Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:52:35.536Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A diet containing native or fermented wheat bran does not interfere with natural microbiota of laying hens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2020

E. Wanzenböck ,
U. Zitz ,
C. Steinbauer ,
W. Kneifel ,
K. J. Domig  and
K. Schedle Open the ORCID record for K. Schedle [Opens in a new window]
E. Wanzenböck
Affiliation:
Institute of Food Science, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Muthgasse18, 1190Vienna, Austria
U. Zitz
Affiliation:
Institute of Food Science, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Muthgasse18, 1190Vienna, Austria
C. Steinbauer
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Nutrition, Livestock Products, and Nutrition Physiology, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Muthgasse 11, 1190Vienna, Austria
W. Kneifel
Affiliation:
Institute of Food Science, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Muthgasse18, 1190Vienna, Austria
K. J. Domig
Affiliation:
Institute of Food Science, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Muthgasse18, 1190Vienna, Austria
K. Schedle*
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Nutrition, Livestock Products, and Nutrition Physiology, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Muthgasse 11, 1190Vienna, Austria
*
†E-mail: karl.schedle@boku.ac.at
Get access

Abstract

Wheat bran (WB) is an important side product of the milling industry and can serve as dietary fiber compound for monogastric animals. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of native or fermented WB on the gut physiology and microbiology of laying hens. To accomplish this, 24 laying hens were fed the following diets: conventional diet without WB; 15% native WB in the diet; 15% WB fermented with Pleurotus eryngii; and 15% WB fermented with P. eryngii and a lactic acid bacterial culture. Immediately after slaughtering, digesta samples were taken from the jejunum, ileum and cecum, respectively. Total DNA was extracted and subsequently investigated with 16S DNA amplicon sequencing. Neither native nor fermented WB supplementations negatively affected the feed conversion ratio, laying performance or the relative abundances and alpha-diversity of microbiota in the intestine. Effects of WB-based diets on gut morphology were only recognized in the jejunum (reduced villum height and mucosa thickness). Likewise, WB supplementation decreased the digestibility of DM and starch. Based on these findings, it was demonstrated that different WB variants are applicable without exerting practically negative consequences on performance or on gut microbiota. Fermentation improved the digestibility/retention of dietary fat and phosphorus. However, no further beneficial effects were observed. This study also allowed a more in-depth view on the laying hens’ gut microbiome and its variation within the gut segments.

Keywords

poultrygut microbiomedigestibility16S rRNAdietary fiber
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 6 , June 2020 , pp. 1147 - 1155
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2020

