate 1.50
DL-Methionine 0.06
Premix* 0.30
Total 100
Calculated analyses**
Crude protein % 16.09
ME, Kcal / kg 2744
C / P ratio 170.54
Crude fiber % 3.33
Ca % 3.29
P (Available) % 0.40
Lysine % 0.90
Methionine % 0.35
Met. + Cyct 0.62
Tryptophan 0.19
*Each 3 Kg of vitamins and minerals premix contained: 10000000 IU Vit. A, 10000 mg Vit. E, 1000 mg Vit. K3, 2000000 IU
Vit. D, 1000 mg Vit. B, 10000 mg Pantothenic acid, 10 mg Vit. B12, 1500 mg Vit. B, 5000 mg Vit. B2 , 30000mg Niacin,
300000 mg Choline chloride, 1000 mg Folic acid, 50 mg Biotin , 300 mg I, 60000 mg Mn, 50000 mg Zn, 30000 mg Fe, 4000
mg Cu, 100 mg Se and 100 mg Co.
**According to Feed Composition Tables for animal & poultry feedstuffs used in Egypt (2001).
Table 2. Effects of feeding propolis on the productive performance of Dokki 4 laying hens
during the experimental period.
Diet (mg/kg propolis )
Parameter Control SEM Sig.
100 200 300
IBWgm 1497.33 1495.77 1493.11 1500.00 10.12 NS
FBWgm 1625.22d 1669.00c 1722.00b 1751.33a 9.20 *
BWG gm 127.89d 173.23c 228.89b 251.33a 2.50 *
TEP 52.00d 58.18c 61.26b 65.48a 0.98 *
EP% 61.90d 69.26c 72.93b 77.95a 0.65 *
EW gm 49.00 b 49.08 b 50.55 a 50.80 a 1.01 *
EM kg 2.55c 2.86c 3.10b 3.33a 0.04 *
TFI kg 9.73 9.75 9.79 9.83 0.85 NS
FCR 3.82a 3.41b 3.16c 2.95d 0.01 *
CPC 0.61a 0.55b 0.51bc 0.47c 0.01 *
CCR 10.47a 9.35b 8.67c 8.10d 0.10 *
Mortality rate 6.67 3.33 0.00 0.00 - -
Means in the same row having different letters are significantly different (p≤0.05). NS, not significant.
IBW= initial body weight, FBW=final body weight, BWG=body weight gain, TEP=total egg production, EP=egg production,
EW=egg weight, EM=egg mass, TFI=total feed intake, FCR=feed conversion, CPC = crude protein conversion, CCR= caloric
conversion ratio.
=================================================================================
th
==========================================================================================================================
Table 3.Effects of feeding propolis on nutrients digestibility coefficient values of Dokki 4 laying
hens.
Propolis (mg/kg diet) DM% CP% CF% EE% NFE
Control 80.95b 80.25c 24.77c 72.44c 72.50c
100 84.16a 83.45b 24.85c 73.21bc 76.33b
200 84.45a 84.44b 25.53b 74.14b 77.87ab
300 85.50a 86.84a 27.77a 76.54a 78.73a
SEM 0.91 0.23 0.15 0.80 0.95
Sig * * * * *
Means in the same column having different letters are significantly different (p≤0.05). NS, not significant.
Table 4. Effects of feeding propolis on Interior and eggshell quality parameters of Dokki 4
laying hens.
Propolis (mg/kg diet) Egg shape index (ESI) Shell, % Albumen, % Yolk, % Shell thickness (mm)
Control 72.5c 14.2 53.1 32.1b 0.36b
100 74.6b 13.0 54.3 32.7b 0.37b
200 76.9ab 13.2 51.8 34.0a 0.38ab
300 78.8a 13.6 54.2 35.2a 0.40a
SEM 0.85 0.81 1.51 0.20 0.01
Sig * NS NS * *
Means in the same column having different letters are significantly different (p≤0.05). NS, not significant.
Table 5. Effects of feeding propolis on the semen quality, fertility, hatchability and hatched chick
weights of Dokki 4.
Diet (mg/kg propolis )
Parameter Control SEM Sig.
100 200 300
Semen volume, (ml) 0.53d 0.60c 0.68b 0.80a 0.01 *
Concentration, (109/ ml) 2.98d 5.65c 6.40b 6.87a 0.02 *
Live sperm, (%) 77.20d 87.10c 91.45b 95.50a 0.04 *
Normality, (%) 77.50d 81.02b 82.50 b 85.20 a 0.50 *
Motility, (%) 68.35d 75.32c 85.30 b 96.50 a 0.51 *
Fertility, (%) 85.53c 90.35 b 94.50a 96.63 a 0.85 *
Hatchability, (%) 66.97 d 72.75c 77.65b 82.98a 0.78 *
Average chick weight,(g) 27.91c 31.64b 32.38ab 35.01a 0.20 *
Table 6. Effects of feeding propolis on the carcass yield and some slaughter traits for Dokki 4
laying hens.
Item Propolis (mg/kg diet) SEM Sig

Control 100 200 300
Live body weight (LBW), g 1636.50d 1684.33c 1752.00b 1783.00a 4.12 *
Dressing,% 54.0c 56.40c 61.93b 67.30a 0.25 *
d c b
Total giblets weight (%) 4.47 4.64 4.90 5.05a 0.08 *
Gizzard % 1.84 1.87 1.87 1.89 0.04 NS
Heart % 0.50 0.54 0.55 0.56 0.04 NS
Liver % 2.13c 2.23b 2.48a 2.60a 0.01 *
Spleen % 0.146c 0.167b 0.175a 0.178a 0.003 *
a b c
Abdominal fat (%) 2.47 2.08 1.20 1.15d 0.01 *
Chemical analysis of carcass meat on DM basis
Moisture, % 69.41a 66.02b 65.03c 64.10c 0.08 *
c bc ab
CP, % 17.55 18.40 19.82 20.01a 0.01 *
a b c
EE, % 4.65 2.47 2.23 1.78c 0.01 *
Means in the same row having different letters are significantly different (p≤0.05).
=================================================================================
th
==========================================================================================================================
Table 7. Effects of feeding propolis on the colon pH, total microflora count (104 cfu/g) for
Dokki 4 laying hens.
Propolis (mg/kg diet) Colon pH Total microflora count (104 cfu/g)
Control 6.78a 1.48a
100 6.21b 1.25b
200 6.00bc 1.16c
300 5.85c 0.88d
SEM 0.02 0.01
Sig. * *
Means in the same column having different letters are significantly different (p≤0.05).
Table 8. Plasma and yolk total lipids and cholesterol of laying hens fed different levels of
propolis.
Propolis (mg/kg diet) Plasma Yolk
Total lipids (g/L) Cholesterol ( mg/dl) Total lipids (mg/g) Cholesterol ( mg/g)
Control 30.29a 133.5a 350.5a 16.15a
100 20.10 b 128.1 b
330.2a 12.66b
200 16.56c 120.0c 300.1b 9.76c
300 12.25d 112.3d 232.5c 7.56d
SEM 1.51 2.01 8.5 0.40
Sig. * * * *
Means in the same column having different letters are significantly different (p≤0.05).
Table 9. Blood picture and some blood serum constituents of Dokki 4 laying hens as
affected by propolis treatment.
Items Propolis (mg/kg diet) SEM Sig.
Control 100 200 300
Protein fractions
Total protein (g/dl) 5.50b 5.88b 6.60a 6.75a 0.32 *
b a
Albumin (g/dl) 2.23 2.90 2.94 a 2.95 a 0.01 *
Globulin (g/dl) 2.27c 2.98 b 3.66 a 3.80 a 0.01 *
Humoral immune response
IgG (mg/dL) 80.71c 115.52b 121.51b 149.79a 8.50 *
IgM (mg/dL) 179.61d 210.52c 232.74b 268.07a 10.20 *
Total antioxidants capacity (mmol/L) 0.385c 0.570b 0.880a 0.886a 0.01 *
Enzymatic profile
AST (IU/ L) 42.21 42.52 43.02 43.10 1.52 NS
ALT (IU/ L) 13.01 12.80 13.12 13.56 0.87 NS
Hematological indices
Red blood cells (RBC, N × 106 /mm3) 3.07b 3.14b 3.66a 3.75a 0.03 *
Hemoglobin (Hb, g/dl) 10.10c 10.80c 11.52b 12.59a 0.09 *
Hematocrite(Ht, %) 31.15c 32.56b 36.25a 36.35a 0.25 *
White blood cells (WCR, N × 103/mm3) 5.11c 6.10b 6.98a 7.10a 0.12 *
Lymphocytes (%) 65.10b 66.30b 70.65a 71.12a 0.81 *
Monocytes (%) 2.41a 2.08b 1.49c 1.17d 0.02 *
Neutrophils (%) 30.00a 25.10b 21.12c 20.00c 0.20 *
Eosinophils (%) 1.33a 1.12b 0.75c 0.62c 0.01 *
Basophils (%) 1.67 1.45 1.10 1.03 0.01 NS
=================================================================================
th
==========================================================================================================================
Table 10. Effect of feeding propolis supplementations on economical efficiency of Dokki 4

