Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:50:42.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of probiotic supplementation on performance traits, bone mineralization, cecal microbial composition, cytokines and corticosterone in laying hens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2018

F. F. Yan ,
G. R. Murugesan  and
H. W. Cheng
F. F. Yan
Affiliation:
College of Animal Science & Technology, Zhejiang A&F University, Hangzhou 311300, China
G. R. Murugesan
Affiliation:
BIOMIN America Inc., San Antonio, TX 78213, USA
H. W. Cheng*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Livestock Behavior Research Unit, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
*
†E-mail: Heng-Wei.Cheng@ars.usda.gov
Get access

Abstract

Recent researches have showed that probiotics promote bone health in humans and rodents. The objective of this study was to determine if probiotics have the similar effects in laying hens. Ninety-six 60-week-old White Leghorn hens were assigned to four-hen cages based on their BW. The cages were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatments: a layer diet mixed with a commercial probiotic product (containing Enterococcus faecium, Pediococcus acidilactici, Bifidobacterium animalis and Lactobacillus reuteri) at 0, 0.5, 1.0 or 2.0 g/kg feed (Control, 0.5×, 1.0× and 2.0×) for 7 weeks. Cecal Bifidobacterium spp. counts were higher in all probiotic groups (P<0.001) compared with the control group. The percentage of unmarketable eggs (cracked and shell-less eggs) was decreased in both 0.5× and 2.0× groups compared with the control group (P=0.02), mainly due to the reduction of shell-less eggs (P=0.05). The increases in tibial and femoral mineral density and femoral mineral content (P=0.04, 0.03 and 0.02, respectively), with a concomitant trend of increases in humerus mineral density and tibial mineral content (P=0.07 and 0.08, respectively), occurred in the 2.0× group. However, the bone remodeling indicators of circulating osteocalcin and c-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen were similar among all groups (P>0.05). In addition, the plasma concentrations of cytokines (interleukin-1β, interleukin-6, interleukin-10, interferon-γ and tumor necrosis factor-α) and corticosterone as well as the levels of heterophil to lymphocyte ratio were similar between the 2.0× group and the control group (P>0.05). In line with these findings, no differences of cecal tonsil mRNA expressions of interleukin-1β, interleukin-6 and lipopolysaccharide-induced tumor necrosis factor-α factor were detected between these two groups (P>0.05). These results suggest that immune cytokines and corticosterone may not involve in the probiotic-induced improvement of eggshell quality and bone mineralization in laying hens. In conclusion, the dietary probiotic supplementation altered cecal microbiota composition, resulting in reduced shell-less egg production and improved bone mineralization in laying hens; and the dietary dose of the probiotic up to 2.0× did not cause negative stress reactions in laying hens.

Keywords

probioticshell-less eggbone healthBifidobacteriumhens
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 33 - 41
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2018. This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abdelqader, A, Al-Fataftah, AR and Das, G 2013a. Effects of dietary Bacillus subtilis and inulin supplementation on performance, eggshell quality, intestinal morphology and microflora composition of laying hens in the late phase of production. Animal Feed Science and Technology 179, 103–111.Google Scholar
Abdelqader, A, Irshaid, R and Al-Fataftah, AR 2013b. Effects of dietary probiotic inclusion on performance, eggshell quality, cecal microflora composition, and tibia traits of laying hens in the late phase of production. Tropical Animal Health and Production 45, 1017–1024.Google Scholar
Ait-Belgnaoui, A, Colom, A, Braniste, V, Ramalho, L, Marrot, A, Cartier, C, Houdeau, E, Theodorou, V and Tompkins, T 2014. Probiotic gut effect prevents the chronic psychological stress-induced brain activity abnormality in mice. Neurogastroenterology and Motility 26, 510–520.Google Scholar
Borsoi, A, Quinteiro-Filho, WM, Calefi, AS, Ferreira, AJ, Astolfi-Ferreira, CS, Florio, JC and Palermo-Neto, J 2015. Effects of cold stress and Salmonella Heidelberg infection on bacterial load and immunity of chickens. Avian Pathology 44, 490–497.Google Scholar
Fuentes, C, Orozco, L, Vicente, J, Velasco, X, Menconi, A, Kuttappan, V, Kallapura, G, Latorre, J, Layton, S, Hargis, B and Téllez, G 2013. Effect of a lactic acid bacterium based probiotic, Floramax-B11®, on performance, bone qualities, and morphometric analysis of broiler chickens: an economic analysis. International Journal of Poultry Science 12, 322–327.Google Scholar
Garcia, VG, Knoll, LR, Longo, M, Novaes, VC, Assem, NZ, Ervolino, E, de Toledo, BE and Theodoro, LH 2016. Effect of the probiotic Saccharomyces cerevisiae on ligature-induced periodontitis in rats. Journal of Periodontal Research 51, 26–37.Google Scholar
Giannenas, I, Papadopoulos, E, Tsalie, E, Triantafillou, E, Henikl, S, Teichmann, K and Tontis, D 2012. Assessment of dietary supplementation with probiotics on performance, intestinal morphology and microflora of chickens infected with Eimeria tenella . Veterinary Parasitology 188, 31–40.Google Scholar
Houshmand, M, Azhar, K, Zulkifli, I, Bejo, MH, Meimandipour, A and Kamyab, A 2011. Effects of non-antibiotic feed additives on performance, tibial dyschondroplasia incidence and tibia characteristics of broilers fed low-calcium diets. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 95, 351–358.Google Scholar
Iwami, K and Moriyama, T 1993. Effects of short chain fatty acid, sodium butyrate, on osteoblastic cells and osteoclastic cells. International Journal of Biochemistry 25, 1631–1635.Google Scholar
Jia, D, O’Brien, CA, Stewart, SA, Manolagas, SC and Weinstein, RS 2006. Glucocorticoids act directly on osteoclasts to increase their life span and reduce bone density. Endocrinology 147, 5592–5599.Google Scholar
Legette, LL, Lee, W, Martin, BR, Story, JA, Campbell, JK and Weaver, CM 2012. Prebiotics enhance magnesium absorption and inulin-based fibers exert chronic effects on calcium utilization in a postmenopausal rodent model. Journal of Food Science 77, H88–H94.Google Scholar
Lorenzo, J, Horowitz, M and Choi, Y 2008. Osteoimmunology: interactions of the bone and immune system. Endocrine Reviews 29, 403–440.Google Scholar
McCabe, L, Britton, RA and Parameswaran, N 2015. Prebiotic and probiotic regulation of bone health: role of the intestine and its microbiome. Current Osteoporosis Reports 13, 363–371.Google Scholar
Mikulski, D, Jankowski, J, Naczmanski, J, Mikulska, M and Demey, V 2012. Effects of dietary probiotic (Pediococcus acidilactici) supplementation on performance, nutrient digestibility, egg traits, egg yolk cholesterol, and fatty acid profile in laying hens. Poultry Science 91, 2691–2700.Google Scholar
Mountzouris, K, Tsirtsikos, P, Kalamara, E, Nitsch, S, Schatzmayr, G and Fegeros, K 2007. Evaluation of the efficacy of a probiotic containing Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Enterococcus, and Pediococcus strains in promoting broiler performance and modulating cecal microflora composition and metabolic activities. Poultry Science 86, 309–317.Google Scholar
Mountzouris, KC, Palamidi, I, Tsirtsikos, P, Mohnl, M, Schatzmayr, G and Fegeros, K 2015. Effect of dietary inclusion level of a multi-species probiotic on broiler performance and two biomarkers of their caecal ecology. Animal Reproduction Science 55, 484–493.Google Scholar
Mountzouris, KC, Tsitrsikos, P, Palamidi, I, Arvaniti, A, Mohnl, M, Schatzmayr, G and Fegeros, K 2010. Effects of probiotic inclusion levels in broiler nutrition on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, plasma immunoglobulins, and cecal microflora composition. Poultry Science 89, 58–67.Google Scholar
Murugesan, GR and Persia, ME 2015. Influence of a direct-fed microbial and xylanase enzyme on the dietary energy uptake efficiency and performance of broiler chickens. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 95, 2521–2527.Google Scholar
Mutus, R, Kocabagli, N, Alp, M, Acar, N, Eren, M and Gezen, SS 2006. The effect of dietary probiotic supplementation on tibial bone characteristics and strength in broilers. Poultry Science 85, 1621–1625.Google Scholar
Nasr, MA, Nicol, CJ and Murrell, JC 2012. Do laying hens with keel bone fractures experience pain? PloS One 7, e42420.Google Scholar
O’Brien, CA, Jia, D, Plotkin, LI, Bellido, T, Powers, CC, Stewart, SA, Manolagas, SC and Weinstein, RS 2004. Glucocorticoids act directly on osteoblasts and osteocytes to induce their apoptosis and reduce bone formation and strength. Endocrinology 145, 1835–1841.Google Scholar
Panda, AK, Rao, SVR, Raju, MV and Sharma, SR 2006. Dietary supplementation of Lactobacillus sporogenes on performance and serum biochemico-lipid profile of broiler chickens. The Journal of Poultry Science 43, 235–240.Google Scholar
Sadeghi, AA 2014. Bone mineralization of broiler chicks challenged with Salmonella enteritidis fed diet containing probiotic (Bacillus subtilis). Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins 6, 136–140.Google Scholar
Scholz-Ahrens, KE, Ade, P, Marten, B, Weber, P, Timm, W, Acil, Y, Gluer, CC and Schrezenmeir, J 2007. Prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics affect mineral absorption, bone mineral content, and bone structure. The Journal of Nutrition 137, 838S–846S.Google Scholar
Sohail, MU, Ijaz, A, Yousaf, MS, Ashraf, K, Zaneb, H, Aleem, M and Rehman, H 2010. Alleviation of cyclic heat stress in broilers by dietary supplementation of mannan-oligosaccharide and Lactobacillus-based probiotic: dynamics of cortisol, thyroid hormones, cholesterol, C-reactive protein, and humoral immunity. Poultry Science 89, 1934–1938.Google Scholar
Steel, RG, Torrie, JH and Dickey, DA 1997. Principles and procedures of statistics: a biometrical approach. McGraw Hill Book Co, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Strong, RA, Hester, PY, Eicher, SD, Hu, J and Cheng, HW 2015. The effect of cooled perches on immunological parameters of caged white leghorn hens during the hot summer months. PLoS One 10, e0141215.Google Scholar
UEP 2017. Animal Husbandry Guidelines for U.S. Egg Laying Flocks 2017 Edition. Retrieved on 31 March 2018, from https://uepcertified.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2017-UEP-Animal-Welfare-Guidelines-Cage-Housing-11.01.2017-FINAL.pdf Google Scholar
Wang, C, Shoji, H, Sato, H, Nagata, S, Ohtsuka, Y, Shimizu, T and Yamashiro, Y 2007. Effects of oral administration of bifidobacterium breve on fecal lactic acid and short-chain fatty acids in low birth weight infants. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 44, 252–257.Google Scholar
Whitehead, CC and Fleming, RH 2000. Osteoporosis in cage layers. Poultry Science 79, 1033–1041.Google Scholar
Yan, FF, Hester, PY, Enneking, SA and Cheng, HW 2013. Effects of perch access and age on physiological measures of stress in caged White Leghorn pullets. Poultry Science 92, 2853–2859.Google Scholar
Zhang, J, Motyl, KJ, Irwin, R, MacDougald, OA, Britton, RA and McCabe, LR 2015. Loss of bone and Wnt10b expression in male type 1 diabetic mice is blocked by the probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri . Endocrinology 156, 3169–3182.Google Scholar
Zhang, JL, Xie, QM, Ji, J, Yang, WH, Wu, YB, Li, C, Ma, JY and Bi, YZ 2012. Different combinations of probiotics improve the production performance, egg quality, and immune response of layer hens. Poultry Science 91, 2755–2760.Google Scholar
Ziaie, H, Bashtani, M, Torshizi, MAK, Naeeimipour, H, Farhangfar, H and Zeinali, A 2011. Effect of antibiotic and its alternatives on morphometric characteristics, mineral content and bone strength of tibia in Ross broiler chickens. Global Veterinaria 7, 315–322.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Yan et al. supplementary material 1

Yan et al. supplementary material

Download Yan et al. supplementary material 1(File)
File 15.6 KB