Effects of Ligustrum lucidum on egg production, egg quality, and caecal microbiota of hens during the late laying period

Figures & data

Table 1. Ingredient composition and analysed nutrient contents of the basal diet [g/kg] (data is based on feed).

Items	Content
Ingredients
Corn grain	645.00
Soybean meal	130.00
Rapeseed meal	40.00
Limestone	80.00
Premix^a	50.00
Wheat bran	50.00
Soybean oil	5.00
Calculated nutrient composition
Metabolisable energy^b[MJ/kg]	10.71
CP	14.13
Calcium	3.88
Total phosphorus	0.63
Non-phytate phosphorus	0.42
Digestible lysine	0.68
Digestible methionine	0.33
Digestible methionine + cysteine	0.57
Digestible isoleucine	0.53
Digestible threonine	0.48
Digestible serine	0.17
Digestible valine	0.62
Analysed nutrient composition
Dry matter	91.25
CP	15.42
Calcium	3.95
Total phosphorus	0.57

^a Provide per kg of diet: retinol A, 1.32 mg; Cholecalciferol, 0.03 mg; tocopherol, 6 mg; thiamine, 1.4 mg; Riboflavin, 3 mg; pyridoxine, 1.0 mg; Cyanocobalamin, 0.01 mg; pantothenic acid, 7.5 mg; choline chloride, 500 mg; biotin, 0.15 mg; Ca,7500 mg; P, 3000 mg; Mn, 72 mg; Zn, 56 mg; Fe, 60 mg; Cu, 25 mg; I, 0.50 mg; Se, 0.10 mg.

^b Metabolizable energy was calculated from data provided by Feed Database in China 2009.

Table 2. Effects of LL* supplemental on laying performance of laying hens.◊.

	Treatment groups
Items	Control	Group^#	GroupII^†	SEM^‡	p Value
Egg-laying rate (%)	79.40^b	84.66^a	84.15^a	0.743	<.001
Average daily egg weight (g/d)	61.24	62.00	62.59	0.269	.109
Average daily feed intake (g/d)	114.15	114.66	113.62	0.239	.219
Feed/egg	2.35^a	2.19^b	2.16^b	0.028	<.001
Cracked egg rate (%)	0.69	0.68	0.64	0.057	.933
Mortality (%)	4.17	2.50	2.50	0.763	.633

^◊Data are means of three groups with four replicates of 30 hens each; *LL, ligustrum lucidum; ^#Group I, LL at 1% diet; ^†Group II, LL at 2% diet; ^‡SEM, pooled standard error of mean.

^a,bMeans not sharing the same superscripts in a row differ significantly (p < .05).

Table 3. Effects of LL* supplemental on egg quality of laying hens ◊.

	Treatment groups
Items	Control	Group I^#	Group II^†	SEM^‡	p Value
Eggshell thickness (mm)	0.38	0.37	0.38	0.003	.448
Eggshell breaking strength (kN)	0.04	0.04	0.04	0.0003	.165
Egg shape index	1.31	1.33	1.32	0.004	.146
Albumen height (mm)	5.42	5.47	5.50	0.023	.379
Haugh unit	70.24	70.86	70.80	0.126	.074

^◊Data are means of three groups with four replicates of 6 eggs each; *LL, ligustrum lucidum; ^#Group I, LL at 1% diet; ^†Group II, LL at 2% diet; ^‡SEM, pooled standard error of mean.

Figure 1. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of the community membership using Bray-Curtis distance. CON, control group; LL, group II. The abscissa and ordinate represent the two selected principal components, and the percentage represents the contribution of the principal component to the difference in sample composition. Points of different colours and shapes represent samples of different groups, and the closer the two sample points are, the more similar the composition of the two samples species is.

Figure 2. Welch’s t-test bar plot on Phylum level. CON, control group; LL, group II. The ordinate (left) represents the phyla name and the ordinate (right) represents the p-Value.

Figure 3. Welch’s t-test bar plot on Family level. CON, control group; LL, group II. The ordinate (left) represents the family name and the ordinate (right) represents the p-Value.

Figure 4. Welch’s t-test bar plot on Genus level. CON, control group; LL, group II. The ordinate (left) represents the genus name and the ordinate (right) represents the p-Value.