Performance of distinct microbial based solutions in a Campylobacter infection challenge model in poultry

Authors:
Open Access
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Background: Antibiotic growth promoters (AGPs) are commonly used within poultry production to improve feed conversion, bird growth, and reduce morbidity and mortality from clinical and subclinical diseases. Due to the association between AGP usage and rising antimicrobial resistance, the industry has explored new strategies including the use of probiotics and other microbial-based interventions to promote the development of a healthy microbiome in birds and mitigate against infections associated with food safety and food security. While previous studies have largely focused on the ability of probiotics to protect against Clostridium perfringens and Salmonella enterica, much less is known concerning their impact on Campylobacter jejuni, a near commensal of the chicken gut microbiome that nevertheless is a major cause of food poisoning in humans. Results: Here we compare the efficacy of four microbial interventions (two single strain probiotics, the bacterium—Pediococcus acidilactici, and the yeast—Saccharomyces cerevisiae boulardii; and two complex, competitive exclusion, consortia—Aviguard and CEL) to bacitracin, a commonly used AGP, to modulate chicken gut microbiota and subsequently impact C. jejuni infection in poultry. Cecal samples were harvested at 30- and 39-days post hatch to assess Campylobacter burden and examine their impact on the gut microbiota. While the different treatments did not significantly decrease C. jejuni burden relative to the untreated controls, both complex consortia resulted in significant decreases relative to treatment with bacitracin. Analysis of 16S rDNA profiles revealed a distinct microbial signature associated with each microbial intervention. For example, treatment with Aviguard and CEL increased the relative abundance of Bacteroidaceae and Rikenellaceae respectively. Furthermore, Aviguard promoted a less complex microbial community compared to other treatments. Conclusions: Depending upon the individual needs of the producer, our results illustrate the potential of each microbial interventions to serve flock-specific requirements.
Funding Information
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RGPIN-2019-06852)
  • Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency (Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency)
  • Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs)
  • Canadian Poultry Research Council (Canadian Poultry Research Council)
  • Lallemand SAS (Lallemand SAS)

This publication has 88 references indexed in Scilit: