Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37649844›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2023

Effect of rosemary (

Seman Kedir, Metekia Tamiru, Dawit Adisu Tadese, Lishan Takele, Melaku Mulugeta, Ashenafi Miresa, Jane Wamatu, Ashraf Alkhtib, Emily Burton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Seman KedirJimma University, College of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, Department of Animal Science, PO Box 307, Jimma, Ethiopia.
Metekia TamiruJimma University, College of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, Department of Animal Science, PO Box 307, Jimma, Ethiopia.
Dawit Adisu TadeseFeed Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, PR China.
Lishan TakeleJimma University, College of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, Department of Animal Science, PO Box 307, Jimma, Ethiopia.
Melaku MulugetaJimma University, College of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, Department of Animal Science, PO Box 307, Jimma, Ethiopia.
Ashenafi MiresaJimma University, College of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, Department of Animal Science, PO Box 307, Jimma, Ethiopia.
Jane WamatuInternational Centre for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas, Addis Ababa P.O. Box 5689, Ethiopia.
Ashraf AlkhtibNottingham Trent University, School of Animal, Rural and Environmental Sciences, Brackenhurst Campus, Southwell, Nottinghamshire, NG25 0QF, UK.
Emily BurtonNottingham Trent University, School of Animal, Rural and Environmental Sciences, Brackenhurst Campus, Southwell, Nottinghamshire, NG25 0QF, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This experiment was conducted to investigate the supplemental effect of rosemary leaf meal (RLM) on egg production and egg quality in Lohmann-Brown laying hens. For each treatment, six replicates were performed with four 24-week-old laying hens for a total of 96 chickens. Dried rosemary leaf meal (RLM) was present in the commercial laying hen ration at 0, 1.7, 3.5 and 5.2%, respectively. The interactions between dietary treatments, egg storage temperatures (4 °C, 21.5 °C), and egg storage durations (7, 14, 21, 28, and 35 days) were examined in factorial designs using a fully randomized design. The data were analyzed using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS, 2014, Ver. 9.3) and Tukey's multiple range tests to separate the means. The inclusion of dried RLM at a level of 5.2% (p < 0.05) significantly improved the hens' daily egg production (78.9%). Feed conversion ratio (2.25) and egg weight (56.7 g) compared to control treatment. Similarly, at 3.5% and 5.2% RLM supplementation, eggshell weight (5.876 g) and eggshell strength increased significantly (p < 0.05) (compared to control, a weight of 3.76 kg/cm2 and a shell thickness (0.37 mm) was observed. In addition, the groups fed 5.2% RLM had significantly higher albumin weight (34.9 g/L), albumin height (6.9 mm), and yolk weight (15.6 g/L). l), yolk height (15.9 mm), yolk color (5.3 points), and Hough unit (83.9 points) than the control groups. Regarding the external characteristics of stored eggs, a group of hens fed at rates of 3.5 and 5.2% RLM showed significantly greater (p < 0.05) egg weight with increases in storage temperature and duration as a control group. There was a significant interaction effect between stored eggs collected from the supplemented groups in terms of egg weight, weight loss, shell weight, shell strength, and shell thickness stored at specific temperatures and storage durations. There was a decrease in albumen level and Haugh unit (HU) with an increase in storage temperature and duration over treatment (P < 0.05). Therefore, better external quality was observed in eggs collected from a group of chickens fed 4.5 and 5.2% RLM after 35 days of storage compared to a control group. Mean albumen height, albumen weight, HU, yolk height, and yolk color of eggs stored in the refrigerator (4 °C) were an exception for yolk weight, which was higher compared to room temperature (21.5 °C). Significantly low (P < 0.05) albumen height (6.61 to 2.96 cm), Hough unit (82.49 to 47.64 points), and yolk height (14.66 to 12.35 mm) were observed at 35 days storage recorded in the control group. In conclusion, supplementation with RLM at 3.5% and 5.2% improved the performance and quality of both fresh and stored eggs.

Indexed as

Egg productionEgg qualityEgg storageLaying hensRosemary leaf flour

Identifiers

PMID37649844
PMCPMC10462824

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.