Preprint
Article

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Effects of Fagopyrum dibotrys Rhizoma Meal Supplementation on Productive Performance, Egg Quality, Egg Nutritional Value and Serum Biochemical Parameters of Shanma Laying Ducks

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Submitted:

23 June 2025

Posted:

26 June 2025

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
The rhizoma of Fagopyrum dibotrys (D. Don) Hara, a traditional natural medicinal herb with extensive historical applications in China, possess anti-inflammatory, anticancer, antioxidant, antimicrobial, immunomodulatory and antidiabetic effects. However, the potential positive effects of Fagopyrum dibotrys rhizoma meal (FDRM) on productive performance in high-density laying duck farming remain unclear. This experiment was conducted to assess the impacts of FDRM supplementation in Shanma laying ducks diet by determining productive performance, egg quality, egg nutritional value and serum biochemical parameters. With similar laying performance (80.88 ± 5.17 %) and body weight (1.24 ± 0.02 kg), 512 healthy 32-week-old Shanma laying ducks were randomly assigned to 4 groups consisting of 8 replicates (16 ducks per replicate). Ducks in the control group (F0 group) were fed only the basal diet, while the other groups (F1, F2 and F3 groups) were fed the basal diets supplemented with 1%, 2% and 3% FDRM, respectively. The experiment lasted for 49 days with ad libitum access to feed and water. Our results showed that supplementing FDRM in duck diet had no adverse effects on laying performance (P>0.05). Additionally, compared with the control group, dietary supplementation with FDRM significantly improved the shell strength, yolk color and shell proportion (P<0.05), while increasing the serum total protein (TP) content (P<0.05). The study also found that adding 2%. FDRM significantly enhanced the contents of total amino acids, essential amino acids and umami amino acids in eggs (P<0.05), improved the composition of monounsaturated fatty acids and polyunsaturated fatty acids (P<0.05), and reducing the saturated fatty acids content. However, 3% FDRM addition increased the serum blood urea nitrogen content (P<0.05), indicating reduced the dietary protein utilization efficiency. Overall, dietary supplementation with 2% FDRM might improved egg quality and egg nutritional value of Shanma laying ducks through improving the shell strength, yolk color and shell proportion, enhancing yolk fatty acid and amino acid profiles and elevating serum TP content.
Keywords: 
;  ;  ;  ;  ;  

1. Introduction

Laying duck industry serves as a pivotal pillar of China’s agricultural economy. In the context of its rapid development, key industry concerns now revolve around enhancing production performance, optimizing egg quality, improving the nutritional value of duck eggs, and achieving green and sustainable development. With rapid economic development and continuous improvement in living standards, consumers are placing higher demands on the nutritional and health-promoting qualities of egg products, making it imperative to enhance the nutritional and functional value of duck eggs [1]. Recent studies have revealed that Chinese herbal medicine or plant extracts are rich in bioactive compounds such as disease-resistant alkaloids, antioxidant flavonoids, and phenolics. These substances can effectively improve the nutritional value of eggs by enhancing antioxidant capacity, boosting immune function, and optimizing gut microbiota structure in poultry, demonstrating significant potential for practical applications [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9].
Fagopyrum dibotrys (F. dibotrys) (D. Don) Hara, a perennial herbaceous plant belonging to the Polygonaceae family and Fagopyrum genus, possesses significant medicinal and edible value, and has been officially included in China’s Feed Materials Directory [10]. Its rhizomata, stems, leaves, and flowers contain trace mineral elements essential for livestock and poultry, including copper (Cu), iron (Fe), and zinc (Zn), etc, as well as 17 amino acids such as methionine (Met), arginine (Arg), and lysine (Lys), etc, along with various vitamins including vitamin B₁, vitamin B₂, and vitamin E, etc. [11]。The rhizoma of F. dibotrys (FDR) has a long history of application in traditional Chinese medicine. It contains various bioactive compounds including flavonoids, phenolics, triterpenes, and tannins, etc. [12,13,14], and exhibits multiple biological properties such as antioxidant, antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, and immunomodulatory effects [15,16,17]. Currently, its stems and leaves are widely used in pharmaceuticals, health foods, beverages, and forage, while research on its rhizomata in livestock production remains limited. As a forage crop, F. dibotrys exhibits strong adaptability, high propagation efficiency, and substantial biomass yield (up to 112,500 kg·hm⁻2). Its stems and leaves are rich in crude protein (12.28% DM) with low crude fiber (24.06% DM), neutral detergent fiber (39.74% DM), and acid detergent fiber (30.18% DM), making it a potential unconventional feed ingredient to replace part of swine diets and alleviate feed shortages [11,18,19,20]. Studies show that supplementing 10% fresh F. dibotrys in laying hens diets deepened yolk color and improved amino acids composition in Changshun green-shell eggs [20]. Furthermore, adding 400-800 mg/kg of F. dibotrys stem-leaf extract not only enhanced egg production, quality, and nutritional value but also improved immunity by modulating serum biochemical parameters [21]. Additionally, dietary inclusion of 1-2% F. dibotrys rhizoma meal (FDRM) in broilers alleviated oxidative stress induced by oxidized oil, thereby improving poultry health [16].
Nevertheless, based on our knowledge, researches on Fagopyrum dibotrys has primarily focused on its stems and leaves, with studies conducted on growing-finishing pigs [9], sows [19], mice [17], and laying hens [20,21], demonstrating certain improvements in animal growth performance and farming efficiency. However, studies on the application of its rhizomata in poultry are very scarce. It is currently unclear whether dietary supplementation with FDRM can exert similarly positive effects on intensive laying duck production as its stem and leaf derivatives. Consequently, this study aims to investigate the effects of FDRM on productive performance, egg quality, nutritional value of eggs, and serum biochemical parameters, thereby providing a scientific basis for utilizing FDRM as an unconventional feed resource in Shanma laying duck production.

2. Materials and Methods

The experimental use of animals and related procedures were performed according to the Chinese Guidelines for Animal Welfare and approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Jiangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences (Ethical Committee Number: 2025-JXAAS-XM-18).

2.1. Experimental Materials

The Fagopyrum dibotrys rhizoma meal (FDRM) used in this study was provided by the Institute of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, Jiangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Fresh F. dibotrys rhizomata were collected, crushed and passed through the 80-mesh screen to prepare FDRM. The main bioactive compounds of FDRM are total flavonoids and polyphenols, quantified using a UV spectrophotometer (UV-1800, Shimadzu Corp., Kyoto, Japan) at the Jiangxi Province Key Laboratory of Animal Green and Healthy Breeding, which the contents are 19.6 mg/g and 63.85 mg/g respectively. Moreover, the nutritional compositions of FDRM in this experiment are shown in Table 1. The contents of gross energy, dry matter, crude protein, crude fat, crude fiber, crude ash, calcium, and total phosphorus in FDRM were determined according to the methods described in Feed Analysis and Feed Quality Testing Technology [22].

2.2. Ducks, Experimental Design and Treatments

This study was conducted on 32-weeks-old Longyan Shanma laying ducks for a 49-day period with a completely randomized design. A total of 512 laying ducks with similar productive performance (80.88 ± 5.17 %) and body weight (1.24 ± 0.02 kg) were used in this experiment. Ducks were randomly allocated to 4 groups with 8 replicates per group and 16 ducks per replicate (128 laying ducks per group). The control group (F0) received the basal diet, while the treatment groups were provided with diets containing 1% (F1), 2% (F2), and 3% (F3) FDRM supplementation. All diets were nutritionally balanced and formulated to meet identical nutritional specifications.

2.3. Diets and Management

This trial was carried out at the test field of laying ducks in Gaoan, Institute of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Science, Jiangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, PR China. The basal diet fed animals was maize-soybean meal diet, which was formulated based on the China's national standard “nutrient requirements for egg duck” (GB/T 41189-2021) to meet the nutrient requirements of Longyan Shanma ducks. Table 2 presents the composition and nutrient levels of experimental diets. The experimental laying ducks were raised in three-layer three-dimensional netting, consisted of 4 adjacent cages (40 × 38 × 38 cm; length × width × height) with 2 animals per cage, providing 28,880 cm3 per animal in closed fully automated duck house. Each replicate was raised on the upper and middle floors and each group was guaranteed to be equal in the number of distributed upper and middle layers. During the period of study, the housing temperature and relative humidity were 23.0 ± 2 ℃ and 55 to 75 %, respectively. Furthermore, the photoperiod was set at 16L:8D through a 49-d experimental period. Animals were kept with ad libitum access to feed and water during the entire experimental period.

2.4. Productive Performance

Throughout the trial, the ducks' egg production and egg weight were monitored daily, and feed consumption was meticulously recorded on a replicate basis at weekly intervals using an electronic balance (HLD-5003, Youheng Weighing Equipment Co., Ltd., Hangzhou, China). At the end of the feeding trial, these values processed using Excel 2016 (Microsoft Corp., USA) were used to analyze the daily egg weight (DEW), average egg weight (AEW), laying rate (LR), average daily feed intake (ADFI) and the ratio of feed to egg (F/E) of the ducks for the 49-d feeding period.

2.5. Egg Quality

On the final day of the experiment, a random subset of eight freshly laid eggs (a total of 64 eggs from each treatment) were collected for each replicate, which were used for conventional egg quality analysis (within 48 h after laying), including shape index, shell strength, shell thickness, haugh unit, yolk color, vitellus proportion, albumen proportion and shell proportion. The shape index was measured with a precision caliper marked at 0.01mm intervals and was represented by the formula shape index (SI) = (egg length/egg width) [1]. Shell strength was assessed along the vertical axis with a compression tester (EFG-0503, Robotmation, Tokyo, Japan). The shell thickness was determined (excluding shell membrane) using a micrometer with the least count of 0.01 mm and was expressed by the mean of measurements taken at three points (air cell, equator, and sharp end) of the egg. Haugh unit, yolk color and albumen height were measured using an Egg Multi-tester (EMT-5200, Robotmation, Tokyo, Japan). The vitellus, albumen, and shell were separated, weighed, and expressed as a percentage of total egg weight.

2.6. Egg Nutritional Value

After measuring the egg physical parameters, the vitelluses were sampled, lyophilized, and subsequently analyzed for nutrient composition, amino acid composition and fatty acids profile. Nutrient composition included moisture, crude protein (CP), crude fat, cholesterol and Ca were determined in accordance with AOAC methods [23]. Crude protein content was estimated by measuring nitrogen content (Kjeldahl method) with an automatic Kjeldahl nitrogen analyzer (SKD-200, Shanghai Peiou Analysis Instruments Co.,Ltd., Shanghai, China) and applying a 6.25 conversion factor. Ether extract was measured using the Soxhlet method with petroleum ether extraction in a Hanon Automatic Soxhlet Extractor (SZF-06A, Shanghai Lichen Instruments Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China). The method for the Ca and cholesterol determination were used by an UV spectrophotometer (UV-1800, Shimadzu Corp., Kyoto, Japan) and commercial kits (Nanjing Jiancheng Bioengineering Institute, Nanjing, China) as described by Zhang et al. [24]. According to the methods reported by Cullere et al. [25] and Xu et al. [26], the amino acids content and fatty acids profile of the eggs were analyzed. The determination of amino acids content in egg yolk was determined by ion-exchange chromatography with the following procedure: approximately 0.1 g of egg yolk powder sample was weighed and digested with 5 mL of 6 mol/L HCl solution at 105°C in an oven for 24 h. After digestion, the solution was diluted to 50 mL in a volumetric flask with deionized water and filtered through a 0.22 μm aqueous-phase filter into a centrifuge tube. Then, 2 mL of the filtrate was evaporated in an evaporating dish in a 60°C water bath, followed by the addition of 4 mL of 0.02 mol/L HCl solution for dissolution. Once fully dissolved, the sample was stored at 4°C for analysis using an ion-exchange amino acid analyzer (L8900, Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan). A total of 17 amino acids were determined, as detailed in Table 6. While the fatty acids profile was performed using gas chromatography (GC), the detailed procedure was as follows: Approximately 20 g of egg yolk sample was dried at 105°C for 1 h, followed by accurate weighing of 1 g dried sample for petroleum ether extraction (3 h). Subsequently, 60 mg of extracted fat was dissolved in 4 mL of isooctane, followed by sequential addition of 200 μL potassium hydroxide-methanol solution and 1 g sodium bisulfate. After salting-out, the upper layer containing fatty acid methyl esters was collected and stored at 4°C. Prior to GC analysis (Agilent 7890 A, Agilent Technologies, CA, USA), all samples were filtered through a 0.22 μm membrane. Quantitative analysis of fatty acids was conducted using GC ChemStation B.04.03 software (Agilent Technologies, CA, USA). A total of 15 fatty acids were determined, as detailed in Table 7.

2.7. Serum Biochemical Parameters

At the end of the 8 weeks, two laying ducks with close to the average weight were randomly selected from each replicate for collection of 5 mL of fasting blood samples from the wing vein using a black 7-gauge needle and vacuum coagulation tubes. The blood samples were centrifuged at 1,006 × g for 10 minutes to separate serum within 2 hours after blood collection using a centrifuge (LC-LX-L50C, Shanghai LiChen Instrument Technology, Ltd., Shanghai, China) at the Jiangxi Province Key Laboratory of Animal Green and Healthy Breeding, and the serum was separated and stored at -20°C for further use. The serum levels of triglycerides (TG, Cat no, A110-2-1), total cholesterol (TC, Cat no, A111-2-1), high-density lipoprotein (HDL, Cat no, A112-2-1), and low-density lipoprotein (LDL, Cat no, A113-2-1), total protein (TP, Cat no, A045-2-2), albumin (ALB, Cat no, A028-2-1), blood urea nitrogen (BUN, Cat no, C013-2-1), alkaline phosphatase (AKP, Cat no, A059-2-2), and calcium (Ca, Cat no, C004-2-1) were measured by an Automatic Biochemistry Instrument (BS-420, Shenzhen Myriad Bio-Medical Electronics Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, China) using commercial assay kits. All assay kits were provided by the Nanjing Jiancheng Bioengineering Institute.

2.8. Statistical Analyses

All data were organized using Excel 2013, and then subjected to a one-way analysis of variance (One-Way ANOVA) using the Bonferroni method in SPSS 22.0 statistical software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) to test for multiple comparisons. The experimental results were presented as mean and pooled SEM. A value of P<0.05 was considered statistically significant, while a value of 0.05<P<0.10 indicated a trend towards an increase or decrease.

3. Results

3.1. Productive Performance

The effects of dietary FDRM supplementation on productive performance of laying ducks are shown in Table 3. During the entire period, there were no significant effects (P>0.05) by adding FDRM in laying ducks diet, regardless of the supplementation levels, on DEW, AEW, DEN, LR, ADFI and F/E.

3.2. Egg Quality

The egg quality parameters of laying ducks are depicted in Table 4. Compared with the F0 group, the shell strength and yolk color in F2 and F3 groups were significantly increased (P<0.05). Furthermore, the yolk color in F1 group and the shell proportion in F3 group were significantly (P<0.05) higher than that in F0 group. No significant differences were observed in shape index, shell thickness, albumen height, haugh unit, vitellus proportion and albumen proportion (P>0.05), in response to dietary FDRM supplementation levels.

3.3. Egg Nutritional Value

3.3.1. Nutrient Composition of Egg

For the conventional nutrient levels of the vitellus in laying ducks, no significant dietary effects were observed across the measured parameters (moisture; crude protein; ether extract; cholesterol and Ca) (Table 5). Nevertheless, compared with the F0 group, the Ca content in F2 and F3 groups tend to improve as the inclusion level of FDRM increased(P=0.073).

3.3.2. Amino Acids Composition

As can be seen from Table 6, the contents of Thr, Val, Ile, Leu, Asp, Glu, Gly, Cys, total EAAs, total AAs, and umami AAs in the vitellus showed significant response to the increasing FDRM supplement levels (P<0.05). Compared with the control group (F0), there was no difference in the amino acid profile in F1 group (P>0.05), dietary supplementation with 2% FDRM (F2) group could markedly increase the contents of Thr, Leu, Asp, Glu, Gly, Cys, total EAAs, total AAs, and umami AAs (P<0.05), while the Thr and Asp concentrations in the group supplemented with 3% FDRM (F3) were statistically heighted (P<0.05), with no dietary effect on other amino acids contents (P>0.05). Furthermore, compared with the the F1 group, the F2 group significantly increase the content of Val, Ile, Leu, Gly, Cys, and total EAAs (P<0.05), without significantly affecting the contents of other amino acids (P>0.05).

3.3.3. Fatty Acids Profile

Table 7 showed the effect of dietary FDRM addition on the fatty acid profile in the vitellus of laying ducks. The levels of C16:0 and total SFAs in the F1 and F2 groups exhibited a significant decrease compared to the F0 group (P<0.05), while the UFAs:SFAs ratio increased significantly (P<0.05). Moreover, the levels of C14:0 significantly decreased in the F2 and F3 groups (P<0.05), the F3 group statistically heighted the contents of C20:1 and C20:3, markedly reduced the contents of total SFAs (P<0.05). Compared with the F0 group, the PUFAs:SFAs ratio in the vitellus from the F1 group displayed a remarkable enhancement (P<0.05).

3.4. Serum Biochemical Parameters

For serum biochemical parameters, the levels of TP and BUN along with the concentration of Ca in serum of laying ducks showed significant responses to increased dietary FDRM supplement levels (Table 8, P<0.05). The serum levels of TP in F2 group and BUN in F3 group were significantly (P<0.01) higher than that in F0 group. Additionally, in comparison to the F2 group, the F1 and F3 group dramatically lowered the Ca concentration in serum of laying ducks.

4. Discussion

In general, compared to Fagopyrum esculentum (common buckwheat) and Fagopyrum tataricum (tartary buckwheat), F. dibotrys (golden buckwheat), as a member of the Fagopyrum genus, contains a greater variety of flavonoids and phenolic acids, exhibits stronger antimicrobial activity, and demonstrates intermediate antioxidant capacity [14,27]. Additionally, Chinese herbal medicine rich in flavonoids and phenolic acids have been shown to improve poultry health status and egg production performance [28,29]. This experiment aimed to investigate the effects of dietary supplementation with FDRM on laying performance, egg quality, egg nutritional value and serum biochemical indicators of Shanma laying ducks. Our findings demonstrated that dietary inclusion of FDRM had no significant impact on daily egg weight, average egg weight, daily egg number, laying rate, average daily feed intake, and the ratio of feed to egg in laying ducks, but markedly enhanced shell strength and yolk coloration. This aligns with previous reports where supplementation of Mulberry leaf extract (rich in flavonoids such as rutin and phenolic acids like chlorogenic acid) in Lohmann Silber layers diet showed no adverse effects on production performance, yet significantly improved yolk pigmentation [24]. In contrast, Chen, et al. [1] and Feng, et al. [30] reported that dietary supplementation with honeycomb extracts (rich in flavonoids such as quercetin and phenolic acids like caffeic acid.) and Eucommia ulmoides leaf powder (rich in phenolic acids such as chlorogenic acid) in laying ducks have no significant improvements in laying performance and egg quality. Similarly, in the study by Iskender et al. [31], it was observed that no significant differences in laying performance and eggshell quality, in response to dietary supplementation with hesperidin, naringin and quercetin (All belong to the flavonoids). These discrepancies might be attributed to variations in extracts types, poultry breeds and diets. Given the limited existing research on FDRM in laying duck nutrition, further mechanistic investigations are warranted to elucidate its functional properties.
Duck eggs, containing abundant protein and amino acids, fatty acids, minerals and vitamins, serve as an excellent source of essential nutrients for human food and health. The primary indicators for assessing their nutritional value and sensory quality typically encompass amino acid composition and fatty acid profiles [1,21]. As fundamental building blocks of life, essential amino acids such as lysine, methionine, threonine, and phenylalanine not only play critical roles in regulating lipid and protein metabolism but also constitute indispensable nutrients that cannot be endogenously synthesized by animals and must be supplemented through dietary intake [32]. This study revealed that compared to the control group, the 2% FDRM-supplemented group significantly increased the contents of total amino acids (by 9.27%), total essential amino acids (by 9.34%), and umami amino acids (by 7.62%) in egg yolks, confirming the beneficial effect of FDRM on the nutritional value of duck eggs. The potential underlying mechanisms may involve enhancing antioxidant capacity and modulating the expression of genes related to amino acid metabolism [33]. Notably, Yao et al. [34] also reported that sea buckthorn extract rich in flavonoid such as quercetin significantly improved the contents of total amino acids, essential amino acids, and umami amino acids in eggs through a similar mechanism. Nevertheless, current research remains insufficient in identifying the specific bioactive components within FDRM and their molecular targets, which represents a critical focus for future investigations.
Accumulating evidence highlights the dual implications of fatty acid intake on human health. Scientific evidence indicated that high intake of saturated fatty acids is associated with elevated risks of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disorders, while monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids demonstrate various protective health effects, including anti-inflammatory effects, regulation of glucose and lipid metabolism, and promotion of muscle growth [26,35]. In the present trial, adding FDRM in laying duck diet led to an increase in the ratio of unsaturated to saturated fatty acids (UFAs:SFAs) and a decrease in total SFAs in egg yolks, with the 2% FDRM group showing a pronounced decrease in total SFAs. Researches conducted by Zhang et al. [20]and Zhang et al. [21] revealed that supplementing laying hen diets with Fagopyrum dibotrys stems and leaves or their extracts could improve the amino acid composition and content of whole eggs while significantly increasing the levels of C20:4 and C22:6 in egg yolks. Furthermore, Chen et al. [1] also reported that the contents of total unsaturated fatty acids, monounsaturated fatty acids, and polyunsaturated fatty acids in duck eggs showed an increasing trend with the dietary supplementation level of honeycomb extracts, while the total saturated fatty acids content decreased significantly. Our findings are in full accordance with these previously established conclusions. The potential mechanism is that the polyphenols in FDRM scavenge ROS, protecting PUFAs from oxidative degradation and thereby reducing lipid peroxidation [36]. In addition, the flavonoids in Fagopyrum dibotrys enhance fatty acid elongation, thereby increasing the deposition of PUFAs in egg yolks [30].
Serum biochemical parameters serve as critical indicators for assessing metabolic status and health conditions in animals, primarily encompassing serum enzymes, protein and lipid metabolites. Serum TP, composed of ALB and GLB, reflects protein absorption and metabolism in the body. Elevated TP levels indicate enhanced protein metabolism and immune competence [37,38,39]. The experimental data confirmed that FDRM supplementation led to a marked rise in serum TP concentration, aligning with findings reported by Chen, et al. [38] and Zhang, et al. [21]. Serum BUN levels serve as an indicator of protein and amino acid utilization, with decreased concentrations suggesting favorable amino acids balance [40]. Tan, et al. [39] discovered that dietary Fagopyrum dibotrys supplementation with 1% in broilers decreased the serum BUN levels. However, this study revealed that the 3% FDRM supplementation group significantly elevated the serum BUN content compared to the control group, diverging from the aforementioned findings. This discrepancy suggested that dietary FDRM supplementation should not exceed 3%, as higher levels may compromise protein utilization efficiency.

5. Conclusions

This study found that adding 2% FDRM to the diet of Shanma laying ducks could improve the shell strength, yolk color and shell thickness in duck egg. Additionally, it improved the fatty acid profile, increased the levels of total amino acids, essential amino acids and umami amino acids in egg yolks. Concurrently, elevated the serum total protein levels indicated augmented physiological processes related to protein synthesis. These modifications suggested that 2% FDRM had a potential improvement in egg quality and egg nutritional value, with no negative impact on laying performance and health status of Shanma laying ducks. Under the conditions of this experiment, FDRM could be effectively utilized as a phytogenic feed additive in Shanma laying duck diets.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.X., X.C. and L.H.; Methodology, P.X., G.A. and J.C.; Software, Q.S., C.X. and W.So.; Validation, Z.Z., Q.W. and W.Su.; Formal analysis, G.A., J.C., Q.S. and C.X.; Investigation, P.X.,W.So.and Q.S.; Data curation, C.X., W.So. and W.Su.; Writing–Original Draft Preparation, P.X., G.A. and J.C.; Writing–Review & Editing, X.C. L.H., Q.S.,W.So. and D.Y.; Visualization, P.X., Z.Z., Q.W., D.Y. and W.Su.; Supervision, P.X., Z.Z., Q.W., D.Y. and W.Su.; Project administration, Z.Z., Q.W., D.Y. and W.Su.; Funding Acquisition, X.C. and L.H.. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by Jiangxi Province Key Research and Development Program (20224BBF62003), the Earmarked Fund for Modern Agro-industry Technology Research System of China (CARS-42-43), Jiangxi Province Modern Agricultural Poultry Industry Technical System of China (JXARS-12) and Gan-Po Talented Youth Support Program · the High-level and High-skill Leading Talent Training Project of Jiangxi Province (2023).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Chinese Guidelines for Animal Welfare and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Jiangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences (approval number: 2025-JXAAS-XM-18).

Data Availability Statement

All data are available by contacting the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

None.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Chen, X.; Xiong, P.; Song, W.; Song, Q.; Zou, Z.; Huang, J.; Chen, J.; Xu, C.; Su, W.; Ai, G.; et al. Dietary supplementation with honeycomb extracts positively improved egg nutritional and flavor quality, serum antioxidant and immune functions of laying ducks. Front. Veter- Sci. 2023, 10, 1277293. [CrossRef]
  2. Liu, B.; Ma, R.; Yang, Q.; Yang, Y.; Fang, Y.; Sun, Z.; Song, D. Effects of Traditional Chinese Herbal Feed Additive on Production Performance, Egg Quality, Antioxidant Capacity, Immunity and Intestinal Health of Laying Hens. Animals 2023, 13, 2510. [CrossRef]
  3. Shen, S.-Y.; Lin, Y.-Y.; Liao, S.-C.; Wang, J.-S.; Wang, S.-D.; Ching-Yi, L. Effects of phytogenic feed additives on the growth, blood biochemistry, and caecal microorganisms of White Roman geese. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 2023, 68, 202–211. [CrossRef]
  4. Song, W.; Chen, J.; Ai, G.; Xiong, P.; Song, Q.; Wei, Q.; Zou, Z.; Chen, X. Mechanisms of the effects of turpiniae folium extract on growth performance, immunity, antioxidant activity and intestinal barrier function in LPS-challenged broilers. Poult. Sci. 2025, 104, 104903. [CrossRef]
  5. Song, W.; Zou, Z.; Chen, X.; Tan, J.; Liu, L.; Wei, Q.; Xiong, P.; Song, Q.; Chen, J.; Su, W.; et al. Effects of traditional Chinese herbal feed supplement on growth performance, immunity, antioxidant levels, and intestinal health in chickens: a study on Ningdu yellow chickens. Poult. Sci. 2023, 102, 102986. [CrossRef]
  6. Song, Q.L.; Zou, Z.H.; Chen, X.L.; Ai, G.X.; Xiong, P.W.; Song, W.J.; Liu, G.H.; Zheng, A.J.; Chen, J. Effect of Moringa oleifera leaf powder supplementation on growth performance, digestive enzyme activity, meat quality, and cecum microbiota of Ningdu yellow chickens. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1523.
  7. Chen, J.; Song, Q.L.; Wu, D.; Zou, Z.H.; Gong, J.P.; Chen, X.L.; Song, W.J.; Xiong, P.W.; Xu, C.H.; Li, M.C.; et al. Effects of Honeysuckle stem and leaf powder on growth performance, immune function, antioxidant capacity and intestinal health of Ningdu Yellow Chickens. Chin. J. Anim. Nutri. 2024, 36, 3631-3641.
  8. Song, Q.L.; Chen, J.; Wu, D.; Zou, Z.H.; Gong, J.P.; Chen, X.L.; Song, W.J.; Xiong, P.W.; Xu, C.H.; Li, M.C.; et al. Effects of Tetrastigma hemsleyanum leaves powder on growth performance, serum biochemical index and jejunum morphology of Chongren patridge chickens. Chinese Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine 2024, 51, 2481-2488.
  9. Shi, K.Z.; Zhang, X.; Du, L.C.; Huang, B.; Tan, Y.; Jiang, X.Q.; Zhou, S.X. Investigate the effects of Qian Fagopyrum cymosum (Trev.) Meisn No.1 in Guizhou native porcine culture. Feed Research 2020, 43, 32-34.
  10. Chen, C.; Li, A. Transcriptome Analysis of Differentially Expressed Genes Involved in Proanthocyanidin Accumulation in the Rhizomes of Fagopyrum dibotrys and an Irradiation-Induced Mutant. Front. Physiol. 2016, 7, 100. [CrossRef]
  11. Hou, Z.P.; Zheng, X.; Chen, Q.; Wu, D.Q. Nutritional value, bioactivity of extract and application in animal production of Fagopyrum dibotrys. Chin. J. Anim. Nutri. 2021, 33, 3019-3027.
  12. Jing, R.; Li, H.-Q.; Hu, C.-L.; Jiang, Y.-P.; Qin, L.-P.; Zheng, C.-J. Phytochemical and Pharmacological Profiles of Three Fagopyrum Buckwheats. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016, 17, 589. [CrossRef]
  13. Li, X.; Liu, J.; Chang, Q.; Zhou, Z.; Han, R.; Liang, Z. Antioxidant and Antidiabetic Activity of Proanthocyanidins from Fagopyrum dibotrys. Molecules 2021, 26, 2417. [CrossRef]
  14. Zhang, L.-L.; He, Y.; Sheng, F.; Hu, Y.-F.; Song, Y.; Li, W.; Chen, J.; Zhang, J.; Zou, L. Towards a better understanding of Fagopyrum dibotrys: a systematic review. Chin. Med. 2021, 16, 1–18. [CrossRef]
  15. Zhang, M.; Zhang, X.; Pei, J.; Guo, B.; Zhang, G.; Li, M.; Huang, L. Identification of phytochemical compounds of Fagopyrum dibotrys and their targets by metabolomics, network pharmacology and molecular docking studies. Heliyon 2023, 9, e14029. [CrossRef]
  16. Chen, Z.; Dai, G.; Wu, X.; Li, L.; Tian, Y.; Tan, L. Protective effects of Fagopyrum dibotrys on oxidized oil-induced oxidative stress, intestinal barrier impairment, and altered cecal microbiota in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 2023, 102, 102472. [CrossRef]
  17. Wang, X.; Zhao, B.; Ruan, Y.; Xu, W.; Luo, Z.; Xu, J.; Shi, C.; Shan, J. Fagopyrum Dibotrys Rhizoma regulates pulmonary lipid metabolic homeostasis and the ERK-cPLA2 pathway to alleviate asthma in mice. Phytomedicine 2024, 131, 155782. [CrossRef]
  18. Yang, T.; Chen, X.L.; Hu, L.Z.; Zou, Z.H.; Wei, Q.P.; Wen, H. Advances in studies on the pharmacological effects of Fagopyrum dibotrys and its application in animal production. Pratacultural Science 2023, 40, 2411-2423.
  19. Xiong, P.W.; Chen, X.L.; Hu, L.Z.; Song, Q.L.; Wei, Q.P.; Liu, L.X.; Song, W.J.; Zhou, Z.H. Effects of golden buckwheat stem and leaf meal on reproductive performance, serum immune indices, antioxidant capacity and intestinal flora of Gannan Tibetan Pigs. Chinese Journal of Animal Science 2023, 59, 269-276.
  20. Zhang, R.; Chen, G.J.; Shang, Y.S.; Li, S.G.; Li, X.D.; Xiong, X.Q.; Mu, Q.; Wang, X.L.; Ran, W.N.; Ban, S.Z. Effect of freshly feeding Fagopyrum dibotrys on performance, egg quality and serum index of heat stressed laying hens. Acta Prataculturae Sinica 2020, 29, 179-189.
  21. Zhang, R.; Cheng, G.J.; Nie, C.S.; Wu, J.G.; Pan, F.Q.; Liu, F.D.; Shang, Y.S.; Li, S.G.; Chen, Y.L.; Long, Z.F.; et al. Effects of ambient temperature and Fagopyrum dibotrys extract supplemental level on performance, egg quality, and serum biochemical and immune indices of laying Hens. Chin. J. Anim. Nutri. 2023, 35, 5708-5723.
