Advances in Cytology & Pathology
Opinion Open Access
Response of chicken gut bacterial to nutrition and
feed additives
Abstract Volume 2 Issue 4 - 2017
Chicken gut bacteria play an important role in poultry nutrition with regards to gut
Ofongo- Abule Ruth TS
health and overall performance of poultry birds. Gut health has currently become an Department of Animal Science, Niger Delta University, Nigeria
issue of key concern in the poultry industry with the ban on the use of antibiotic
growth promoters. The limitation of basic culturing and biochemical techniques may Correspondence: Ruth TS, Department of Animal Science,
impact on better understanding the response of chicken gut bacteria to feed additives. Niger Delta University, PMB O71 Wilberforce Island, Bayelsa
Although several suitable alternatives to AGPs are available; the knowledge of gut State, Nigeria, Tel +2348158683316, Email tariruth@live.de
bacteria response to them should be ascertained or studied if not in the light of
resistant bacteria strain entering the human food chain. This brings to the fore the Received: June 26, 2016 | Published: September 21, 2017
fact that such studies will require the combined knowledge of immunology, molecular
biology, poultry nutrition and digestive physiology. The most listed response is
usually based on competitive exclusion of pathogenic bacteria by beneficial bacteria.
The question of how the bacteria cells develop resistance in response to AGP use and
what message their DNA is carrying as at when they enter the human food chain needs
to be answered. May be the bacteria have silent messengers which tell them when to
metamorphose into adaptable strain when the odds are against them. Or are answers
in the “details” of how they physiologically respond to other feed additives in the
absence of AGP.
Keywords: antibiotic growth promoters, feed additives, gut bacteria, molecular
techniques, poultry nutrition
Abbreviations: AGPs, antibiotic growth promoters; GALT, from different studies utilizing them may also differ but, the core issue
gut associated lymphoid tissues; DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid; E. coli, of bird performance being improved is of utmost importance to the
escherichia coli farmer. Be as it may, bacteria population are more often determined
using basic culturing and biochemical method of plating specific
Introduction bacteria for stipulated number of days.
The issue of gut health in relation to gut bacterial became more Although there are suitable alternatives to AGPs (Enzymes,
evident with the ban of antibiotic growth promoters (AGPs) in Probiotics, Prebiotics, Acidifiers, Synbiotic products etc), however
animal/poultry nutrition. This ban became preeminent with the how their effect on the biodiversity of gut bacteria may be an issue
development of resistant bacteria strain getting into the food chain. of consideration. Due to lack of knowledge of appropriate culturing
This will ultimately result in bacteria related health issues for conditions, large number of bacteria may remain unidentified using
consumers of poultry product. In the poultry industry, gut health is basic culturing and biochemical techniques have resulted in the
not just an interaction between gut bacteria; nutrients provided by the misclassification of some of these bacteria.6 Given the profound
diet (nutrition) and the gut itself as a digestive organ but also as an impact of gut bacteria on performance, identification of bacteria
organ that provides adequate protection against pathogenic bacteria. assemblages in the gut at random will be of high biological and
Gut associated lymphoid tissues (GALT) provides protection against economic importance.7–10 Considering the limitation of standard
pathogens encountered by the gut in chicken.1 It is responsible for culturing methods, a study was carried out aiming to identify bacteria
inducing immune response against bacteria, viral, and parasitic enteric biodiversity amplified from the gut of broiler birds through molecular
(i.e. introduced via the digestive tract) antigens2–4 as well as responses techniques using 165 bacteria DNA sequencing. In using the 165
to innocuous antigens.5 DNA sequencing, consideration was given to the treatment or type of
feed additive the birds’ were subjected to (Non– starch polysaccharide
All this said: how do the bacterial populations that of a “MUST” degrading enzyme and an AGP - (antibiotic). With these two factors
must attach to the intestinal wall respond to certain feed additives as treatment basis, the molecular technique earlier mentioned was
used as suitable/probable alternatives to AGPs? It is a known fact used to identify the bacteria collected from ileal digesta samples when
that gut health has a principal role in determining overall health and the broilers were six weeks old. From the result of that study,11 the
performance of poultry birds. Immune response based studies will relative number of bacteria identified indicated a high number (48) of
indicate the bird response. However bacteria response studies do Escherichia coli (E. coli) and rather low (1) number of Lactobacillus
consider the principles or mode of action of these alternatives with acidophilus with AGP administration. Enzyme supplementation on
regards to bacteria population in the gut. Also considered is bird the other hand resulted in a numerically higher (5) Lactobacillus
performance in terms of weight gain, feed conversion ratio/feed: gain acidophilus and consequently lower (9) E. coli number in compared
ratio and coefficient of nutrient digestibility. Nutrient digestibility to AGP administration.
is with reference to the specific nutrient in question which is most
likely affected. Modes of action of these alternatives differ, results As earlier stated results from several studies differ with regards to
Submit Manuscript | http://medcraveonline.com Adv Cytol Pathol. 2017;2(4):121‒122 121
© 2017 Ruth. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and build upon your work non-commercially.
Copyright:
Response of chicken gut bacterial to nutrition and feed additives ©2017 Ruth 122
bird response and recorded gut bacteria counts. In the light of already References
mentioned limitation of basic standard culturing methods for bacteria,
the principle of “competitive exclusion” with regards to beneficial 1. Sklan D. Early gut development: the interaction between feed, gut
health and Immunity. In: Tucker LA, Taylor- Pickard JA editors. 1st
bacteria against pathogenic bacteria when suitable alternatives to ed. Interfacing Immunity, gut health and performance. UK: Nottingham
AGPs are utilized has consistently proven positive in most studies. University press; 2004. p. 1–117.
In as much as this is so, the response of the bacteria with respect to
their physiology, metabolism, DNA and other factor which may not 2. Muir WI, Bryden WL, Husband AJ. Immunity, Vaccination and the avi-
be obviously evident should be of concern. As the saying goes “water an intestinal tract. Dev Comp Immunol. 2000;24(2-3):325–342.
will always find its level”. If the bacteria develop resistance with 3. Kajiwara E, Shigeta A, Horiuchi H, et al. Development of Peyers Patche
continuous use of AGPs, (invariably their DNA is metamorphosing); and caecal tonsil in gut - associated lymphoid tissues in the chicken
then what message is the DNA receiving and metamorphosing into embryo. J Vet Med Sci. 2003;65(5):607–614.
when other alternatives are used? What does their DNA message carry 4. Yasuda M, Tanaka S, Arakawa H, et al. A comparative study of gut asso-
when it enters the human food chain? These are questions that need ciated lymphoid tissue in calf and chicken. Anato Rec. 2002;266(4):207–
answers and the answers cannot be found in isolation. 217.
Conclusion 5. Klipper E, Sklan D, Fredman A. Immunie response of chickens to di-
etary protein antigens. Vet Immu and Immu path. 2000;74:209–223.
In conclusion, there are poultry diseases directly influenced by gut
6. Tellez G, Higgins S, Donoghue A, et al. Digestive physiology and the
health and there are also poultry diseases indirectly influenced by gut role of micro organisms. J Appl Poult Res. 2006;15:136–144.
health. If gut health revolves around nutrient bioavailability in the gut
and its interaction with gut bacteria, then may be the answer to these 7. Ezenwa V, Gerardo N, Inunye D, et al. Animal behavior and the micro-
questions is in the “DETAILS” biome. Science. 2012;338(6104):198–199.
8. Apajalathi J, Kettunen A, Graham H. Characteristics of the gastrointes-
Acknowledgements tinal microbial communities with specific relevance to the chicken. J
Worlds Poult Sci. 2004;60:226–232.
The author gratefully acknowledges TETFUND (Tertiary
Education Trust Fund) for the grant given to the author for the 9. Apajalathi J, Kettunen A, Bedford MR, et al. Precent G+C profiling ac-
molecular identification study.11 curately reveals diet related differences in the gastrointestinal microbial
community of broiler chickens. Appl Envi Microb. 2001;67:5656–5667.
Conflict of interest 10. Apajalthi J, Bedford MR. Improved bird performance by feeding its
The author in no way has direct or indirectly endorsed or disrepute microflora. World’s poult Sci J. 1999;15:20–23.
any poultry research work carried out using feed additives mentioned 11. Ofongo-Abule, R TS, Etebu E, et al. Performance and molecular identi-
in this article or companies that produce them. Everything written is fication of bacteria isolated from the gut of broiler birds after antibiotic
the personnel opinion of the author regarding issues discussed and administration and enzyme supplementation. J Micro Biotech Food Sci.
stands to be corrected where appropriate. 2016;6(3):924–929.
Citation: Ruth OATS. Response of chicken gut bacterial to nutrition and feed additives. Adv Cytol Pathol. 2017;2(4):121‒122.
DOI: 10.15406/acp.2017.02.00032