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

Alizadeh, M, Rodriguez-Lecompte, JC, Rogiewicz, A, Patterson, R and Slominski, BA 2016. Effect of yeast-derived products and distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS) on growth performance, gut morphology, and gene expression of pattern recognition receptors and cytokines in broiler chickens. Poultry Science 95, 507–517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Apajalahti, J, Kettunen, A and Graham, H 2004. Characteristics of the gastrointestinal microbial communities, with special reference to the chicken. Worlds Poultry Science Journals 60, 223–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baurhoo, B, Phillip, CA and Ruiz-Feria, CA 2007. Effects of purified lignin and mannan oligosaccharides on intestinal integrity and microbial populations in the ceca and litter of broiler chickens. Poultry Science 86, 1070–1078.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borrelli, L, Coretti, L, Dipineto, L, Bovera, F, Menna, F, Chiariotti, L, Nizza, A, Lembo, F and Fioretti, A 2017. Insect-based diet, a promising nutritional source, modulates gut microbiota composition and SCFAs production in laying hens. Scientific Reports 7, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chou, WT, Sheih, IC and Fang, TJ 2013. The applications of polysaccharides from various mushroom wastes as prebiotics in different systems. Journal of Food Science 78, 1041–1048.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ding, XM, Li, DD, Bai, SP, Wang, JP, Zeng, QF, Su, ZW, Xuan, Y and Zhang, KY 2018. Effect of dietary xylooligosaccharides on intestinal characteristics, gut microbiota, caecal short-chain fatty acids, and plasma immune parameters of laying hens. Poultry Science 97, 874–881.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duke, GE 1991. Recent studies on regulation of gastric motility in turkeys. Poultry Science 7, 1–8.Google Scholar
Edwards, CA 1995. The physiological effect of dietary fibre. In Dietary fibre in health and disease (eds. Kritchewsky, D and Bonfield, C) pp. 58–71. Eagan Press, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.Google Scholar
El Kaoutari, A, Armougom, F, Gordon, JI, Raoult, D and Henrissat, B 2013. The abundance and variety of carbohydrate-active enzymes in the human gut microbiota. Nature Reviews Microbiology 11, 97–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elisashvili, V, Penninckx, M, Kachlishvili, E, Tsiklauri, N, Metreveli, E, Kharziani, T and Kvesitadze, G 2008. Lentinus edodes and Pleurotus species lignocellulolytic enzymes activity in submerged and solid-state fermentation of lignocellulosic wastes of different composition. Bioresource Technology 99, 457–462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fagundes, NS, Pereira, R, Bortoluzzi, C, Rafael, JM, Napty, GS, Barbosa, JGM, Sciencia, MCM and Menten, JFM 2017. Replacing corn with sorghum in the diet alters intestinal microbiota without altering chicken performance. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 101, 371–382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flint, HJ, Bayer, EA, Rincon, MT, Lamed, R and White, BA 2008. Polysaccharide utilization by gut bacteria: potential for new insights from genomic analysis. Nature Reviews Microbiology 6, 121–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flint, HJ, Scott, KP, Duncan, SH, Louis, P and Forano, E 2012. Microbial degradation of complex carbohydrates in the gut. Gut Microbes 3, 289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
German Society of Nutrition Physiology 1999. Empfehlungen zur Energie- und Nährstoffversorung der Legehennen und Masthühner (Broiler). DLG-Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.Google Scholar
Gottelt, U, Henrion, G, Kalähne, R and Stoyke, M 1996. Simultanbestimmungsmethoden für die Elemente Kupfer, Zink, Eisen und Mangan sowie Natrium, Kalium, Calcium und Magnesium mittels Flammen-Atomabsorbtionsspektrometrie. Nahrung 40, 313–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humer, E, Rohrer, E, Windisch, W, Wetscherek, W, Schwarz, C, Jungbauer, L and Schedle, K 2015a. Gender-specific effects of a phytogenic feed additive on performance, intestinal physiology and morphology in broiler chickens. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 99, 788–800.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Humer, E, Schwarz, C and Schedle, K 2015b. Phytate in pig and poultry nutrition. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 99, 605–625.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jazi, V, Boldaji, F, Dastar, B, Hashemi, SR and Ashayerizadeh, A 2017. Effects of fermented cottonseed meal on the growth performance, gastrointestinal microflora population and small intestinal morphology in broiler chickens. British Poultry Science 58, 402–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kalmendal, R, Elwinger, K, Holm, L and Tauson, R 2011. High-fiber sunflower cake affects small intestinal digestion and health in broiler chickens. British Poultry Science 52, 86–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraler, M, Ghanbari, M, Domig, KJ, Schedle, K and Kneifel, W 2016. The intestinal microbiota of piglets fed with wheat bran variants as characterized by 16S rRNA next-generation amplicon sequencing. Archive of Animal Nutrition 70, 173–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krogdahl, A 1985. Digestion and absorption of lipids in poultry. Journal of Nutrition 115, 675–685CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lai, LP, Lee, MT, Chen, CS, Yu, B and Lee, TT 2015. Effects of co-fermented Pleurotus eryngii stalk residues and soybean hulls by Aureobasidium pullulans on performance and intestinal morphology in broiler chickens. Poultry Science 94, 2959–2969.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lu, J, Idris, U, Harmon, B, Hofacre, C, Maurer, JJ and Lee, MD 2003. Diversity and succession of the intestinal bacterial community of the maturing broiler chicken. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 69, 6816–6824.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mateos, GG, Jimenez-Moreno, E, Serrano, MP and Lazaro, RP 2012. Poultry response to high levels of dietary fiber sources varying in physical and chemical characteristics. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 21, 156–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakley, BB, Lillehoj, HS, Kogut, MH, Kim, WK, Maurer, JJ, Pedroso, A, Lee, MD, Collett, SR, Johnson, TJ and Cox, NA 2014. The chicken gastrointestinal microbiome. FEMS Microbiology Letters 360, 100–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polansky, O, Sekelova, Z, Faldynova, M, Sebkova, A, Sisak, F and Rychlik, I 2015. Important metabolic pathways and biological processes expressed by chicken cecal microbiota. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 82, 1569–1576.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prückler, M, Siebenhandl-Ehn, S, Apprich, S, Höltinger, S, Haas, C, Schmid, E and Kneifel, W 2014. Wheat bran-based biorefinery 1: Composition of wheat bran and strategies of functionalization. LWT-Food Science and Technology 56, 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schedle, K 2016. Sustainable pig and poultry nutrition by improvement of nutrient utilisation – a review. Die Bodenkultur 67, 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schedle, K, Plitzner, C, Ettle, T, Zhao, L, Domig, KJ and Windisch, W 2008. Effects of insoluble dietary fiber differing in lignin on performance, gut microbiology, and digestibility in weanling piglets. Archive of Animal Nutrition 62, 141–151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verband Deutscher Landwirtschaftlicher Untersuchungs- und Forschungsanstalten 2012. Handbuch der Landwirtschaftlichen Versuchs und Untersuchungsmethodik (VDLUFA-Methodenbuch). VDLUFA-Verlag, Darmstadt, Germany.Google Scholar
Videnska, P, Sedlar, K, Lukac, M, Faldynova, M, Gerzova, L, Cejkova, D, Sisak, F and Rychlik, I 2014. Succession and replacement of bacterial populations in the caecum of egg laying hens over their whole life. PLoS One 9, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vishwanath, V, Sulyok, M, Labuda, R, Bicker, W and Krska, R 2009. Simultaneous determination of 186 fungal and bacterial metabolites in indoor matrices by liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 395, 1355–1372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walugembe, M, Hsieh, JCF, Koszewski, NJ, Lamont, SJ, Persia, ME and Rothschild, MF 2015. Effects of dietary fiber on cecal short-chain fatty acid and cecal microbiota of broiler and laying-hen chicks. Poultry Science 94, 2351–2359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, CC, Lin, LJ, Chao, YP, Chiang, CJ, Lee, MT, Chang, SC, Yu, B and Lee, TT 2017. Antioxidant molecular targets of wheat bran fermented by white rot fungi and its potential modulation of antioxidative status in broiler chickens. British Poultry Science 58, 262–271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wanzenböck, E, Apprich, S, Tirpanalan, Ö, Zitz, U, Kracher, D, Schedle, K, and Kneifel, W 2017. Wheat bran biodegradation by edible Pleurotus fungi – A sustainable perspective for food and feed. LWT-Food Science and Technology 86, 123–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wanzenböck, E, Schreiner, M, Zitz, U, Bleich, B, Figl, S, Kneifel, W and Schedle, K 2018a. Digestibility and nutrient retention of a wheat bran-containing diet containing two vegetable oil sources applied to laying hens with emphasis on prefeeding period. Die Bodenkultur 69, 239–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wanzenböck, E, Schreiner, M, Zitz, U, Figl, S, Kneifel, W and Schedle, K 2018b. A combination of wheat bran and vegetable oils as feedstuff in laying hens’ diet: impact on egg quality parameters. Agricultural Sciences 09, 676–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xing, S, Wang, X, Diao, H, Zhang, M, Zhou, Y and Feng, J 2019. Changes in the cecal microbiota of laying hens during heat stress is mainly associated with reduced feed intake. Poultry Science 98, 5257–5264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed