Key words broiler - laying hen - bacterial infections - protozoal infections - phytotherapy
- phytogenic feed additive - literature review -
Origanum vulgare (Lamiaceae) -
Coriandrum sativum (Apiacea) -
Artemisia annua
-
Bidens pilosa (Asteraceae)
Introduction
Effective safeguarding of poultry health is essential to meet the demand for meat
and eggs for human consumption [1 ]. High stocking density, growth, and laying performance as well as different infectious
diseases like colibacillosis, salmonellosis, or coccidiosis are leading to an increase
in morbidity and mortality in poultry of all ages. Hence, due to multifactorial circumstances,
these infectious diseases create major economic losses [2 ]. It has been reported that the annual loss due to coccidiosis in poultry production
was estimated up to 3 billion dollars worldwide [3 ], [4 ]. The use of anticoccidial drugs as well as antimicrobials is still the most widespread
measure to control coccidiosis and bacterial infections in poultry. In 2011, more
than 40% of all antimicrobials sold in the UK for use in poultry were classified for
the control of coccidian parasites,
predominantly Eimeria [3 ]. In cattle and pigs, 20 000 tons of antimicrobial each were used and for poultry
the use of 8905 tons has been estimated in 31 countries in the EU in 2017 [5 ]. Besides pharmacotherapy, antibiotics were also used for prophylaxis and as a growth-promoting
agent to increase productivity in livestock [6 ], [7 ]. Use and misuse of antimicrobials may lead to the emergence of antimicrobial-resistant
pathogens [6 ], [8 ]. In 2016, almost 70% of E. coli isolates from poultry from different EU countries showed antibiotic resistance against
amoxicillin; in other countries like the USA, China, or Brazil, E. coli isolates showed resistances up to 100% against different antibiotic drugs [9 ]. A similar problem could be seen with the resistance against
anticoccidial drugs: a study in China showed the development of various degrees
of resistance of Eimeria spp . against most of the 8 anticoccidial drugs tested [7 ]. Resistance to the available chemicals has become widespread [3 ], [6 ], [10 ]. Due to the emergence of antimicrobial resistance, the EU Commission set a ban on
antibiotics as growth promoters in animal feed in 2006, restricting the use of antibiotics
to the sole purpose of veterinary treatment [11 ].
According to the sales data published from 2011 to 2017 by the European Surveillance
of Veterinary Antimicrobial Consumption, a yearly decrease in sales of 32.5% was observed
and the use of antibiotics decreased, and the list of highest critically important
antibiotics showed fewer antimicrobials [5 ]. Anticoccidial drugs, however, are still allowed to be fed for prevention and growth
promotor use.
In contrast to the amounts of antimicrobials used in poultry, the variety of antimicrobial
veterinary medicinal products registered for use in poultry has decreased and is relatively
small. In Switzerland, only 11 veterinary medicinal products against bacteria and
coccidia are registered based on the official information system for Swiss veterinary
medicinal products “CliniPharm” [12 ] for poultry. Seven of them are antibiotic drugs, with 4 belonging to the category
“highest critically important antibiotic drugs”.
The most important bacterial infections that were reported to lead to prominent economic
losses in poultry production are salmonellosis, colibacillosis, and clostridiosis
[2 ], [13 ]. The pathophysiology of those infections is accompanied by several clinical symptoms
like anorexia, apathy, diarrhea, reduced performance (egg production, daily weight
gain, laying or feed conversion rate), or even mortality [14 ]. Similar problems can be observed on a global scale with protozoal infections like
coccidiosis [13 ], [14 ]. Links between coccidiosis and increased colonization with pathogenic bacteria of
the intestine have been described [3 ]. Coccidiosis is an infectious disease of the intestinal tract of wild and domestic
animals caused by parasites of the phylum Apicomplexa. Especially Eimeria tenella remains
highly invasive and is most likely the most important Eimeria species causing
chicken coccidiosis [15 ]. The protozoal pathogens attach to intestinal epithelial cells, enter and replicate
in the epithelial cell, leading to a rupture of the cells. This causes an interruption
of food intake, dehydration, blood loss, increased mortality, poor growth, and reduced
performance [4 ], [10 ], [14 ]. Therapeutic or prophylactic treatments of poultry diseases caused by bacterial
and protozoal pathogens should have antibacterial, antiprotozoal, antidiarrheal, anti-inflammatory,
antiadhesive, and analgesic properties ([Table 1 ]).
Table 1 Challenging infectious diseases in poultry: pathogens, pathophysiology, and resulting
demands for prophylaxis and therapy.
Disease complex
Pathogens
Pathophysiology (Pp) and clinical signs (Cs)
Demands for prophylaxis and therapy
a – f
[14 ]; a,c
[2 ]; b,e
[13 ]
Bacteria
Salmonellosisa
Paratyphoid Sallmonellae
S. enteritis, S. typhimurium
Pp: S. enteritis adheres to epithelial cells at the tip of villi, toxin production → changes density
and morphology → electrolyte, intestinal fluid are affected; septicemia.
Anti-inflammatory, antiadhesive, analgesic, antidiarrheal, prebiotic, improved feed
intake, improved feed conversion rate, anti-inflammatory, improved performance
Pullorum disease
S. pullorum
Pp: septicemia, focal necrotic lesions of mucosa, liver, and spleens swollen, hemorrhagic
streaks
Fowl typhoid
S. gallinarum
Necrtic enteritis/clostridiosisb
Clostridium perfringes Type A
Pp: adheres to cell, toxin production, gross lesions in the intestine
Antibacterial, analgesic, improved feed intake, antiadhesive antidiarrheal, prebiotic,
spasmolytic, anti-inflammatory, improved performance
Colibacillosisc
avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) and enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC)
Pp: enters the host through mucosa or directly through breaks in skin → inflammation
(serositis, cellulitis, enteritis, salpingitis, synovitis, meningitis, etc.), dehydration,
septicemia → synovitis and osteomyelitis
Antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, analgesic, immunostimulatory, antidiarrheal, improved
performance
Campylobacteriosisd
Campylobacter jejuni
Rare/no obvious clinical signs in poultry but in humans
Gastrointestinal Protozoa
Coccidiosise
Eimeria spp. (E. acervulina, E. brunetti, E. maxima, Eimeria mitis E. necratix, E.
praecox, E. tenella)
Pp: E. adheres to epithelial cells in the intestine, replications intracellular in
intestine → rupture of epithelial cell wall → tissue damage, dehydration, blood loss,
increased intestinal passage time, intestinal malabsorption, reduced nutrient digestion,
villous atrophy, intestinal leakage of plasma proteins, increased intestine activity
Antiadhesive, antiprotozoal, spasmolytic, improved feed intake, improved feed conversion
rate, improved weight gain, anti-inflammatory
Histomonosisf
Histomonas meleagridis
Pp: ulceration and inflammation of cecal walls, inflammation of mesenteric, necrosis
of the liver, engorgement of the ceca
Antiprotozoal, anti-inflammatory, improved blood circulation, prokinetic, prebiotic
Numerous plant species were traditionally used by farmers in Europe for prophylaxis
and therapy of poultry diseases. In Switzerland, 13 plant species were reported to
be used by farmers [16 ], [17 ], [18 ], [19 ], [20 ]. In a recent literature review about European ethnoveterinary practices, 63 plant
species were documented for use in poultry in European countries [21 ], including the treatment of a variety of diseases like parasitosis and gastrointestinal
diseases [17 ], [21 ]. For the treatment of digestion problems and inflammation of the digestive tract,
the use of a variety of medical plants has been described in recent German textbooks
about veterinary herbal medicine [22 ], [23 ]. Many herbs
have been found efficacious in in vitro, in vivo, and/or clinical studies for the treatment of gastrointestinal diseases, and many
different herbal compounds have been investigated for their potential use as a dietary
supplement [10 ], [24 ]. A recent systematic review on medicinal plants as a treatment option for gastrointestinal
and respiratory livestock diseases showed that a high number of in vivo studies were performed on poultry [24 ].
The goal of this review was to systematically evaluate the current research on medicinal
plants used in in vivo poultry studies in the context of the most important bacterial and protozoal infectious
diseases and to identify the variety and potential of the different plant species
studied. Previously published reviews mainly focused on “plant bioactives” or “phytogenics”
to enhance productivity in poultry or to improve their performance [25 ], [26 ], [27 ], but a systematic analysis on disease control is lacking.
Material and Methods
The methods of this systematic review are based on the recommendations of the PRISMA
statement [28 ], [29 ] and the AMSTAR measurement tool [30 ]. Moreover, they were performed following the design of a recently published study
by Ayrle et al. [24 ]. The PICOS scheme [28 ] was used to design the research question: the population is poultry and included
chickens, quails, turkey, and waterfowl, and the intervention is the administration
or feeding of plant-based substances. The comparator is no treatment, placebo, or
standard therapy (antibiotic or anticoccidial), and the outcomes are the effects on
performance, health, bacteria, and gastrointestinal protozoa. The study design includes
only in vivo or clinical studies with poultry and no in vitro studies. A detailed description of the study protocol is given in supplementary
material file 1.
Selection of published scientific studies
Literature search
The literature research was conducted in February 2018 by 1 person, and 2 databases,
Web of Science [31 ] and PubMed [32 ], were consulted. No specific timeframe of publication years was considered. An additional
literature search was done with the same databases for the period from February 2018
to February 2019 by 1 person. The search term in both databases consisted of the name
of the animal species and the phytotherapeutic description: (layer* OR hens OR chicken*
OR poultry OR fowl* OR duck* OR quail* OR goose* OR turkey*) AND (medicinal plant*
OR plant extract OR phytogenic feed additive OR herbal OR phytotherapy). In the Web
of Science keyword search, the results were refined with the categories “agriculture”
or “veterinary science” and only in the languages “English”, “German”, or “French”.
In the PubMed keyword research, the results were refined with “other animals”, “language”
(only in English, French,
or German language), “complementary medicine”, “dietary supplements”, “history
of medicine”, “systematic reviews”, “toxicology and veterinary science”, and an additional
MeshTerm search was conducted with the terms “phytotherapy”, “poultry”, and “plant
extracts”.
Manual sorting of experiments according to predetermined criteria
After the removal of duplicates, the remaining publications were refined manually
by selective screening of the title and the abstract by 2 evaluators. Publications
were maintained if they fit the predefined inclusion criteria and were sorted according
to pathogen-associated categories in an Endnote database.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
To be included, publications had to provide an abstract written in English, French,
or German. Further, the publications had to include an assessment of oral administration
(via feed or drinking water) of plant-based materials in an in vivo trial with poultry. In addition, in these trials, a challenge of the poultry with
bacteria and/or gastrointestinal protozoa must have been conducted, or a detailed
description of the intestinal microflora must have been included. Effects of the medicinal
plant-based treatment (e.g., antidiarrheic effects, immunotropic effects, anti-inflammatory
effects, antioxidant effects, improved growth, improved feed conversion rate, etc.)
must have been described. In addition, a control group (placebo, untreated, and/or
positive control groups like antibiotics or anticoccidials) had to be included. Publications
without an abstract investigating a mixture of different plant species in a combined
preparation or publications that did not
distinguish the plant species or did not mention the Latin name of the plant
used were excluded. Furthermore, publications reporting studies on vinegar, charcoal,
soil, prebiotics, yeast, other animals than chickens, quails, turkeys, or waterfowl;
studies with eggs or embryos; studies focusing only on feed, performance, or product
quality; and studies on synthetic single substances were also excluded. Publications
that fulfilled the inclusion criteria but where no full text was available were excluded.
Classification
The included publications were divided into 2 main groups: “bacteria” and “gastrointestinal
protozoa”. Before adding the respective information of the included publications in
a table, a distinction between “publication” (as one scientific paper) and “experiment”
was made, based on the fact, that some publications included several trials or trials
with more than 1 medicinal plant. Other publications referred to more than 1 animal
species (e.g., Artemisia annua L. tested in turkeys and chickens). Therefore, the following definition of “experiment”
was used: Experiment = plant species × animal species × trial × publication. Hence,
as an example, a publication referring to 2 controlled trials with 2 animal species
(1 with quails and 1 with chickens) and 2 plant species each (3 groups in each trial:
1 with peppermint, 1 with garlic, and 1 control group) would lead to 4 “experiments”:
garlic × chicken, peppermint × chicken, garlic × quails, and peppermint ×
quails.
Assessment
All experiments were evaluated according to the following characteristics: plant species,
plant family, a pharmaceutical form of the plant (extract), dosage/concentration,
trial specification (on a station/on a farm), poultry species, age of the poultry
at the start of the trial, number (n) of individuals per group, distribution of animals
to different treatment groups (randomized or not), comparator, issue of the study,
way of application, duration of administration, and observation period (from the first
day of application) and were entered in a data table (Table 1S , Supporting Information). To determine the recent bionomical nomenclature of the
plant species used in the trials, the web page “the plant list” [33 ] was used. The potential of the plant species was evaluated based on possible effects,
improving the expected pathophysiology of the most common, and important bacterial
and protozoal infectious diseases in poultry ([Table 1 ]). The plant-based treatment was screened for the following effects: antibacterial,
synergism with antibiotics, antiprotozoal, antiadhesive, antidiarrheic, gut spasmolytic,
lung spasmolytic, expectorant (secretolytic/mucolytic/secretomotoric), antitussive,
anti-inflammatory, analgesic, antioxidant, immunotropic/stimulation of immune system,
intestinal microbiota (prebiotic; predominantly assessed based on the lactobacillus
population), improved growth, improved feed intake, improved feed conversion rate,
improved egg production or other effects.
Scoring System
A scoring system was established for each parameter to estimate the plantsʼ potential
for prophylaxis or therapy ([Table 2 ]). The following system was, for example, used for studies with a negative control:
if an experiment showed a significant positive effect of a plant-based substance compared
to placebo or no treatment (in several dosages or at least in 1 dosage and no dosage
showed a negative effect), it was marked as a “+” in the respective data table. If
the plant-based substance showed no significant difference, it was marked as “0”.
In case the plant-based substance showed a significant negative effect (in several
dosages or at least in 1 dosage, and no dosage showed a positive effect), it was marked
as a “−”. A “?” was given if the experiment used different dosages, and at least 1
dosage showed a positive and another dosage a negative effect. The same procedure
was used if different durations of administrations had been compared
within 1 experiment. An “n” was given if there were no data available on the
specific parameter. For plant species with reports from 2 or more experiments, a total
score for each “+”, “0”, and “−” as well as a total summation (counting “+” as 1,
“0” as 0, and “−” as − 1) was calculated.
Table 2 Schematic representation of the scoring system used in the systematic literature
search for each parameter measured in each experiment.
Effects*
Score definition
Experiments that compared a medicinal plant-based treatment only with an antiparasitic,
antibacterial, or another treatment** as control.
Experiments that compared a medicinal plant-based treatment at least with a negative
control group (placebo treatment or no treatment), sometimes, in addition, with an
antiparasitic, antibacterial, or another treatment*** as control.
* as this study was not designed as a meta-analysis but more as a qualitative systematic
review, a detailed proof of the statistical methods was not conducted. Only the results
that the authors presented as significant were considered; ** in 4 experiments the
positive group was a “vaccinated control group”, which was compared to a not vaccinated
but medicinal plant treated group; *** in 7 experiments instead of an antiparasitic/antibacterial
control was a probiotic control group, 2 times vitamin E supplemented group and 3
times a combination of different plants
+
The positive effect (in the case of several dosages of 1 plant material at least 1
dosage showed a positive effect and other dosages showed no effect).
Medicinal plant-based treatment showed a significant positive effect or no difference
compared to the control.
Medicinal plant-based treatment showed a significant positive effect compared to the
negative control.
0
No effect
Medicinal plant-based treatment showed a significant negative difference compared
to the control.
Medicinal plant-based treatment showed no significant difference from the negative
control.
−
The negative effect (in case of several dosages of 1 plant material at least 1 dosage
showed a negative effect and other dosages showed no effect)
(In this experimental design, it is not possible to distinguish between a lack of
effect and a negative effect.)
Medicinal plant-based treatment showed a significant negative effect compared to the
negative control.
n
No data available
?
In the case of experiments with several dosages of 1 plant material: if at least 1
dosage showed a positive and another dosage a negative effect compared to the negative
control group.
Results
Database screening resulted in 4197 hits, and 3345 publications remained after the
removal of 852 duplicates. After screening the titles of the publications, 3068 publications
were excluded because they did not match the defined criteria, and finally a total
of 277 publications remained. Out of these, 197 studies were excluded after screening
the abstracts of the publications for the defined criteria. Sometimes, as examples,
only growth-promoting factors were studied, without a link to bacterial or gastrointestinal
protozoal infection, or a mixture of plant species was used in the trial, or no Latin
name of the used plant species was given. The remaining 80 publications resulted in
77 included publications, due to lack of full-text availability or language issues
in the remaining 3 ([Fig. 1 ]). These publications were published between 1997 and 2019 and described 148 experiments
(Table 1S , Supporting Information).
Fig. 1 Process of the systematic literature search.(Source: Simone Bissig, FiBL)
More publications were found between the years 2011 and 2016 compared to the time
period ranging from 1997 to 2010. After 2016, the number of publications obtained
decreased again ([Fig. 2 ]).
Fig. 2 Distribution of the publication dates of all included publications subdivided by
pathogen-associated groups “bacteria” and “gastrointestinal protozoa”.(Source: Simone
Bissig, FiBL)
Publications were divided into 2 groups, namely “bacterial” and “gastrointestinal
protozoal” infections: 38 publications, focusing on “bacteria”, comprised 70 experiments,
wherein 5 focused on “campylobacter species”, 4 on “clostridia species”, 16 on “E. coli ”, 5 on “salmonella”, 6 on “other mixed bacteria”, and 34 experiments on “microbiota”.
The second group, “gastrointestinal protozoa”, included 39 publications and 78 experiments,
wherein 72 experiments referred to “coccidia” and 6 to “other protozoa”.
The 148 experiments were in vivo trials with 83 plant species of 42 plant families ([Table 3 ]). Most experiments were found for A. annua (13), followed by Origanum vulgare L. (9). Artemisia sieberi Besser was analyzed in 5 experiments, as well as Rosmarinus officinalis L. and Thymus vulgaris L. Echinacea purpurea (L.) Moench, Peganum harmala L., and Allium sativum L. were represented in 4 experiments each. Most experiments (34) included the family
Asteraceae, containing 11 plant species, followed by Lamiaceae with 28 experiments
and 8 plant species. Apiaceae was included with 10 experiments, containing 9 plant
species. Two or more experiments were found for 24 plant species ([Table 4 ]). Fifty-nine plant species were only represented with 1 in vivo experiment.
Table 3 Medicinal plants used in in vivo trials with bacterial or gastrointestinal protozoal infections in poultry published
between 1997 and 2019 in peer-reviewed journals: incidence of plant families and species.
Family
Number of experiments per family
Number of species per family
Species in alphabetic order (in brackets: experiments per species, if more than 1)
Asteraceae
34
11
Achillea millefolium L. (3), Ageratum conyzoides (L.) L, Artemisia annua L. (13), Artemisia asiatica (Pamp.) Nakai ex Kitam., Artemisia sieberi Besser (5), Artemisia vestita Wall. ex Besser, Artemisia vulgaris L., Bidens pilosa L. (3), Echinacea purpurea (L.) Moench (4), Eclipta alba (L.) Hassk., Inula helenium L.
Lamiaceae
28
8
Mentha x piperita L. (2), Mentha spicata L., Origanum majorana L. (2), Origanum minutiflorum O.Schwarz & P. H.Davis, Origanum vulgare L. (9), Rosmarinus officinalis L. (5), Salvia officinalis L. (2), Teucrium polium L., Thymus vulgaris L. (5)
Apiaceae
10
9
Bupleurum chinense DC., Centella asiatica (L.) Urb, Coriandrum sativum L. (2), Cuminum cyminum L., Ferulago angulata (Schltdl.) Boiss. Foeniculum vulgare Mill., Heracleum persicum Desf. ex Fisch., C. A.Mey. & Avé-Lall., Torilis japonica (Houtt.) DC., Trachyspermum ammi (L.) Sprague)
Leguminosae
7
7
Acacia decurrens Willd., Astragalus membranaceus (Fisch.) Bunge, Gleditsia japonica Miq., Lupinus angustifolius L., Sophora flavescens Aiton, Styphnolobium japonicum (L.) Schott, Trigonella foenum-graecum L.
Xanthorrhoeaceae
5
2
Aloe secundiflora Engl. (2), Aloe vera (L.) Burm.f. (3)
Amaryllidaceae
4
1
Allium sativum L. (4)
Nitrariaceae
4
1
Peganum harmala L. (4)
Euphorbiaceae
3
2
Euphorbia hirta L. (2), Manihot esculenta Crantz
Poaceae
3
1
Saccharum officinarum L. (3)
Ranunculaceae
3
2
Nigella sativa L. (2), Pulsatilla cernua (Thunb.) Bercht. ex J. Presl
Rutaceae
3
3
Citrus x bergamia Risso & Poit., Citrus limon (L.) Osbeck, Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck
Simaroubaceae
3
1
Brucea javanica (L.) Merr. (3)
Vitaceae
3
1
Vitis vinifera L. (3)
Anacardiaceae
2
2
Anacardium occidentale L., Rhus coriaria L.
Aquifoliaceae
2
1
Ilex paraguariensis A. St.-Hil. (2)
Arecaceae
2
2
Areca catechu L., Serenoa repens (W.Bartram) Small
Lauraceae
2
1
Cinnamomum verum J.Presl (2)
Myrtaceae
2
1
Syzygium aromaticum (L.) Merr. & L. M.Perry (2)
Oleaceae
2
2
Forsythia suspensa (Thunb.) Vahl, Fraxinus ornus L.
Scrophulariaceae
2
2
Eremophila glabra (R.Br.) Ostenf., Scrophularia striata Boiss.
Theaceae
2
1
Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze (2)
Altingiaceae
1
1
Liquidambar orientalis Mill.
Burseraceae
1
1
Commiphora swynnertonii Burtt
Combretaceae
1
1
Combretum indicum (L.) DeFilipps
Cucurbitaceae
1
1
Cucurbita pepo L.
Ganodermataceae
1
1
Ganoderma lucidum (Curtis) P. Karst.
Hydrangeaceae
1
1
Dichroa febrifuga Lour.
Lythraceae
1
1
Punica granatum L.
Malvaceae
1
1
Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench
Marasmiaceae
1
1
Lentinula edodes (Berk.) Pegler
Meliaceae
1
1
Melia azedarach L.
Menispermaceae
1
1
Sinomenium acutum (Thunb.) Rehder & E. H.Wilson
Moringaceae
1
1
Moringa olifera L.
Musaceae
1
1
Musa paradisiaca L.
Piperaceae
1
1
Piper sarmentosum Roxb.
Polygonaceae
1
1
Polygonum aviculare L.
Quillajaceae
1
1
Quillaja saponaria Molina
Rubiaceae
1
1
Morinda citrifolia L.
Schisandraceae
1
1
Illicium verum Hook.f.
Taxaceae
1
1
Torreya nucifera (L.) Siebold & Zucc.
Tremellaceae
1
1
Tremella fuciformis (Berk.)
Ulmaceae
1
1
Ulmus macrocarpa Hance
Urticaceae
1
1
Urtica dioica L.
Table 4 Assessment of medicinal plants based on at least 2 in vivo experiments with bacterial or gastrointestinal protozoal infections in poultry published
between 1997 and 2019 in peer-reviewed journals.
Plant species
Antibacterial
Microbiota/prebiotic
Antiprotozoal
Antiadhesive
Antidiarrheic
Anti-inflammatory
Antioxidant
Immunotropic
Improved performance (fattening, laying)
Improved feed intake
Improved feed conversion rate
Total Score (number of +, 0, −)
Number of experiments/number of publications
Score
+
0
–
+
0
–
+
0
–
+
0
–
+
0
–
+
0
+
0
–
+
0
–
+
0
–
+
0
–
+
0
–
The table shows number of individual experiments with score +, 0 and – (for detailed
information, please compare [Table 2 ]). Superscript numbers refer to the specific literature references: 1
[104 ], 2
[105 ], 3
[104 ], [105 ], 4
[104 ], [105 ], 5
[104 ], [105 ], 6
[104 ], [105 ], 7
[106 ], [107 ], 8
[108 ], 9
[109 ], 10
[107 ], [109 ], 11
[106 ], [108 ], 12
[107 ], 13
[108 ], 14
[106 ], 15
[106 ], [109 ], 16
[107 ], [108 ], 17
[110 ], 18
[77 ], 19
[77 ], [110 ], 20
[77 ], [110 ], 21 – 22
[111 ], 23 – 24
[112 ], 25
[111 ], 26
[111 ], [112 ], 27 – 28
[111 ], 29 – 30
[63 ], 31
[41 ], [64 ], [66 ], 32
[41 ], [42 ], [65 ], [113 ], 33
[66 ], 34 – 35
[113 ], 36
[41 ], [66 ], 37
[41 ], [42 ], [113 ], 38
[41 ], [63 ], [64 ], 39
[42 ], [64 ], [65 ], 40
[63 ], [65 ],
41
[63 ], [66 ], 42
[42 ], 43
[64 ], 44 – 45
[114 ], 46
[70 ], [115 ], [116 ], 47 – 48
[115 ], 49
[114 ], 50
[116 ], 51
[114 ], 52
[116 ], 53
[114 ], 54
[114 ], [115 ], 55
[117 ], 56
[117 ], [118 ], [119 ], 57
[118 ], 58
[117 ], [118 ], [119 ], 59
[117 ], [119 ], 60 – 63
[120 ], 64
[121 ], 65 – 67
[114 ], 68
[121 ], 69 – 71
[114 ], 72 – 73
[122 ], 74
[123 ], 75
[122 ], 76
[122 ], [123 ], 77
[124 ], [125 ], 78
[124 ], 79
[124 ], 80
[125 ], 81 – 83
[124 ], [125 ], 84
[126 ], 85
[126 ], 86
[127 ], 87
[109 ], [128 ], 88
[126 ], 89
[109 ], 90
[128 ], 91
[127 ], 92
[127 ], 93
[109 ], [128 ], 94
[127 ], 95
[129 ], 96
[130 ], 97
[129 ], 98
[129 ], [130 ], 99
[129 ], [130 ], 100
[129 ], [130 ], 101 – 104
[131 ], 105
[104 ], [132 ], 106
[132 ], 107
[104 ]), 108 – 109
[132 ], 110
[104 ], 111
[132 ], 112
[104 ], [132 ], 113
[104 ], [132 ], 114
[121 ], 115 – 117
[114 ], 118
[114 ], [121 ], 119 – 120
[114 ], 121 – 124
[105 ], 125
[133 ], [134 ], [135 ], [136 ], 126
[105 ], 127
[134 ], 128
[105 ], [133 ], [136 ], 129
[96 ], 130
[109 ], [137 ], 131
[96 ], 132
[96 ], [134 ], 133
[109 ], [133 ], [136 ], 134
[105 ], [134 ], [137 ], 135
[133 ], [136 ], [137 ], 136
[105 ]), 137
[133 ], 138
[105 ], [109 ], [134 ], [136 ], [137 ], 139 – 140
[138 ], 141 – 142
[139 ], 143