  22. Zhang, L.Y. Feed Analysis and Feed Quality Testing Technology, 3rd ed.; China Agricultural University Press: Beijing, China, 2007.
  23. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, 18 th ed.; The Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Arlington, VA, USA, 2006.
  24. Zhang, B.; Wang, Z.; Huang, C.; Wang, D.; Chang, D.; Shi, X.; Chen, Y.; Chen, H. Positive effects of Mulberry leaf extract on egg quality, lipid metabolism, serum biochemistry, and antioxidant indices of laying hens. Front. Veter- Sci. 2022, 9, 1005643. [CrossRef]
  25. Cullere, M.; Tasoniero, G.; Giaccone, V.; Acuti, G.; Marangon, A.; Dalle Zotte, A. Black soldier fly as dietary protein source for broiler quails: meat proximate composition, fatty acid and amino acid profile, oxidative status and sensory traits. Animal 2018, 12, 640–647. [CrossRef]
  26. Xu, C.; Xiong, P.; Song, W.; Song, Q.; Hu, Y.; Song, T.; Ji, H.; Chen, X.; Zou, Z. Effects of Fermented Navel Orange Pulp on Growth Performance, Carcass Characteristics, Meat Quality, Meat Nutritional Value, and Serum Biochemical Indicators of Finishing Tibetan Pigs. Foods 2024, 13, 1910. [CrossRef]
  27. Zhao, J.L.; Jiang, L.; Tang, X.H.; Peng, L.X.; Li, X.; Zhao, G.; Zhong, L.Y. Chemical Composition, Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Activities of the Flower Volatile Oils of Fagopyrum esculentum, Fagopyrum tataricum and Fagopyrum Cymosum. Molecules 2018, 23.
  28. Ting, S.; Yeh, H.S.; Lien, T.F. Effects of supplemental levels of hesperetin and naringenin on egg quality, serum traits and antioxidant activity of laying hens. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2011, 163, 59–66. [CrossRef]
  29. Surai, P.F. Polyphenol compounds in the chicken/animal diet: from the past to the future. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2013, 98, 19–31. [CrossRef]
  30. Feng, Y.; Dai, G.; Han, X.; Li, M.; Zhao, D.; Wu, J.; Wu, Y.; Wen, Z. Feeding Laying Ducks Eucommia ulmoides oliv. Leaves Increases the n-3 Fatty Acids Content and Decreases the n-6: n-3 PUFA Ratio in Egg Yolk without Affecting Laying Performance or Egg Quality. Foods 2023, 12, 287. [CrossRef]
  31. Iskender, H.; Yenice, G.; Dokumacioglu, E.; Kaynar, O.; Hayirli, A.; Kaya, A. Comparison of the effects of dietary supplementation of flavonoids on laying hen performance, egg quality and egg nutrient profile. Br. Poult. Sci. 2017, 58, 550–556. [CrossRef]
  32. Ji, F.; Gu, L.; Rong, G.; Hu, C.; Sun, W.; Wang, D.; Peng, W.; Lin, D.; Liu, Q.; Wu, H.; et al. Using Extract From the Stems and Leaves of Yizhi (Alpiniae oxyphyllae) as Feed Additive Increases Meat Quality and Intestinal Health in Ducks. Front. Veter- Sci. 2022, 8, 793698. [CrossRef]
  33. Tian, X.-Z.; Li, J.-X.; Luo, Q.-Y.; Wang, X.; Xiao, M.-M.; Zhou, D.; Lu, Q.; Chen, X. Effect of Supplementation With Selenium-Yeast on Muscle Antioxidant Activity, Meat Quality, Fatty Acids and Amino Acids in Goats. Front. Veter- Sci. 2022, 8, 813672. [CrossRef]
  34. Yao, B.-N.; Liao, F.-Y.; Yang, J.-Y.; Liu, A.; Wang, J.; Zhu, B.-G.; Feng, G.; Yang, S.-L. Effect of sea buckthorn extract on production performance, serum biochemical indexes, egg quality, and cholesterol deposition of laying ducks. Front. Veter- Sci. 2023, 10, 1127117. [CrossRef]
  35. Lenighan, Y.M.; McNulty, B.A.; Roche, H.M. Dietary fat composition: replacement of saturated fatty acids with PUFA as a public health strategy, with an emphasis on α-linolenic acid. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2019, 78, 234–245. [CrossRef]
  36. Efenberger-Szmechtyk, M.; Nowak, A.; Czyzowska, A. Plant extracts rich in polyphenols: antibacterial agents and natural preservatives for meat and meat products. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 61, 149–178. [CrossRef]
  37. Wang, Y.L.; Xue, Y.Y.; Sun, H.B.; Nan, S.S.; Zhang, W.J.; Nie, C.X. Effects of Mulberry leaf extract on growth performance, slaughter performance, organ indexes, serum biochemical indexes and nutrient apparent digestibility of yellow feather broilers. Chin. J. Anim. Nutri. 2023, 35, 5049-5058.
  38. Chen, K.L.; Gui, G.H.; Shen, L.L.; Ren, M.M.; Xu, E. Effects of adding buckwheat stem and leaf powder on meat quality and blood biochemical indexes in growing pigs. Guizhou Journal of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Medicine 2020, 44, 5-8.
  39. Tan, L.L.; Zhang, D.H.; Zhang, J.; Deng, R. Effects of golden buckwheat on antioxidant function,intestinal barrier function and serum biochemical indexes of broilers. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences 2019, 47, 232-235.
  40. Liu, X.J.; Li, W.; Chen, J.; Ma, X.D.; Chen, C.; Liu, H.Y.; Su, Q.; Zhang, J.S.; Qiao, F.B.; Jia, Z.P. Effects of compound Chinese Herbal Medicine on growth performance, serum immune, protein metabolism, and anti-stress indices of weaned piglets. Chin. J. Anim. Nutri. 2025, 37, 194-203.
Table 1. Nutritional compositions of FDRM (air-dry basis) %.
Table 1. Nutritional compositions of FDRM (air-dry basis) %.
Items Contents
Gross energy (MJ/kg) 15.48
Dry matter 86.40
Crude protein 4.03
Crude fat 0.30
Crude fiber 14.10
Crude ash 4.10
Calcium 0.41
Total phosphorus 0.31
FDRM = Fagopyrum dibotrys rhizoma meal.
Table 2. Composition and nutrient levels of experimental diets (air-dry basis) %.
Table 2. Composition and nutrient levels of experimental diets (air-dry basis) %.
Items F0 F1 F2 F3
Ingredient
Maize 52.00 51.60 51.40 51.00
Soybean meal 23.90 23.81 23.75 23.65
wheat bran 9.35 9.85 10.10 10.60
Soybean oil 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Limestone 8.47 8.46 8.47 8.50
Calcium hydrogen phosphate dihydrate 1.39 1.39 1.39 1.36
Sodium chloride 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
Choline chloride 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Vitamin premix1) 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Mineral premix2) 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
DL-methionine 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16
L-lysine·HCl 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
L-tryptophan 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01
Rice bran and hull 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00
Fagopyrum dibotrys rhizoma meal 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
Total 100 100 100 100
Nutrient levels3)
Metabolizable energy (MJ/kg) 10.47 10.47 10.48 10.47
Crude protein (%) 16.50 16.50 16.50 16.50
Ca (%) 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60
NPP (%) 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
Digestible lysine (%) 0.854 0.853 0.853 0.852
Digestible methionine (%) 0.399 0.408 0.408 0.408
Digestible threonine (%) 0.210 0.200 0.200 0.201
Digestible tryptophan (%) 0.605 0.605 0.605 0.604
1)The vitamin premix provided the following per kg of diets:Vitamin A 7 500 IU, Vitamin D3 2 500 IU, Vitamin E 20 IU, Vitamin K3 2.5 mg, Vitamin B1 3 mg, Vitamin B2 6 mg, pantothenic acid 20 mg, pyridoxine 2.5 mg, nicotinic acid 27 mg, biotin 0.2mg, folic acid 1 mg. 2)The mineral premix provided the following per kg of diets:Cu (as copper sulfate)20 mg, Fe (as ferrous sulfate)50 mg, Zn (as zinc sulfate)70 mg, Mn (as manganese sulfate)70 mg, I (as potassium iodide) 0.4 mg, Se (as sodium selenite) 0.3 mg. 3)All nutritional levels were calculated based on Tables of Feed Composition and Nutritional Value in China (34th Edition, 2023). FDRM = Fagopyrum dibotrys rhizoma meal. F0 = control group; F1 = the group supplemented with 1% FDRM; F2 = the group supplemented with 2% FDRM; F3 = the group supplemented with 3% FDRM.
Table 3. Effects of FDRM on productive performance of laying duck1.(33 to 39 weeks of age).
Table 3. Effects of FDRM on productive performance of laying duck1.(33 to 39 weeks of age).
Items4 Groups SEM2 P-value3
F0 F1 F2 F3
DEW (g/d) 788.20 799.09 792.87 795.93 11.74 0.990
AEW (g) 64.94 65.09 64.93 64.34 0.22 0.650
DEN [egg/(duck·d)] 0.76 0.77 0.76 0.77 0.01 0.977
LR (%) 75.85 76.79 76.36 77.36 1.14 0.977
ADFI [g/(duck·d)] 183.22 177.23 180.3 178.55 0.93 0.116
F/E (g/g) 3.74 3.57 3.67 3.61 0.05 0.706
1Data are the mean of 8 replicates with 16 ducks each. 2SEM (Standard error of the mean): the standard error of the average. 3In the same row, values with no letter superscripts mean no significant difference(P>0.05), while with different letter superscripts mean significant difference(P<0.05). 4DEW, daily egg weight = Gross egg weight laid in experimental period/49; AEW, average egg weight; DEN, daily egg number = Gross egg numbers laid in experimental period/49/16; LR, laying rate; ADFI, average daily feed intake; F/E, The ratio of feed to egg. FDRM = Fagopyrum dibotrys rhizoma meal. F0 = control group; F1 = the group supplemented with 1% FDRM; F2 = the group supplemented with 2% FDRM; F3 = the group supplemented with 3% FDRM.
Table 4. Effects of FDRM on egg quality of laying ducks1(39 weeks of age).
Table 4. Effects of FDRM on egg quality of laying ducks1(39 weeks of age).
Items4 Groups SEM2 P-value3
F0 F1 F2 F3
Shape index (SI) 1.36 1.35 1.35 1.35 0.003 0.782
Shell strength (N/m2) 39.69b 43.12ab 43.88a 44.80a 0.61 0.006
Shell thickness (mm) 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.002 0.124
Albumen height (mm) 7.00 7.08 6.83 6.75 0.09 0.544
Haugh unit 80.74 81.59 80.20 79.32 0.64 0.674
Yolk color 5.52b 5.76a 5.77a 5.73a 0.03 0.003
Vitellus proportion (%) 31.55 31.54 31.74 31.60 0.13 0.953
Albumen proportion (%) 60.02 59.55 59.60 59.27 0.15 0.385
Shell proportion (%) 8.48b 8.91ab 8.83ab 9.13a 0.07 0.003
1Data are the mean of 8 replicates with 16 ducks each. 2SEM (Standard error of the mean): the standard error of the average. 3In the same row, values with no letter superscripts mean no significant difference(P>0.05), while with different letter superscripts mean significant difference(P<0.05). 4Shape index (SI) = egg length/egg width. FDRM = Fagopyrum dibotrys rhizoma meal. F0 = control group; F1 = the group supplemented with 1% FDRM; F2 = the group supplemented with 2% FDRM; F3 = the group supplemented with 3% FDRM.
Table 5. Effects of FDRM on conventional nutrient levels in the vitellus of laying ducks (Fresh matter basis)1.
Table 5. Effects of FDRM on conventional nutrient levels in the vitellus of laying ducks (Fresh matter basis)1.
Items Groups SEM2 P-value3
F0 F1 F2 F3
Moisture (%) 49.57 49.75 49.25 49.61 0.10 0.410
Crude protein (%) 17.70 18.00 17.88 17.96 0.07 0.420
Ether extract (%) 10.61 10.53 10.52 10.38 0.06 0.646
Cholesterol (mg/g) 9.06 8.26 7.96 8.66 0.19 0.211
Ca (mg/g) 0.58 0.58 0.61 0.62 0.01 0.073
1Data are the mean of 8 replicates with 16 ducks each. 2SEM (Standard error of the mean): the standard error of the average. 3In the same row, values with no letter superscripts mean no significant difference(P>0.05), while with different letter superscripts mean significant difference(P<0.05). FDRM = Fagopyrum dibotrys rhizoma meal. F0 = control group; F1 = the group supplemented with 1% FDRM; F2 = the group supplemented with 2% FDRM; F3 = the group supplemented with 3% FDRM.