laying hens.
Propolis (mg/kg diet)
Items
Control 100 200 300
Price/k feed (L.E.) 2.388 2.588 2.688 2.788
Total FI hen(kg) 9.73 9.75 9.79 9.83
Total feed cost/ hen (L.E) 23.24 25.23 26.32 27.41
Total EN/ hen 52.00 58.18 61.26 65.48
Price/ egg ( L.E ) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Total price of egg ( L.E ) 52.00 58.18 61.26 65.48
Net revenue per hen 28.76 32.95 34.94 38.07
Economic efficiency* (EE) 1.24 1.31 1.33 1.39
Relative (REE) 100 106 107 112
L.E = Egyptian pound. Propolis powder = 1.00 LE/g.
*
Economic Efficiency (EE) = (net return / T. Feed cost).
Relative economical efficiency (REE), assuming control treatment = 100 %.
REFERENCES
Abdel–Mohsein, H. S., Mahmoud, Manal A. M. and Mahmoud, U. T. (2014). Influence of

propolis on intestinal microflora of ross broilers exposed to hot environment. Adv.
Anim. Vet. Sci. 2 (4): 204 – 211.
Abdel-Rahman, M.A. and Mosaad, G.M. (2013). Effect of Propolis as Additive on Some
Behavioural Patterns, Performance and Blood Parameters in Muscovy Broiler Ducks.
J. of Adv. Vet. Res. 3: 64-68.
Abou-Raya, A. K. and Galal, A. G. H. (1971). Evaluation of poultry feeds in digestion
trials with reference to some factors involved. ARE. J. A n i m . Prod. 11: 207- 221.
A. O. A. C. (1990). Official Methods of Analysis, Association of official Analytical
Chemists.” 15th Ed., Washington, D. C., U.S.A.
Attia , Y.A., Abd Al-Hamid, A. E., Ibrahim, M. S., Al-Harthi. M. A., Bovera, F. and
Elnaggar, A. Sh. (2014a). Productive performance, biochemical and hematological
traits of broiler chickens supplemented with propolis, bee pollen, and mannan
oligosaccharides continuously or intermittently. Livestock Sci., 164: 87–95.
Attia, Y. A., El-Hanoun, A. M., Bovera, F., Monastra G., El-Tahawy, W. S. and Habiba,
H. I. (2014b). Growth performance, carcass quality, biochemical and haematological
traits and immune response of growing rabbits as affected by different growth
promoters. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr., 98: 128–139.
Atungulu, G.; Miura, M.; Atungulu, E.; Satou, Y. and Suzuki, K. (2007). Activity of
gaseous phase steam distilled propolis extracts on peroxidation and hydrolysis of rice
lipids. J. Food Eng., 80:850-858.
Awad, A. L.; Beshara, M.M.; Ibrahim, A.F. and Fahim, H. N. (2013). Effect of using bee
bread as a natural supplement on productive and physiological performance of local
Sinai chickens. 1- During growth period. Egypt. Poult. Sci. 33: 313-330.
Banskota, A. H., Tezuka, Y. and Kadota, S. (2001). Recent progress in pharmacological
research of propolis. Phytotherapy Res., 15: 561–571.
Basim, E.; Basim, H. and Ozcan, M. (2006). Antibacterial activities of Turkish pollen
and propolis extracts against plant bacterial pathogens, J. of Food Eng., 77: 992-
996.
Bonomi, A., Bonomi, B. M., Quarantellia, A., Sabbioni, A. and Superchi, P. (2002). The
use of propolis in ducks feeding. Riv. Sci. Aliment. 31:15-28.
Bonomi, A., Morletto, F. and Binachi, M. (1976). Propolis in feeds for laying hens.
Avicoltura, 54: 43-54.
Bryan, L. E. (1982). Bacterial resistance and susceptibility to chemotherapentic agents. Press
=================================================================================
th
==========================================================================================================================
Syndicate, Cambridge pages 20–24.