[138 ], 144 – 146
[139 ], 147
[133 ], [134 ], 148
[105 ], 149
[134 ], 150
[105 ], 151
[109 ], 152
[109 ], [133 ], [134 ], 154
[105 ], [134 ], 155
[105 ], [133 ], 156
[105 ], [134 ], 157
[133 ], 158
[105 ], [109 ], [134 ], 159
[140 ], [141 ], 160
[140 ], 161
[141 ], 162 – 163
[140 ], [141 ], 164
[141 ], 165
[109 ], 166 – 167
[142 ], 168 – 169
[109 ], 170
[122 ], 171
[143 ], 172 – 173
[122 ], 174
[122 ], [143 ], 175
[143 ], 176
[144 ], 177
[105 ], 178
[144 ], 179
[105 ], 180
[145 ], 181
[109 ], 182 – 183
[144 ], 184
[105 ], [109 ],
185
[105 ], [144 ], 186
[105 ], [144 ], 187
[105 ], [109 ], [144 ], 188
[146 ], 189
[145 ], [146 ], 190
[146 ], 191
[145 ], [146 ], 192 (n = 59): Altingiaceae (Liquidambar orientalis Mill. [147 ]), Anacardiaceae (Anacardium occidentale L. [148 ], Rhus coriaria L. [132 ]), Apiaceae (Bupleurum chinense DC. [113 ], Centella asiatica [L.] Urb [107 ], Cuminum cyminum L. [104 ], Ferulago angulata [Schltdl.] Boiss. [97 ], Foeniculum vulgare Mill. [133 ], Heracleum persicum Desf. ex Fisch., C. A.Mey. & Avé-Lall. [132 ]
, Trachyspermum ammi [L.] Sprague [122 ], Torilis japonica [Houtt.] DC. [113 ]), Arecaceae (Areca catechu L. [149 ], Serenoa repens [W.Bartram] Small [145 ]), Asteraceae (Ageratum conyzoides [L.] L [150 ], Artemisia asiatica [Pamp.] Nakai ex Kitam. [113 ], Artemisia vestita Wall. ex Besser [151 ], Artemisia vulgaris L. [42 ], Eclipta
alba [L.] Hassk. [152 ], Inula helenium L. [113 ]), Burseraceae (Commiphora swynnertonii Burtt [153 ]), Combretaceae (Combretum indicum [L.] DeFilipps [113 ]), Cucurbitaceae (Cucurbita pepo L. [145 ]), Euphorbiaceae (Manihot esculenta Crantz [42 ]), Ganodermataceae (Ganoderma lucidum [Curtis] P. Karst. [154 ]), Hydrangeaceae (Dichroa febrifuga Lour. [155 ]), Lamiaceae (Mentha spicata L. [156 ], Origanum minutiflorum O.Schwarz & P. H.Davis [157 ], Teucrium polium L. [104 ]), Leguminosaceae (Acacia decurrens Willd.
[158 ]
, Astragalus
membranaceus [Fisch.] Bunge [159 ]
, Gleditsia japonica Miq. [113 ]
, Lupinus angustifolius L. [160 ]
, Sophora flavescens Aiton [113 ]
, Styphnolobium japonicum [L.] Schott [113 ]
, Trigonella foenum-graecum L. [121 ]), Lythraceae (Punica granatum L. [161 ]), Malvaceae (Abelmoschus esculentus [L.] Moench [162 ]), Marasmiaceae (Lentinula edodes [Berk.] Pegler [159 ]), Meliaceae (Melia azedarach L. [113 ]), Menispermaceae (Sinomenium acutum [Thunb.], Rehder & E. H.Wilson [113 ]), Moringaceae (Moringa oleifera L. [163 ]) Musaceae (Musa
paradisiaca L. [164 ]), Oleaceae (Forsythia suspensa [Thunb.] Vahl [102 ], Fraxinus ornus L. [165 ]), Piperaceae (Piper sarmentosum Roxb. [166 ]), Polygonaceae (Polygonum aviculare L. [113 ]), Quillajaceae (Quillaja saponaria Molina [137 ]), Ranunculaceae (Pulsatilla cernua [Thunb.] Bercht. ex J. Presl [113 ]), Rubiaceae (Morinda citrifolia L. [167 ]), Rutaceae (Citrus x bergamia Risso & Poit. [168 ]
, Citrus limon [L.] Osbeck [168 ], Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck [168 ]), Schisandraceae (Illicium verum Hook.f. [169 ]), Scrophulariaceae
(Eremophila glabra [R.Br.] Ostenf. [158 ], Scrophularia striata Boiss. [97 ]), Taxaceae (Torreya nucifera [L.] Siebold & Zucc. [113 ]), Tremellaceae (Tremella fuciformis [Berk.] [159 ]), Ulmaceae (Ulmus macrocarpa Hance [113 ]), Urticaceae (Urtica dioica L. [109 ])
Achillea millefolium
L.
11
22
33
34
35
36
1 (1,14,0)
3/2
Allium sativum
L.
27
18
19
210
211
112
113
114
215
216
7 (8,6,1)
4/4
Aloe secundiflora
Engl.
117
118
219
220
6 (6,0,0)
2/2
Aloe vera
(L.)
Burm.f.
121
122
123
124
125
226
127
128
8 (8,1,0)
3/2
Artemisia annua
L.
129
130
631
532
133
134
135
236
437
438
339
340
341
142
143
6 (14,16,8)
13/7
Artemisia sieberi
Besser
144
145
446
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
254
6 (8,5,2)
5/4
Bidens pilosa
L.
155
356
157
358
259
10 (10,0,0)
3/3
Brucea javanica
(L.) Merr.
260
161
362
363
5 (5,4,0)
3/1
Camellia sinensis
(L.) Kuntze
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
− 1 (2,2,3)
2/2
Cinnamomum verum
J. Presl
172
173
174
175
276
5 (5,1,0)
2/2
Coriandrum sativum
L.
277
178
179
180
281
282
283
9 (9,2,0)
2/2
Echinacea purpurea
(L.) Moench
184
185
186
287
188
189
190
191
192
293
194
3 (5,5,2)
4/4
Euphorbia hirta
L.
295
196
197
298
299
2100
6 (4,0,0)
2/2
Ilex paraguariensis
A. St.-Hil.
1101
1102
1103
2104
− 3 (0,2,3)
2/1
Mentha x pipierita
L.
2105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
2112
2113
6 (6,6,0)
2/2
Nigella sativa
L.
1114
1115
1116
1117
2118
1119
1120
1 (3,3,2)
2/2
Origanum majorana
L.
2121
2122
2123
2124
0 (0,8,0)
2/1
Origanum vulgare
L.
4125
2126
1127
4128
1129
2130
1131
2132
3133
4134
4135
2136
1137
6138
9 (12,23,2)
9/8
Peganum harmala
L.
2139
1140
1141
1142
3143
1144
1145
1146
7 (7,4,0)
4/2
Rosmarinus officinalis
L.
2147
2148
1149
2150
1151
1152
2153
3154
2155
2156
1157
4158
4 (6,15,2)
5/4
Saccharum officinarum
L.
3159
1160
1161
2162
3163
10 (10,0,0)
3/2
Salvia officinalis
L.
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
4 (4,2,0)
2/2
Syzygium aromaticum
(L.) Merr. & L. M. Perry
1170
1171
1172
1173
2174
1175
5 (5,2,0)
2/2
Thymus vulgaris
L.
1176
2177
1178
2179
1180
1181
1182
1183
2184
2185
3186
4187
7 (7,14,0)
5/4
Vitis vinifera
L.
1188
2189
1190
2191
4 (4,2,0)
3/2
Total of plant species > 2 experiments
27
17
1
8
20
0
27
14
0
1
1
0
10
1
0
4
0
0
6
0
0
13
7
3
34
28
8
6
24
10
15
29
4
(151, 141, 25)
Others: 59 species192
19
7
0
11
7
0
22
12
2
3
1
0
4
12
0
2
0
0
7
2
0
12
0
0
22
29
4
7
16
6
14
15
0
(123, 101,11)
Total
46
24
1
19
27
0
49
26
2
4
2
0
14
13
0
6
0
0
13
2
0
25
7
3
56
57
12
13
40
16
29
44
4
(274, 241, 37)
The most commonly investigated poultry type in the experiments included in this review
was broilers with 102 out of 148 experiments, followed by 39 with laying hens, 5 included
turkeys, and 2 used quails. In 106 out of 148 experiments, the birds were randomly
allocated to the trial groups; in 4 experiments, the allocation was described as equally
distributed according to body weight. In the remaining 38 experiments, information
about the method of distribution was missing. At the start of the trial, the age of
the animals ranged from 1 day (90 experiments) to 280 days (1 trial with 40-wk old
layers). The treatment duration ranged from 1 day up to 49 days.
The most frequently used pharmaceutical preparation consisted of extracts (103 experiments:
20 with alcoholic, 7 with aqueous, and 54 with not further specified extracts, and
22 with essential oils), followed by the crude plant material (40 experiments) and
other pharmaceutical preparations (5 experiments). In 102 experiments, administration
of plant preparations was via feed, followed by 30 experiments using drinking water
for administration. Administration by forced feeding directly into the animalsʼ crop
was performed in 16 experiments. In a total of 51 2-armed experiments, 45 had a “negative
control group”, 2 a “positive control group”, and 4 a vaccinated group as control.
In 99 experiments, a 3-armed design was chosen, in most cases comprising a “negative
and positive control group” with the medicinal plant preparation.
The outcome of the trials resulted in the following scores: 274 “+”, 241 “0”, and
37 “−” ([Table 4 ]). Most of the experiments investigated performance effects (125 on growth or egg
production, 69 focused on feed intake and 77 analyzed feed conversion rate), while
“antiadhesive”, “anti-inflammatory”, and “antioxidant” effects were evaluated less
frequently (6, 6, 15). Antibacterial activity was tested in 71 experiments, whereof
46 showed a positive effect according to the defined criteria in this review, 24 studies
showed no effect compared to the control group, and 1 study had a negative outcome.
Prebiotic effects were studied in 46 experiments, resulting in 19 positive and 27 zero
effects. Antiprotozoal activity of plants or plant extracts in poultry was investigated
in 77 experiments, whereof 49 showed positive effects, 26 found no difference compared
to the control group, and in 2 experiments, the plant had a negative effect compared
to the
control group.
Based on the data of this review with a total of 83 investigated plant species, 19
plant species showed an antibacterial effect, 35 plant species showed an antiprotozoal
effect, and 3 plant species had a prebiotic effect ([Table 4 ], Table 1S , Supporting Information). Ten plant species out of the 5 families Amaryllidaceae,
Asteraceae, Lamiaceae, Nitrariaceae, and Xanthorrhoeaceae showed both in vivo antibacterial and in vivo antiprotozoal activities in chicken and turkeys: A. sativum, Aloe secundiflora Engl., Aloe vera L., A. annua, A. sieberi, E. purpurea, O. vulgare, Salvia officinalis L., T. vulgaris , and P. harmala . Fifteen plant species showed antibacterial as well as prebiotic effects, often detected
within the same study.
Regarding the total score for all experiments, the positive outcome for antibacterial
(65%), antiprotozoal (63%), antiadhesive (67%), antioxidant (87%), anti-inflammatory
(100%), and immunotropic (71%) effects overweighed compared to “zero” and “negative”
effects ([Table 4 ]). The outcome for the production parameters, including improved growth, feed intake,
and feed conversion rate was mostly “zero” (46%, 58%, 57%). Prebiotic effects were
found, and positive (41%) and zero (57%) outcomes were almost equally represented.
In summary, 274 positive effects (50%) predominated over 241 zero effects (44%) and
37 negative effects (7%).
Discussion
Detection of an increasing number of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens (against antibiotic
as well as anticoccidial drugs) in poultry has resulted in an intensified search for
alternative treatment methods. Medicinal plants and their extracts might represent
an option for alternative treatments to reduce or replace the common therapy with
antimicrobials.
An increase in the number of publications per year was observed around 2010. This
outcome could be associated with the EUʼs ban on antibiotics as growth promoters in
livestock feed in 2006, leading to an increasing interest in exploring alternative
ways to prevent infectious diseases. Since 2016, the number of publications decreased
again, which is difficult to explain, as the problem of antimicrobial input in the
worldwide poultry industry has not been resolved yet.
Evaluation of the methodology
This systematic review was designed according to the PRISMA statement and AMSTAR measurement
tool [28 ], [29 ], [30 ]. The risk of introducing database bias was reduced by using 2 different and independent
databases and by using the Mesh Term functions on PubMed. The deliberately less specific
search strategy led to over 3000 hits in the first search, and only around 3% of the
references were finally included in the review. However, this is consistent with studies
using comparable methodology [24 ]. To reach a high level of validity, only trials with control groups were included.
However, 2 methodological limitations might have led to a certain bias: Besides 106
experiments where a randomized distribution of the birds to the trial groups was clearly
stated, no information about the distribution was available in 38 of the 148 included
experiments. Furthermore,
blinding is unusual in herbal feeding trials with poultry because in trials with
oral administration of plant raw material, essential oils, or simple plant extracts,
blinding is hardly possible due to the sensory properties of the used plant material.
The scoring system allowed comparisons of a large number of experiments and helped
to identify the most relevant plant species. Nevertheless, the total score must be
interpreted with caution. Plant species with a large number of experiments and a large
number of parameters measured per experiment had a priori the highest chance to reach the highest total scores, which might have caused a bias.
The median number of parameters measured per experiment was 3 with a range of 1 to
7. Even publications measuring a high number of parameters did not clearly state if
a Bonferroni correction was conducted. However, detailed proof of the statistical
methods was not conducted, and these studies with a potential flaw in
statistical methods were still included because this review was not designed
as a meta-analysis but rather as a qualitative systematic review.
The outcomes of different studies regarding the same plant species were often not
uniform. One explanation might be the variability of natural products within the same
plant species. Environmental factors like climate and geographic conditions, time
of the year, soil, method of cultivation, and storage affect the phytochemical composition
[34 ], [35 ], [36 ]. Therefore, the amounts of active constituents can differ in each product sample
as reported, for example, for S. officinalis
[37 ] or A. annua
[36 ]. Furthermore, it is important to consider that the amounts of active constituents
can depend on the type of extract and the extraction method used [38 ], as well as the parts of the plant used, as described for Forsythia suspensa (Thunb.) Vahl or Aloe spp . [39 ], [40 ]. Unfortunately, detailed information about the natural products compounds of the
used plants was broadly missing. Last, the mode and duration of the administration
for prophylactic or therapeutic use have an impact on the effectiveness of medicinal
plants [41 ], [42 ].
Antibacterial, anticoccidial, and prebiotic active plant species
Several plant species including A. sativum, A. secundiflora, A. vera, A. annua, A. sieberi, E. purpurea, O. vulgare,
S. officinalis, T. vulgaris, and P. harmala showed antibacterial, antiprotozoal, and, in some plant species, also prebiotic activities.
In accordance, antimicrobial activities were also shown in these plants in numerous
in vitro studies [43 ], [44 ], [45 ], [46 ], [47 ], [48 ], [49 ], [50 ], [51 ], [52 ], [53 ], [54 ], [55 ], [56 ]. Interestingly, no study analyzed the antibacterial and antiprotozoal effect at
the same time, even if in practice,
pathologies might often be caused by such combined infections.
It is still not obvious why some medical plants act antibacterially concerning pathogens
and prebiotic (e.g., by elevation of the lactobacillus population) at the same time.
It has been shown or hypothesized that gram-negative and zoopathic bacteria utilize
acylated homoserine lactone (AHL) for their communication system [57 ]. This system has been named quorum sensing (QS), and it has been demonstrated to
regulate various activities such as virulence factors, sporulation, and biofilm formation
[57 ], [58 ]. One way of inhibiting AHL biosynthesis includes effects on LuxI-type synthase and/or
LuxR-type receptor proteins as shown for O. vulgare and T. vulgaris and other Lamiaceae species as well as their direct antibiofilm activity [57 ], also known for other plant species [59 ]. Bifidobacteria and Lactobacilli may
produce metabolic end-products that lower the gut pH [60 ], [61 ] and inhibit the growth of pathogens such as E. coli, Salmonella thyphimurium , and C. perfringens
[61 ]. Animals fed with antibiotics had a thinned mucosal layer and a decreased gut-weight
as well as a decrease in protective microflora: thus, antibiotics were shown to weaken
the ecosystem in the gut and facilitate pathogen survival [61 ], [62 ]. Powering up the healthy gut microflora with plants with possible prebiotic activities
might enhance the nonpathogen bacteria population. The sum of these effects might
lead to antibacterial and prebiotic effects at the same time. However, the clinical
evidence of such effects is still controversially discussed.
Some outstanding single plant species
Based on the aim to identify the most promising plant species for future research,
species that were represented by a high number of experiments and species that showed
a high total score will be discussed in detail in alphabetical order: A. annua, A. sieberi, A. vera, A. secundiflora, Bidens pilosa, Coriandrum sativum L., Mentha x piperita L., and O. vulgare .
A. annua was represented in 13 experiments and resulted in a total score of 6 (14 positive,
16 zero, 8 negative effects). In 11 experiments the antiprotozoal effect was evaluated,
wherein 6 were positive and 5 showed no effect. Detrimental effects were found especially
in performance, related to reduced body weight [41 ], [63 ], [64 ] or reduced feed intake [63 ], [64 ], [65 ]. These results might be attributed to the lowered palatability of the feed, due
to the bitter and strong taste of A. annua , imposed by contained sesquiterpenes, mainly artemisinin [63 ], [64 ], [65 ]. In contrast, there is some evidence that A. annua improves the feed conversion rate [63 ], [66 ]. The anticoccidial effect showed a linear relationship between artemisinin dose
used and oocyst output [41 ], [63 ]. Overall, antiparasitic effects of artemisinin and its derivates were confirmed
in many in vitro and in vivo studies [67 ]. Nevertheless, A. annua contains a broad spectrum of secondary metabolites [68 ], which vary depending, for example, on geographic origin [36 ]. This might be one reason for divergent results in some effects. While it is well
documented that artemisinin affects different metabolic pathways of malaria parasites
[69 ], the mode of action in gastrointestinal poultry coccidia is still unknown.
A. sieberi was represented with 5 experiments resulting in a total score of 6 (8 positive, 5
zero, and 2 negative effects). Four experiments confirmed antiprotozoal effects. In
addition, A. sieberi was demonstrated to reveal anti-inflammatory effects. The chemical component responsible
for the antiprotozoal and the anti-inflammatory effect might be again artemisinin,
similar to the effect of A. annua
[70 ]. Artemisinin has been shown to exert immunomodulatory effects through its inhibition
of several immune cells and related signaling pathways [71 ]. A. sieberi has been demonstrated to contain sesquiterpene lactones, leading to antimicrobial
activity in vitro against both gram-negative and gram-positive like E. coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus aureus
[47 ]. As already reported for Genus Artemisia, European farmers used
Artemisia absinthum traditionally in laying hens for its antidiarrheal, intestinal anti-inflammatory,
and anti-infective as well as antiparasitic effects. [21 ].
A. vera showed a total score of 8 (8 positive, 1 zero effect) represented in 3 experiments.
Besides antibacterial and antiprotozoal effects, improved performance, feed intake,
and feed conversion rate, A. vera also led to immunotropic and prebiotic effects. Its antimicrobial potential might
be attributed, for example, to flavonoids [68 ], [72 ], or anthraquinones are likely to inhibit protein synthesis in bacteria [73 ]. Contained polysaccharides enhance phagocytosis-activity and may therefore be responsible
for the in vivo antibacterial effect shown in one of the experiments [74 ]. Contained catechol, a hydroxylated phenol, was reported to exert antimicrobial
activities [74 ]. The immunotropic effect might be given through the polysaccharide acemannan, which
has been reported to exert immunostimulating effects
in vitro
[75 ] and in particular to activate macrophages in vivo in chicken [76 ]. Whole-plant extracts but also several single components of A. vera showed anti-inflammatory activities via different modes of action such as inhibition
of proinflammatory cytokines or cyclooxygenase pathway [73 ].
A. secundiflora , represented in 2 experiments, showed consistent positive effects (antibacterial,
antiprotozoal, antidiarrheic effects, and improved performance) with a total score
of 6. The presence of terpenoids, flavonoids, and tannins is responsible for these
effects [77 ].
The Asteraceae B. pilosa reached a total score of 10 (10 positive effects) out of 3 experiments. All experiments
showed antiprotozoal effects, improved performance, and antidiarrheic and prebiotic
effects. B. pilosa is an extraordinary source of natural products, containing predominantly polyacetylenes
and flavonoids, and these have been demonstrated to be anti-inflammatory [78 ], antioxidant [79 ], and antibacterial [79 ], [80 ]. Phenols, like luteolin, ethyl caffeate, and polyynes were reported to be the major
anti-inflammatory natural products present in B. pilosa
[81 ]. B. pilosaʼs potential to exert anticoccidial properties might be caused by cytopiloyne inhibiting
the oocyst sporulation and invading into the cell, as demonstrated in in vitro and in vivo experiments [82 ].
C. sativum , represented with 2 experiments, resulted in a total score of 9 points (9 positive,
2 zero effects). Antibacterial and immunotropic effects, as well as improved performance,
have been reported. The essential oil of C. sativum has been described to have antibacterial action in vitro
[83 ], with its effect on gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens being sometimes more
potent than the antibiotic rifaximin [84 ]. This effect is most probably due to an increase in bacterial membrane permeability
and the loss of respiratory activity due to complex interactions between the membrane
and several components of the essential oil [85 ]. Per the outcome of this systematic review, a study on feeding rainbow trouts with
C. sativum seed extract optimized growth performance [86 ], possibly through stimulating the secretion of digestive
enzymes [87 ].
Two experiments on M. x piperita were found, resulting in a total score of 6 points (6 positive, 6 zero effects).
Both experiments confirmed an in vivo antibacterial effect. Furthermore, an anti-inflammatory and immunotropic effect could
be shown. Interestingly, a plant species from the same genus, Mentha suaveolens Ehrh. has been traditionally used by farmers in Spain for antiprotozoal therapeutic
action in laying hens [21 ]. The main components of the essential oil from leaves of M. piperita are menthol, menthone, and menthyl acetate, and they were shown to effectively inhibit
the growth of 18 multidrug-resistant S. aureus strains in an in vitro trial [88 ]. Similar results were found in another in vitro trial on pathogenic methicillin-resistant S, aureus
[89 ]. Essential oil of M. piperita resulted in an antioxidant
activity that was analyzed by measuring the reduction of the radical cation [90 ] and might explain the anti-inflammatory effects also found in the present study.
It has been reported that menthol suppresses the expression of prostaglandin E2, leukotriene
B4, and interleukin (IL)-β 2 and therefore exerts anti-inflammatory effects [91 ].
O. vulgare was found in 9 experiments, resulting in a total score of 10 (12 positive, 23 zero,
2 negative). Improved performance and antibacterial and anticoccidial properties were
measured, and 5 experiments confirmed a prebiotic action. O. vulgare has been traditionally used in Switzerland in hens with gastrointestinal disorders
[17 ]. Five experiments used the oregano essential oil, which is rich in phenolic compounds,
containing carvacrol as its main compound [90 ], [92 ]. Carvacrol has been reported to have antibacterial effects in vitro (i.e., due to the phenols containing an isopropyl group at the para-position [93 ], [94 ] and via altering the structure of phospholipid membranes of bacteria) [95 ]. In vitro , carvacrolʼs immunomodulating properties led to a significant
decrease in phagocytosis [92 ], but IL-6 production was not significantly affected. This is in contrast to our
assessment, where 1 experiment showed enhanced IgM+ cells [96 ].
Some plant species were only represented in 1 experiment. Four plant species stood
out due to a high total score: Scrophularia striata Boiss and Ferulago angulata (Schltdl.) Boiss (each 6 scoring points) and F. suspensa and Mentha spicata L. (each 5 scoring points). None of these plant species resulted in any negative
effects. Therefore, they are shortly discussed in the following, although a plant
species represented with only 1 experiment is less meaningful.
S. striata was shown to be antibacterial in vivo against coliform bacteria, prebiotic on Lactobacillus, immunotropic, and causing
improved performance in broilers [97 ]. It is traditionally used for infectious diseases, allergies, and chronic inflammatory
diseases [98 ] and to treat constipation in laying hens [21 ]. Its action has been reported to be antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, and antioxidative
and is caused by contained gallic acid, flavonoids, and phenylpropanoids [98 ], [99 ].
F. angulata showed antibacterial, prebiotic, and immunotropic effects and improved fattening,
feed intake, and feed conversion rate in broilers [97 ]. Constituents such as α -terpineol, terpenen-4-ol, α -pinene, β -pinene, and ρ -cymene have been reported to be anti-inflammatory [100 ]. α -Pinene is high concentrated in F. angulata and known for its antimicrobial properties [35 ], most probably via decreasing the bacterial membrane integrity [101 ].
F. suspensa resulted in antibacterial, antioxidant, immunotropic, and prebiotic effects, improved
growth, and improved feed intake in broilers in vivo
[102 ]. An in vitro trial showed that forsythiaside (a phenylethanoid glycoside) and forsythin (a lignan),
2 recently identified natural compounds (n = 237) of F. suspensa
[103 ], inhibited the growth of E. coli, P. aeruginosa, and S. aureus . The same study also gave evidence for the antioxidant activity of F. suspensa . The improved weight gain might be explained by the repression of the growth of E. coli and the improved growth of lactobacillus [39 ].
Conclusions
Data from this systematic review indicate that medicinal plants have the potential
to reduce the use of antibiotics and antiprotozoals in poultry production. O. vulgare, C. sativum, A. annua, and B. pilosa are promising plant species for prophylaxis and therapy of bacterial and protozoal
diseases in poultry. Several further plant species are interesting candidates for
future research. Different dosages and phytochemical compositions of the used material
may impact the outcome of the systematic review.
A comprehensive and transparent description of the used herbal preparations, as already
recommended from the CONSORT group for human clinical trials with herbal interventions
nearly 15 years ago, should be considered in future trials with poultry. The missing
patentability for phytogenic feed additives might be addressed by phytochemical fingerprints
in combination with some overall descriptions and analyses of the used plant material.
Contributorsʼ Statement
Conception and design of the work: H. Ayrle, M. Walkenhorst, V. Maurer, M. Mevissen,
M. Melzig, T. S. Dalgaard; data collection: P. Farinacci, H. Ayrle; analysis and interpretation
of the data: P. Farinacci, H. Ayrle, V. Maurer, M. Walkenhorst, M. Mevissen, M. Melzig,
T. S. Dalgaard; statistical analysis: P. Farinacci, M. Walkenhorst, M. Mevissen; drafting
the manuscript: P. Farinacci; critical revision of the manuscript: P. Farinacci, H.
Ayrle, V. Maurer, M. Walkenhorst, M. Mevissen, M. Melzig, T. S. Dalgaard.