Table 6. Effect of FDRM on amino acids composition in the vitellus of laying ducks1(mg/g, as-fresh basis).
Table 6. Effect of FDRM on amino acids composition in the vitellus of laying ducks1(mg/g, as-fresh basis).
Items4 Groups SEM2 P-value3
F0 F1 F2 F3
EAAs
Thr 6.25b 6.38ab 6.77a 6.82a 0.07 0.003
Val 8.09ab 8.01b 8.46a 8.11ab 0.09 0.002
Met 4.00 4.31 4.52 4.42 0.08 0.104
Ile 6.14ab 6.04b 6.56a 6.20ab 0.08 0.024
Leu 12.26b 12.89b 13.67a 12.95ab 0.19 0.004
Phe 6.56 6.46 7.04 6.67 0.10 0.195
Lys 10.10 10.52 11.00 10.84 0.13 0.073
NEAAs
Asp 12.24b 12.42ab 13.29a 13.26a 0.15 0.009
Ser 11.29 11.03 12.08 11.35 0.14 0.066
Glu 17.44b 17.77ab 18.84a 18.28ab 0.18 0.026
Gly 4.29b 4.35b 4.69a 4.47ab 0.05 0.010
Ala 7.14 7.27 7.42 7.44 0.06 0.307
Cys 2.18b 2.20b 2.28a 2.26ab 0.02 0.003
Tyr 5.15 5.36 5.64 5.50 0.08 0.227
His 3.18 3.30 3.42 3.44 0.04 0.092
Arg 8.68 9.07 9.85 9.48 0.17 0.227
Pro 4.96 4.80 5.29 4.84 0.07 0.095
Total EAAs 53.73b 54.99b 58.75a 54.80ab 0.66 <0.001
Total NEAAs 74.39 77.08 79.13 79.80 0.97 0.198
Total AAs 128.12b 131.61ab 140.00a 134.60ab 1.34 0.008
Flavour AAs 52.46 53.62 55.49 55.61 0.57 0.158
Umami AAs 29.67b 30.19ab 31.93a 31.54ab 0.31 0.021
Sweet AAs 27.98 27.45 28.01 28.10 0.38 0.939
Aromatic AAs 11.37 11.82 12.63 12.17 0.17 0.054
1Data are the mean of 8 replicates with 16 ducks each. 2SEM (Standard error of the mean): the standard error of the average. 3In the same row, values with no letter superscripts mean no significant difference(P>0.05), while with different letter superscripts mean significant difference(P<0.05). 4Asp, asparc acid; Thr, threonine; Ser, serine; Glu, glutamic acid; Gly, glycine; Ala, alanine; Cys, cysteine; Val, valine; Met, methionine; Ile, isoleucine; Leu, leucine; Tyr, tyrosine; Phe, phenylalanine; Lys, lysine; His, histidine; Arg, arginine; Pro, proline; EAAs, essential amino acids; NEAAs, non-essential amino acids; AAs, amino acids; Flavour AAs = Asp + Glu + Gly + Ala + Tyr + Phe; Umami AAs = Asp + Glu; Sweet AAs = Ser + Gly + Ala + Pro; Aromatic AAs = Tyr + Phe. FDRM = Fagopyrum dibotrys rhizoma meal. F0 = control group; F1 = the group supplemented with 1% FDRM; F2 = the group supplemented with 2% FDRM; F3 = the group supplemented with 3% FDRM.
Table 7. Effect of FDRM on fatty acids profile in the vitellus of laying ducks1(% ).
Table 7. Effect of FDRM on fatty acids profile in the vitellus of laying ducks1(% ).
Items4 Groups SEM2 P-value3
F0 F1 F2 F3
C14:0 0.40a 0.39ab 0.36b 0.34b 0.01 <0.001
C16:0 21.82a 21.19b 21.15b 21.44ab 0.08 0.034
C17:0 1.21 1.18 1.15 1.17 0.01 0.081
C18:0 6.64 6.62 6.67 6.64 0.02 0.884
C20:0 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.001 0.111
C16:1 4.65 4.73 4.75 4.72 0.02 0.116
C17:1 1.32 1.37 1.29 1.30 0.01 0.323
C18:1n9 45.70 45.88 46.01 46.34 0.10 0.106
C20:1 0.32b 0.33ab 0.33ab 0.34a 0.003 0.007
C18:2n6 15.20ab 15.42a 15.33ab 14.81b 0.09 0.033
C18:3n3 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.001 0.907
C18:3n6 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.003 0.082
C20:3 0.085b 0.089ab 0.087ab 0.092a 0.001 0.025
C20:4 0.93 0.95 0.93 0.94 0.004 0.197
C22:6 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.002 0.053
Total SFAs 30.31a 29.46b 29.41b 29.67b 0.10 0.033
Total MUFAs 51.98 52.31 52.40 52.71 0.11 0.204
Total PUFAs 17.96ab 18.23a 18.11ab 17.62b 0.08 0.041
Total UFAs 69.70 70.55 70.55 70.33 0.11 0.069
UFAs:SFAs 2.30b 2.40a 2.39a 2.37ab 0.01 0.040
PUFAs:SFAs 0.59b 0.62a 0.61ab 0.60ab 0.005 0.032
1Data are the mean of 8 replicates with 16 ducks each. 2SEM (Standard error of the mean): the standard error of the average. 3In the same row, values with no letter superscripts mean no significant difference(P>0.05), while with different letter superscripts mean significant difference(P<0.05). 4SFAs = C14:0 + C16:0 + C17:0 + C18:0 + C20:0; MUFAs = C16:1 + C17:1 + C18:1n9 + C20:1; PUFAs = C18:2n6 + C18:3n3 + C18:3n6 + C20:3 + C20:4 + C22:6; UFAs = MUFAs + PUFAs; SFAs, saturated fatty acids; MUFA, monounsaturated fatty acids; PUFAs, polyunsaturated fatty acids; UFAs, unsaturated fatty acids. FDRM = Fagopyrum dibotrys rhizoma meal. F0 = control group; F1 = the group supplemented with 1% FDRM; F2 = the group supplemented with 2% FDRM; F3 = the group supplemented with 3% FDRM.
Table 8. Effects of FDRM on serum biochemical parameters of laying ducks1.
Table 8. Effects of FDRM on serum biochemical parameters of laying ducks1.
Items4 Groups SEM2 P-value3
F0 F1 F2 F3
TP (g/L) 30.26b 31.88ab 35.20a 32.4ab 0.49 0.002
ALB (g/L) 15.91 15.67 17.34 15.88 0.24 0.107
BUN (mmol/L) 6.25b 5.63b 8.47ab 10.29a 0.54 0.005
AKP (KU/100 mL) 20.28 19.76 20.24 22.94 1.21 0.900
Ca (mmol/L) 1.34ab 1.29b 1.46a 1.29b 0.02 0.030
TG (mmol/L) 6.32 4.29 5.06 4.67 0.33 0.169
TC (mmol/L) 2.43 3.85 2.37 2.58 0.21 0.210
HDL (mmol/L) 1.12 1.85 1.19 1.50 0.11 0.059
LDL (mmol/L) 0.76 0.83 0.67 0.66 0.04 0.449
1Data are the mean of 8 replicates with 16 ducks each. 2SEM (Standard error of the mean): the standard error of the average. 3In the same row, values with no letter superscripts mean no significant difference(P>0.05), while with different letter superscripts mean significant difference(P<0.05). 4TP, total protein; ALB, albumin; BUN, blood urea nitrogen; AKP, alkaline phosphatase; Ca, calcium; TG, triglycerides; TC, total cholesterol; HDL, high-density lipoprotein ; LDL, low-density lipoprotein. FDRM = Fagopyrum dibotrys rhizoma meal. F0 = control group; F1 = the group supplemented with 1% FDRM; F2 = the group supplemented with 2% FDRM; F3 = the group supplemented with 3% FDRM.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Privacy Settings

© 2025 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated