Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-mgxrv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-20T00:05:24.846Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effects of organically and conventionally produced feed on biomarkers of health in a chicken model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 October 2009

Machteld Huber*
Affiliation:
Louis Bolk Institute, Hoofdstraat 24, NL-3972 LADriebergen, The Netherlands
Lucy P. L. van de Vijver
Affiliation:
Louis Bolk Institute, Hoofdstraat 24, NL-3972 LADriebergen, The Netherlands
Henk Parmentier
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen UR, PO Box 338, NL-6700 AHWageningen, The Netherlands
Huub Savelkoul
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen UR, PO Box 338, NL-6700 AHWageningen, The Netherlands
Leon Coulier
Affiliation:
TNO Quality of Life, Utrechtseweg 48, NL-3704 HEZeist, The Netherlands
Suzan Wopereis
Affiliation:
TNO Quality of Life, Utrechtseweg 48, NL-3704 HEZeist, The Netherlands
Elwin Verheij
Affiliation:
TNO Quality of Life, Utrechtseweg 48, NL-3704 HEZeist, The Netherlands
Jan van der Greef
Affiliation:
TNO Quality of Life, Utrechtseweg 48, NL-3704 HEZeist, The Netherlands
Dré Nierop
Affiliation:
Muvara BV Statistics, Tijmtuin 8, 2353 PHLeiderdorp, The Netherlands
Ron A. P. Hoogenboom
Affiliation:
RIKILT – Institute of Food Safety, Wageningen UR, PO Box 230, 6700 AEWageningen, The Netherlands
*
*Corresponding author: Machteld Huber, fax +31 343515611, email m.huber@louisbolk.nl
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Consumers expect organic products to be healthier. However, limited research has been performed to study the effect of organic food on health. The present study aimed to identify biomarkers of health to enable future studies in human subjects. A feeding experiment was performed in two generations of three groups of chickens differing in immune responsiveness, which were fed identically composed feeds from either organic or conventional produce. The animals of the second generation were exposed to an immune challenge and sacrificed at 13 weeks of age. Feed and ingredients were analysed on macro- and micronutrients, i.e. vitamins, minerals, trace elements, heavy metals and microbes. The chickens were studied by general health and immune parameters, metabolomics, genomics and post-mortem evaluation. The organic and conventional feeds were comparable with respect to metabolisable energy. On average, the conventionally produced feeds had a 10 % higher protein content and some differences in micronutrients were observed. Although animals on both feeds were healthy, differences between the groups were found. The random control group of chickens fed conventional feed showed overall a higher weight gain during life span than the group on organic feed, although feed intake was mostly comparable. The animals on organic feed showed an enhanced immune reactivity, a stronger reaction to the immune challenge as well as a slightly stronger ‘catch-up growth’ after the challenge. Biomarkers for future research were identified in the parameters feed intake, body weight and growth rate, and in immunological, physiological and metabolic parameters, several of these differing most pronounced after the challenge.

Information

Type
Full Papers
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2009
Figure 0

Table 1 Feed composition per age group*

Figure 1

Fig. 1 Time frame of first and second generation chickens with vaccinations (), original feed (OF), feed changes (F) and blood sampling (B).

Figure 2

Table 2 Analyses of the starter, grower and layer feeds of conventional and organic origin of the first and second generations

Figure 3

Table 3 Body weight of first and second generation high, control and low chicken line (H-, C-, L-lines) animals on organic or conventional feed at 13 weeks for both generations and at 31 weeks of the first generation(Mean values and standard deviations)

Figure 4

Fig. 2 Feed intake per week. Second generation high, control and low chicken lines together. (●), Organic feed; (○), conventional feed. K, keyhole limpet haemocyanin challenge. Values are means (n 13 runs of six animals) with standard errors of the mean represented by vertical bars; significant differences are indicated by stars (P < 0·05).

Figure 5

Fig. 3 Body weight. Second generation high, control and low chicken lines. (●), Organic feed; (○), conventional feed. K, keyhole limpet haemocyanin challenge. Values are means (n 22–26) with standard errors of the mean represented by vertical bars; significant differences are indicated by stars (P < 0·05).

Figure 6

Fig. 4 Growth rate of body weight. Second generation high, control and low chicken lines. (●), Organic feed; (○), conventional feed. K, keyhole limpet haemocyanin challenge. Values are means (n 22–26) with standard errors of the mean represented by vertical bars; significant differences are indicated by stars (P < 0·05).

Figure 7

Fig. 5 Newcastle disease-specific antibody titres. First generation high control and low chicken lines. (●), Organic feed; (○), conventional feed. Values are means (n 11–13) with standard errors of the mean represented by vertical bars; significant differences are indicated by stars (P < 0·05).

Figure 8

Fig. 6 Lipopolysaccharide binding natural antibodies. Second generation high control and low chicken lines. (●), Organic feed; (○), conventional feed. KLH, keyhole limpet haemocyanin. Values are means (n 21–26) with standard errors of the mean represented by vertical bars; significant differences are indicated by stars (P < 0·05).

Figure 9

Fig. 7 Control-corrected lipopolysaccharide-stimulated NO production in monocytes. Second generation high, control and low chicken lines. (●), Organic feed; (○), conventional feed. KLH, keyhole limpet haemocyanin. Values are means (n 16–26) with standard errors of the mean represented by vertical bars; significant differences are indicated by stars (P < 0·05).

Figure 10

Fig. 8 Newcastle disease-specific antibody titres in serum. Second generation high, control and low chicken lines. (●), Organic feed; (○), conventional feed. KLH, keyhole limpet haemocyanin. Values are means (n 21–26) with standard errors of the mean represented by vertical bars; significant differences are indicated by stars (P < 0·05).

Figure 11

Fig. 9 CH50 activity of serum after classical complement activation. Second generation high, control and low chicken lines. (●), Organic feed; (○), conventional feed; CH50, haemolytic complement (units per ml), the dilution of serum required to lyse 50% of the erythrocytes in the assay; KLH, keyhole limpet haemocyanin. Values are means (n 22–26) with standard errors of the mean represented by vertical bars; significant differences are indicated by stars (P < 0·05).

Figure 12

Fig. 10 Second generation C-line. Plasma lipid liquid chromatography–MS discriminant weights of discriminant function. Discriminant analysis for treatment on lipid platform (n 42). LPC, lysophosphatidylcholine; ChE, cholesteryl ester; PC, phosphatidylcholine; SPM, sphingo myelin. The ░ bars show the discriminant weights on time point − 1, the ■ bars on time point +1 and the □ bars on time point +3. On the right hand side, the cross-validated rate of correct classification is shown for each metabolite.

Figure 13

Fig. 11 Second generation control line chickens. Plasma bile acid/NEFA discriminant weights of discriminant function. Discriminant analysis for treatment on lipid platform (n 41). The ░ bars show the discriminant weights on time point − 1, the ■ bars on time point +1 and the □ bars on time point +3. On the right hand side, the cross-validated rate of correct classification is shown for each metabolite. FA, fatty acid.

Figure 14

Fig. 12 Second generation C-line. Plasma GC–MS discriminant weights of discriminant function. Discriminant analysis for treatment on lipid platform (n 42). The ░ bars show the discriminant weights on time point − 1, the ■ bars on time point +1 and the □ bars on time point +3. On the right hand side, the cross-validated rate of correct classification is shown for each metabolite.