Burdock, G. A. (1998). Review of the biological properties and toxicity of bee Propolis
(Propolis). Food Chem. Toxicol. 36 (4): 347–363.
Çetin , E., Silici, S., Çetin, N. and Güçlü, B. K. (2010). Effects of diets containing
different concentrations of propolis on hematological and immunological variables in
laying hens. Poult. Sci., 89:1703–1708.
Coloni, R.; Lui, J. F.; dos Santos, E.; Neto, A. C.; Zanato, J. A. F.; da Silva, L. P. G.;
Malheiros, E. B.( 2007). Effect of propolis alcohol extract on the weight gain,
carcass traits and cecal pH of growing rabbits. Biotemas 20: 59–64.
Coloni, R.; Santos, E.; Oliveira, M. C.; Neto, A.; Malheiros, E. B. and Filho, E. P.( 2006)
Effect of oral administration of propolis alcoholic extract on the carcass of growing
rabbits. In: Proc. of the 3rd Rabbit Congress of the Amercas, Maringa, Parana, Brazil,
August, 21–23.
Crane, E. (1997). The past and present importance of bee products to man. 1-14. In: A
Mizrahi, Y Lensky (Ed), Bee Products: Properties, Applications, and Apitherapy.
Plenum Press, New York.
Crowell, P. L. (1999). Prevention and therapy of cancer by dietary Monoterpenes. J. Nutr.,
129: 775-778.
Daneshmand, A.; Sadeghi, G. H. and Karimi, A. (2012). The effects of a combination of
garlic, oyster mushroom and propolis extract in comparison to antibiotic on growth
performance, some blood parameters and nutrients digestibility of male broilers. Rev.
Bras. Cienc. Avic. 14: 141-147.
Drew, P., Harles, C. R. J. S., Trevor, B. and John, L. (2004). Oxford Handbook of Clinical
Haematology. 2th Edition, Oxford University Press, USA.
Duncan, D. B. (1955). Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics11:1-42.
El-Ansarey, O. M. N. (2004). The new medical by propolis (Bee glue).Published by Dar
Elmaref. Alexandria (In Arabic).
El-Hanoun, A. M., Kamel, K. I., El-Sebaie, M. S. and Gad, H. A. (2007). Effect of
Egyptian propolis supplementation on productive, reproductive performance and
some hematobiochemical parameters and steroid hormones of female rabbits during
winter and summer seasons.4 th World Poult. Con. 27- 30 March, Sharm El- Sheikh,
Egypt.
Fan, Y., Lu, Y., Wang, D., Liu,J., Song.X., Zhang, W., Zhao, X., Nguyen, T. L. and Hu,
Y. (2013). Effect of epimedium polysaccharide-propolis ﬂavone immunopotentiator
on immunosuppression induced by cyclophosphamide in chickens. Cellular
Immunology 281: 37–43.
Feed Composition Tables for animal & poultry feedstuffs used in Egypt (2001).
Technical bulletin No. 1, central lab for feed and food; Ministry of Agric., Egypt.
Folch, J.M., Lees, M. and Solve Stanley, G.H. (1957). A Simple method for the Isolation
and purification of total lipids from animal tissues. J. Biol. Chem., 226: 407-409.
Galal, A., Abd-El-Motaal, A. M., Ahmed, A. M. and Zaki, T .G. (2008a). Productive
performance and immune response of laying hens as affected by dietary p r o p o l i s
supplementation. lnt. J. Poult. Sci., 7(1): 272-278.
Galal, A., Ahmed, A. M. H., Ali, W. A. H., El-Sanhoury, M. H. and Hedia, A. (2008b).
Residual feed intake and its effect on cell-mediated immunity in laying hens given
different propolis levels. lnt. J. Poult. Sci., 7 (11): 1105-1111.
Giurgea, R., Toma, V., Popescu, H. and Polinicencu, C. (1981). Effects of standardized
propolis extract o n certain blood constituents muscle. Clujul-Med., 54: 33-36.
Haro, A., López-Aliaga, I., Lisbona, F., Barrionuevo, M., Alférez, M. J. M. and M.
Campos, S. (2000). 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. 48:5715-5722.
=================================================================================
th
==========================================================================================================================
Hashema, N.M., Abd El-Hady, A. and Hassan, O. (2013). Effect of vitamin E or propolis
supplementation on semen quality, oxidative status and hemato-biochemical changes
of rabbit bucks during hot season. Livestock Sci. 157: 520–526
Hegazi A. G. and Abd El Hady, F. K. (2002). Egyptian Propolis: 3. Antioxidant,
Antimicrobial Activities and Chemical Composition of Propolis from Reclaimed
Lands. Z. Naturforsch. 57c: 395-402.
Izabella, B., Kleczek, K., Szarek, J. and Makowski, W. (2012). Modulating effect of
propolis and bee pollen on chicken breeding parameters and pathomorphology of
liver and kidneys in the course of natural infection with salmonella enteritidis. Bull
Vet Inst Pulawy 56: 3-8.
Jakobsen, P.E., Kirston, S. G. and Nielsen, H. (1960). Digestibility trails with poultry. 322
bretning fra foprsgs labratriet udgivest statens .Husdybug sudvalg kobenhann.
Kamar, G.A.R. (1959). Semen characteristics of foreign and native fowls under Egyptian
conditions. In. J. Vet. Sci. Anim. Husb., 29: 19.
Kalamah, M. A. A.; El-Nady, M. M.; Abdou, F. H. and Esa, E. K. (2002). Effect of heat
stress and vitamin C on some productive traits and physiological aspects in
chickens. Minufiya Agric. Res., 27: 57-74.
Kamar, G.A.R. (1960). The semen of Fayoumi cockerler. In. J. Vet. Sci., 30: 52.
Kamel, K. I., El-Hanoun, A. M., El-Sbeiy, M. S. and Gad, H. A. M. (2007). Effect of bee
propolis extract (bee glue) on some productive, reproductive and physiological traits
of rabbits does and their progenys. The 5th Inter.Con. on Rabbit Prod. in Hot Clim.,
Hurghada, Egypt, 403- 415.
Khalil, M. L. (2006). Biological activity of bee propolis in health and disease. Asian Pac. J.
Cancer Prev. 7: 22–31.
Khojasteh, S. S. and Shivazad, M. (2006). The effect of diet Propolis supplementation on
Ross broiler chicks performance. Int. J. of Poult. Sci., 5:84- 88.
Kročko, M.; Čanigová, M.; Bezeková, J.; Lavová, M.; Haščík, P. R. and Ducková, V.
(2012). Effect of Nutrition with Propolis and Bee Pollen Supplements on Bacteria
Colonization Pattern in Gastrointestinal Tract of Broiler Chickens. Anim. Sci.
And Biotechnologies, 45 (1):63-67.
Marcucci, M. C. (1995). Propolis chemical composition, biological properties and
therapeutic activity. Apidologie, Les Ulis., 26(2): 83-99.
Mathivanan, V.; Shah, Gh.; Manzoor, M.; Mir, G. M. and Selvisabhanayakam (2013). A
Review on Propolis - As a Novel Folk Medicine. Indian J. of Sci. 2(3): 23 - 30.
O’connor-Dennie T.I. (2004). Mineral utilization in poultry as affected by virginiamycin or
mineral source. Master's Thesis, Louisiana State Uni., Louisiana, USA, 54 pages.
Ozkok, D., Iscan, K. M. and Silici, S. (2013). Effects of dietary propolis supplementation
on performance and egg quality in laying hens. J. of Anim. and Vet. Advances
12 (2): 269-275.
Parkar, S. G., Stevenson, D. E. and Skinner, M. A. (2008). The potential influence of fruit
polyphenols on colonic microflora and human gut health. Int J. Food Microbiol.
(124): 295–298.
Perić, L.; Ţikić, D. and Lukić, M. (2009). Application of alternative growth promoters in
broiler production. Biotechnology in Anim. Husb. 25 (5-6): 387-397.
Seven, I., Aksu, T. and Tatli Seven, P. (2010). The effects of propolis on biochemical
parameters and activity of antioxidant enzymes in broilers exposed to lead-induced
oxidative stress. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 23, 1482–1489.
Seven , I., Aksu, T. and Tatli seven, P. (2012). The effects of propolis and vitamin C
supplemented feed on performance, nutrient utilization and carcass characteristics in
broilers exposed to lead. Livestock Sci. 148(1): 10-15.
Seven , I., Tatli seven, P. and Silici, S.(2011). Effects of dietary Turkish propolis as
alternative to antibiotic on growth and laying performances, nutrient digestibility and
egg quality in laying hens under heat stress. Revue Méd. Vét., 162(4): 186-191.
=================================================================================
th
==========================================================================================================================
Silici, S. and Guclu-Kocaoglu, B. ( 2010). Effect of dietary addition of propolis a n d

caffeic acid on the growth performance, production and hatching performance ,
egg quality and some biochemical parameters of quail (Coturnix Coturnix
japonica). Ere. Univ. J. Health Sci., 19: 94-104.
SPSS (2012). SPSS User’s Guide Statistics Version 19. Copyright IBM, SPSS Inc., USA.
Taheri, H.R., Rahmani, H.R. and Pourreza, J. (2010). Humoral immunity of broilers is
affected by oil extracted propolis (oep) in the diet. Int. J. of Poult. Sci. 4 (6): 414-417.
Tatlı Seven, P. (2008). The effects of dietary Turkish Propolis and vitamin C on
performance, digestibility, egg production and egg quality in laying hens under
different environmental temperatures. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences
21: 1164-1170.
Tatli Seven, P. (2013). The effects of dietary turkish propolis and vitamin c on performance,
digestibility, egg production and egg quality in laying hens under different
environmental temperatures. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 21(8): 1164 – 1170.
Tatli Seven, P., Seven, I., Yılmaz, M. and Simsek, U. G. (2008). The effects of Turkish
Propolis on growth and carcass characteristics in broilers under heat stress. Animal
Feed Science and Technology 146: 137–148.
Tatli Seven, P., Yılmaz, S., Seven, I., Cercı, H., Azmanand, A. and Yılmaz, M. (2009).
Effects of propolis on selected blood indicators and antioxidant enzyme activities in
broilers under heat stress. ACTA VET. 78: 75–83.
Tyler, C. (1961). Shell strength: Its measurement and its relationship to other factors. Be.
Poul. Sci., 2:3-19.
Yousef, M. I., Kamel I. K., Hassan, M. S. and El-Morsy, A. M.A. (2010). Protective role
of propolis against reproductive toxicity of triphenyltin in male rabbits. Food and
Chemical Toxicology, 48: 1846–1852.
Zeedan, Kh. I. I. and Komonna, O. F. (2013). Improvement of immunological and
productive performance for buffalo by using some natural additive. 1 - Effect of
addition propolis on productive and reproductive performance. Egyptian J. Nut. and
feeds, 16(2): 35-54.
Ziaran, H. R., Rahmani, H. R. and Pourreza, J. ( 2005). Effect of dietary oil extract of
propolis on immune response and broiler performance. Pak. J. BioI. Sci., 8: 1485-
1490.
‫الملخص العربي‬
.‫استخذام البروبوليس كمصذر لالضافاث الطبيعيت لتحسين االداء االنتاجى والمناعى للذجاج المحلى‬
. ‫ التأثير على فترة انتاج البيض‬-1
3
‫ –– يحيى زكريا عيذ‬2‫–– نصرة بذير عوضين‬1‫باتعت أحمذ الننى‬
ِ‫ح اىذٗاج‬ٞ‫ قسٌ تح٘ز ذشت‬-2 .ِ‫ح اىذٗاج‬ٝ‫ قسٌ تح٘ز ذغز‬- 1
.‫ ٍصش‬،‫ضج‬ٞ‫ ج‬،ٜ‫ اىذق‬،‫ح‬ٞ‫ ٍشمض اىثح٘ز اىضساع‬،ّٜ‫٘ا‬ٞ‫ٍعٖذ تح٘ز اإلّراج اىح‬
.‫ ٍصش‬-‫خ‬ٞ‫ح اىضساعح –جاٍعح مفش اىش‬ٞ‫مي‬ .ِ‫ قسٌ اّراج اىذٗاج‬-3
،ٜ‫و اىغزائ‬ٝ٘‫ ٍٗعذه اىرح‬، ُ‫ اى٘ص‬ٚ‫ادج ف‬ٝ‫ ٍٗعذه اىض‬،ٌ‫ ٗٗصُ اىجس‬،‫ اسرٖالك اىعيف‬ٚ‫ح عي‬ٞ‫س مااظافح غزائ‬ٞ‫٘ى‬ٞ‫ش اىثشت‬ٞ‫ٌ ذأث‬ٞٞ‫ ذٌ ذق‬،‫ ٕزٓ اىذساسح‬ٜ‫ف‬
، 4ٜ‫ اىذق‬132 ‫ ٕزج اىذساسح‬ٚ‫ اسرخذً ف‬. ‫اض‬ٞ‫ اىذجاج اىث‬ٜ‫ح ف‬ٝ‫ ٍٗنّ٘اخ اىذً ٗمزىل اىنفاءج االقرصاد‬،‫حح‬ٞ‫ صفاخ اىزت‬،ٌ‫ ٗاىٖع‬،‫ط ٗج٘دذح‬ٞ‫إّراج اىث‬
ٚ‫ٍجَ٘عاخ االٗى‬3 ٚ‫ا إى‬ٞ‫د عش٘ائ‬ٞ‫ٌ اىنرام‬ٞ‫ذٌ ذقس‬. ‫٘ك‬ٝ‫ د‬3 ٔ‫ دجاج‬30 ‫ أستع ٍجَ٘عاخ مو ٍجَ٘عح‬ٚ‫ٌ اىذجاج إى‬ٞ‫ ذٌ ذقس‬،‫ أسث٘عا‬32 ‫ عَش‬ٚ‫ف‬
)ٌ‫س مج‬ٞ‫٘ى‬ٞ‫ ٍيجٌ تشت‬300 ٗ 200 ٗ 100 ٚ‫ عي‬ٛ٘‫مْرشٗه ٗ ثالز ٍجَ٘عاخ ٍعاٍيح ) ذحر‬
- :ُ‫ ا‬ٚ‫أشاسخ اىْرائج إى‬
‫ط تاىَقاسّح‬ٞ‫ط ٗ مريح اىث‬ٞ‫ ٗصُ اىث‬، ‫ط‬ٞ‫ إّراج اىث‬، َْ٘‫ ٍعذالخ اى‬، ٌ‫ ىيجس‬ٜ‫ اى٘صُ اىْٖائ‬ٚ‫ادج ف‬ٝ‫س ص‬ٞ‫٘ى‬ٞ‫ٖا تشت‬ٞ‫ سجيد اىَجَ٘عاخ اىَعاف اى‬-1
. ٜ‫و اىغزائ‬ٝ٘‫ ّسة اىرح‬ٚ‫ ٗحذز ذحسِ ف‬، ‫رأثش‬ٝ ٌ‫ٗاسرٖالك اىغزاء ى‬. ‫تاىنْرشٗه‬
.‫س تاىَقاسّح تاىنْرشٗه‬ٞ‫٘ى‬ٞ‫ٖا تشت‬ٞ‫ٔ ىوعالئق اىَعاف اى‬ٞ‫ٌ ٍعاٍالخ ٕعٌ اىَ٘اد اىغزائ‬ٞ‫ا ق‬ْٝ٘‫ ذحسْد ٍع‬-2
=================================================================================
‫‪th‬‬
‫‪7 International Poultry Conference - Proceeding‬‬
‫==========================================================================================================================‬
‫‪ -3‬ا‪ٝ‬عا اظافح تشت‪٘ٞ‬ى‪ٞ‬س ماُ ىح ذأث‪ٞ‬ش عي‪ ٚ‬مو ٍِ سَل قششج اىث‪ٞ‬عح ‪ ,‬دى‪ٞ‬و شنو اىث‪ٞ‬عح ٗ اىصفاس ت‪َْٞ‬ا ىٌ ‪ٝ‬نِ ْٕاك ذأث‪ٞ‬ش عي‪ّ ٚ‬سثح مو ٍِ االىث‪ٍِٞ٘ٞ‬‬
‫ٗ قششج اىث‪ٞ‬عح ‪ ،‬عالٗج عي‪ ٚ‬رىل ٗجذ اُ اظافح تشت‪٘ٞ‬ى‪ٞ‬س حسِ مو ٍِ صفاخ اىسائو اىَْ٘‪ ٗ ٙ‬اىخص٘تح ّٗسثح اىفقس ٗاّراج اىث‪ٞ‬ط تاىَقاسّح‬
‫باىنْرشٗه‪.‬‬
‫‪ -4‬حذز ص‪ٝ‬ادج ف‪ ٚ‬مو ٍِ ٗصُ اىجسٌ اىح‪ّ ٗ ٚ‬سثح اىرصاف‪ ٗ ٚ‬اىطحاه ٗ ٍجَ٘ع االجضاء اىَأم٘ىح ّٗسثرٖا ٗرىل عْذ اظافح تشت‪٘ٞ‬ى‪ٞ‬س عِ اىنْرشٗه‪.‬‬
‫‪ٍ -5‬جَ٘ع عذد اىَ‪ٞ‬نشٗفي٘سا ٗدسجح اىحَ٘ظح اّخفعد تشنو ٍيح٘ظ )‪ٍ(P <0.05‬ع ص‪ٝ‬ادج اظافح تشت‪٘ٞ‬ى‪ٞ‬س ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -6‬اد‪ ٙ‬اظافح تشت‪٘ٞ‬ى‪ٞ‬س اى‪ ٚ‬ص‪ٝ‬ادج تشٗذ‪ْٞ‬اخ اىذً ٗاالىث‪ٗ ٍِٞ٘ٞ‬اىجي٘ت‪٘ٞ‬ى‪ٗ IgG, IgM, ِٞ‬مزىل اىَ٘اد اىَعادج ىالمسذج ت‪َْٞ‬ا اّخفط مو ٍِ اىن٘ى‪ٞ‬سرشٗه‬
‫ٗاىذِٕ ف‪ ٚ‬اىذً ٗاىصفاس تاىَقاسّح تاىنْرشٗه‪.‬‬
‫‪ -7‬مزىل ٗجذ اُ اظافح تشت‪٘ٞ‬ى‪ٞ‬س اد‪ ٙ‬اى‪ ٚ‬ص‪ٝ‬ادج اىَْاعح تاىَقاسّح تاىنْرشٗه‪.‬‬
‫‪ -8‬اظافح اىثشت‪٘ٞ‬ى‪ٞ‬س حسْد اىنفاءج االقرصاد‪ٝ‬ح‪.‬‬
‫الخالصت‪:‬‬
‫‪ٗ 4‬خفط ٍسر٘‪ٙ‬‬ ‫اظافح اىثشت‪٘ٞ‬ى‪ٞ‬س اى‪ ٚ‬عالئق اىذجاج اىث‪ٞ‬اض أد‪ ٙ‬اى‪ ٚ‬ذحسِ ٍعْ٘‪ ٙ‬ف‪ ٚ‬ق‪ ٌٞ‬االداء االّراج‪ٗ ٚ‬اىرْاسي‪ ٚ‬ىذجاج دق‪ٚ‬‬
‫اىن٘ى‪ٞ‬سرشٗه ٗاىذُٕ٘ اىني‪ٞ‬ح تاىثالصٍا ٗاىث‪ٞ‬عح ٗمزىل ص‪ٝ‬ادج اىَْاعح ف‪ ٚ‬اىذً‪ٗ .‬ذٌ ذسج‪ٞ‬و افعو مفاءج اقرصاد‪ٝ‬ح ٗ مفاءج اقرصاد‪ٝ‬ح ّسث‪ٞ‬ح ىيط‪٘ٞ‬س اىر‪ٚ‬‬
‫ذغزخ عي‪ ٚ‬عي‪ٞ‬قح اساس‪ٞ‬ح ٍعاف اى‪ٖٞ‬ا تشت‪٘ٞ‬ى‪ٞ‬س‪.‬‬
‫=================================================================================‬
‫‪3 – 6 November 2014, Ain Sukhna, Red Sea – Egypt‬‬ ‫‪-(79)-‬‬

Battaa, A. M. El-Neney

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Battaa, A. M. El-Neney

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

th

7 International Poultry Conference - Proceeding

THE USE OF PROPOLIS AS A SOURCE OF NATURAL

Battaa, A. M. El-Neney1, Nasra B. Awadien2 and Yahya Z. Eid3

Corresponding author email: drbattaaelneny@yahoo.com

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

1-2. Egg Production:

1-4. Feed intake and feed conversion:

improvement in digestibility of all nutrients (Burdock, 1998, Hegazi and Abd El

through anti-microbial activity), digestion processes, and absorption of nutrients.

Effects of propolis supplementation on some chemical analysis of laying

8-2. Humoral immune response:

improvement in hematological parameters of hens treated by bee propolis may be due

Yellow corn 65.14

Item Propolis (mg/kg diet) SEM Sig

Table 10. Effect of feeding propolis supplementations on economical efficiency of Dokki 4

Abdel–Mohsein, H. S., Mahmoud, Manal A. M. and Mahmoud, U. T. (2014). Influence of

Syndicate, Cambridge pages 20–24.

Silici, S. and Guclu-Kocaoglu, B. ( 2010). Effect of dietary addition of propolis a n d

You might also like