» Articles » PMID: 35222302

Cecal Microbiota of Free-Range Hens Varied With Different Rearing Enrichments and Ranging Patterns

Overview
Journal Front Microbiol
Specialty Microbiology
Date 2022 Feb 28
PMID 35222302
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Free-range pullets are reared indoors but the adult hens can go outside which is a mismatch that may reduce adaptation in the laying environment. Rearing enrichments might enhance pullet development and adaptations to subsequent free-range housing with impact on behavior and health measures including gut microbiota. Adult free-range hens vary in range use which may also be associated with microbiota composition. A total of 1,700 Hy-Line Brown chicks were reared indoors across 16 weeks with three enrichment treatment groups: "control" with standard litter housing, "novelty" with weekly changed novel objects, and "structural" with custom-designed perching structures in the pens. At 15 weeks, 45 pullet cecal contents were sampled before moving 1,386 pullets to the free-range housing system. At 25 weeks, range access commenced, and movements were tracked via radio-frequency identification technology. At 65 weeks, 91 hens were selected based on range use patterns ("indoor": no ranging; "high outdoor": daily ranging) across all rearing enrichment groups and cecal contents were collected for microbiota analysis via 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing at V3-V4 regions. The most common bacteria in pullets were unclassified Barnesiellaceae, and and in hens Unclassified, , unclassified Lachnospiraceae, unclassified Bacteroidales, unclassified Paraprevotellaceae YRC22, and . The microbial alpha diversity was not significant within the enrichment/ranging groups (pullets: ≥ 0.17, hen rearing enrichment groups: ≥ 0.06, hen ranging groups: ≥ 0.54), but beta diversity significantly varied between these groups (pullets: ≤ 0.002, hen rearing enrichment groups: ≤ 0.001, hen ranging groups: ≤ 0.008). Among the short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), the propionic acid content was higher ( = 0.03) in the novelty group of pullets than the control group. There were no other significant differences in the SCFA contents between the rearing enrichment groups (all ≥ 0.10), and the ranging groups (all ≥ 0.17). Most of the genera identified were more abundant in the indoor than high outdoor hens. Overall, rearing enrichments affected the cecal microbiota diversity of both pullets and adult hens and was able to distinguish hens that remained inside compared with hens that ranging daily for several hours.

Citing Articles

Impacts of access to legume- or grass-based pasture on behaviour, physiological responses and bacterial load of laying hens.

Oke O, Onagbesan O Heliyon. 2024; 10(14):e34780.

PMID: 39149081 PMC: 11324940. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e34780.


Metagenomic Characterization of Poultry Cloacal and Oropharyngeal Swabs in Kenya Reveals Bacterial Pathogens and Their Antimicrobial Resistance Genes.

Panyako P, Ommeh S, Kuria S, Lichoti J, Musina J, Nair V Int J Microbiol. 2024; 2024:8054338.

PMID: 38374958 PMC: 10876313. DOI: 10.1155/2024/8054338.


Setting the stage to tag "n" track: a guideline for implementing, validating and reporting a radio frequency identification system for monitoring resource visit behavior in poultry.

Alindekon S, Rodenburg T, Langbein J, Puppe B, Wilmsmeier O, Louton H Poult Sci. 2023; 102(8):102799.

PMID: 37315427 PMC: 10404737. DOI: 10.1016/j.psj.2023.102799.


Gut microbiota and meat quality.

Chen B, Li D, Leng D, Kui H, Bai X, Wang T Front Microbiol. 2022; 13:951726.

PMID: 36081790 PMC: 9445620. DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.951726.

References
1.
Chen S, Xiang H, Zhang H, Zhu X, Wang D, Wang J . Rearing system causes changes of behavior, microbiome, and gene expression of chickens. Poult Sci. 2019; 98(9):3365-3376. DOI: 10.3382/ps/pez140. View

2.
van der Eijk J, de Vries H, Kjaer J, Naguib M, Kemp B, Smidt H . Differences in gut microbiota composition of laying hen lines divergently selected on feather pecking. Poult Sci. 2019; 98(12):7009-7021. PMC: 6869756. DOI: 10.3382/ps/pez336. View

3.
Jurburg S, Brouwer M, Ceccarelli D, van der Goot J, Jansman A, Bossers A . Patterns of community assembly in the developing chicken microbiome reveal rapid primary succession. Microbiologyopen. 2019; 8(9):e00821. PMC: 6741130. DOI: 10.1002/mbo3.821. View

4.
Pourabedin M, Zhao X . Prebiotics and gut microbiota in chickens. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2015; 362(15):fnv122. DOI: 10.1093/femsle/fnv122. View

5.
Joat N, Van T, Stanley D, Moore R, Chousalkar K . Temporal dynamics of gut microbiota in caged laying hens: a field observation from hatching to end of lay. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2021; 105(11):4719-4730. DOI: 10.1007/s00253-021-11333-8. View