| Literature DB >> 27582731 |
Guanliu Yu1, Yao Wang1, Shouguo Wang2, Changmin Duan2, Liangmeng Wei1, Jing Gao3, Tongjie Chai1, Yumei Cai1.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate effects of microbial aerosols on immune function of ducks and shed light on the establishment of microbial aerosol concentration standards for poultry. A total of 1800 1-d-old cherry valley ducks were randomly divided into five groups (A, B, C, D, and E) with 360 ducks in each. To obtain objective data, each group had three replications. Concentrations of airborne bacteria, fungi, endotoxin in different groups were created by controlling ventilation and bedding cleaning frequency. Group A was the control group and hygienic conditions deteriorated progressively from group B to E. A 6-stage Andersen impactor was used to detect the aerosol concentration of aerobes, gram-negative bacteria, fungi, and AGI-30 microbial air sampler detect the endotoxin, and Composite Gas Detector detect the noxious gas. In order to assess the immune function of meat ducks, immune indicators including H5 AIV antibody titer, IgG, IL-2, T-lymphocyte transformation rate, lysozyme and immune organ indexes were evaluated. Correlation coefficients were also calculated to evaluate the relationships among airborne bacteria, fungi, endotoxin, and immune indicators. The results showed that the concentration of airborne aerobe, gram-negative bacteria, fungi, endotoxin have a strong correlation to H5 AIV antibody titer, IgG, IL-2, T-lymphocyte transformation rate, lysozyme, and immune organ indexes, respectively. In addition, when the concentration of microbial aerosol reach the level of group D, serum IgG (6-8 weeks), lysozyme (4 week) were significantly higher than in group A (P < 0.05); serum IL-2 (7 and 8 weeks), T-lymphocyte transformation rate, lysozyme (7 and 8 weeks), spleen index (6 and 8 weeks), and bursa index (8 week) were significantly lower than in group A (P < 0.05 or P < 0.01). The results indicated that a high level of microbial aerosol adversely affected the immune level of meat ducks. The microbial aerosol values in group D provide a basis for recommending upper limit concentrations of microbial aerosols for healthy meat ducks.Entities:
Keywords: cherry valley ducks; immune indicators; microbial aerosol; poultry houses; stress
Year: 2016 PMID: 27582731 PMCID: PMC4988117 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01245
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Management regimes in different groups.
| A (Control) | Natural and mechanical | 24 | Once/day |
| B (Treatment) | Mechanical | 24 | Once/2 days |
| C (Treatment) | Mechanical | 18 | Once/3 days |
| D (Treatment) | Mechanical | 12 | Once/4 days |
| E (Treatment) | Mechanical | 10 | Once/5 days |
Airborne aerobe, airborne fungi, airborne gram-negative bacteria, airborne endotoxin, and noxious gas concentrations under different hygienic conditions.
| Aerobe (×10E5 CFU/mE3) | Minimum | 0.46 | 0.69 | 0.68 | 0.59 | 0.71 |
| Maximum | 2.30 | 5.10 | 5.76 | 5.96 | 8.96 | |
| Mean | 1.05 | 2.45 | 2.94 | 4.31 | ||
| Fungi (×10E4 CFU/mE3) | Minimum | 0.11 | 0.21 | 0.19 | 0.85 | 0.78 |
| Maximum | 3.49 | 3.54 | 3.95 | 5.73 | 8.05 | |
| Mean | 1.02 | 1.32 | 1.44 | 3.07 | ||
| Gram-negative bacteria (×10E4 CFU/mE3) | Minimum | 0.20 | 0.32 | 0.36 | 0.89 | 0.98 |
| Maximum | 2.04 | 1.95 | 3.62 | 8.87 | 5.03 | |
| Mean | 0.93 | 1.24 | 1.68 | 2.64 | ||
| Endotoxin (×10E3 EU/mE3) | Minimum | 0.20 | 0.40 | 0.28 | 0.13 | 0.56 |
| Maximum | 25.6 | 72.4 | 102.4 | 144.8 | 144.8 | |
| Mean | 6.49 | 10.48 | 23.03 | 47.79 | ||
| NH3 (mg/Kg) | Minimum | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Maximum | 4 | 12 | 10 | 15 | 14 | |
| Mean | 2.56 | 2.42 | 5.67 | 8.97 | ||
| H2S (mg/Kg) | Minimum | – | – | – | – | – |
| Maximum | – | – | – | – | – | |
| Mean | – | – | – | – | – | |
All value for total experimental period.
Below the limit of detection.
The bold values could be used as a basis for recommending upper limit concentrations of microbial aerosols for healthy meat ducks.
Figure 1H5 AIV antibody titer under different hygienic conditions (. Note: The comparison was between treatment groups (B–E) and control group (A) at the same age/week, *P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01. The same as below. *Means that the difference between treatment groups (B–E) and control group (A) was significant.
Figure 2IgG concentration under different hygienic conditions (. *Means that the difference between treatment groups (B–E) and control group (A) was significant.
Figure 3IL-2 concentration under different hygienic conditions (. *Means that the difference between treatment groups (B–E) and control group (A) was significant. **Means that the difference between treatment groups (B–E) and control group (A) was extremely significant.
Figure 4T-lymphocyte transformation rate under different hygienic conditions (. *Means that the difference between treatment groups (B–E) and control group (A) was significant. **Means that the difference between treatment groups (B–E) and control group (A) was extremely significant.
Lysozyme concentration (U/mL) under different hygienic conditions (.
| 4 | 120.14 ± 4.22 | 126.10 ± 4.99 | 124.60 ± 9.73 | 130.62 ± 7.99 | 133.62 ± 6.14 |
| 5 | 148.32 ± 5.21 | 150.85 ± 5.79 | 149.22 ± 6.68 | 152.30 ± 7.76 | 156.83 ± 9.35 |
| 6 | 153.72 ± 6.77 | 152.80 ± 11.29 | 158.16 ± 8.43 | 145.65 ± 7.03 | 148.98 ± 9.43 |
| 7 | 176.42 ± 6.43 | 158.47 ± 6.92 | 162.38 ± 9.68 | 151.90 ± 7.56 | 141.37 ± 5.98 |
| 8 | 166.31 ± 4.46 | 180.53 ± 6.65 | 156.90 ± 8.21 | 144.82 ± 8.60 | 139.43 ± 7.34 |
The comparison was between treatment groups (B–E) and control group (A) at the same age/week, .
Means that the difference between treatment groups (B–E) and control group (A) was significant.
Means that the difference between treatment groups (B–E) and control group (A) was extremely significant.
Immune organ indexes under different hygienic conditions (.
| Thymus index | 4 | 2.81 ± 0.17 | 2.60 ± 0.11 | 2.49 ± 0.63 | 2.16 ± 0.33 | 2.09 ± 0.51 |
| 6 | 2.44 ± 0.47 | 2.16 ± 0.38 | 1.95 ± 0.13 | 1.98 ± 0.48 | 1.80 ± 0.34 | |
| 8 | 2.21 ± 0.45 | 2.19 ± 0.28 | 1.96 ± 0.26 | 1.56 ± 0.33 | 1.57 ± 0.41 | |
| Spleen index | 4 | 1.32 ± 0.12 | 1.24 ± 0.26 | 1.25 ± 0.33 | 1.03 ± 0.38 | 0.96 ± 0.08 |
| 6 | 1.26 ± 0.22 | 1.06 ± 0.14 | 0.90 ± 0.14 | 0.79 ± 0.28 | 0.69 ± 0.20 | |
| 8 | 1.19 ± 0.21 | 0.96 ± 0.08 | 0.98 ± 0.18 | 0.80 ± 0.20 | 0.72 ± 0.1 | |
| Bursa index | 4 | 1.84 ± 0.39 | 1.74 ± 0.56 | 1.86 ± 0.17 | 1.49 ± 0.47 | 1.54 ± 0.33 |
| 6 | 1.44 ± 0.08 | 1.27 ± 0.16 | 1.31 ± 0.25 | 1.16 ± 0.20 | 1.19 ± 0.19 | |
| 8 | 1.46 ± 0.23 | 1.16 ± 0.16 | 1.03 ± 0.20 | 0.97 ± 0.23 | 0.89 ± 0.23 | |
Means that the difference between treatment groups (B–E) and control group (A) was significant.
Means that the difference between treatment groups (B–E) and control group (A) was extremely significant.
Correlation between concentrations of major microbial aerosol components and values of immune indicators.
| IgG | ||||
| H5 AIV antibody titer | ||||
| IL-2 | ||||
| T-lymphocyte trans-formation rate | ||||
| Lysozyme | ||||
| Thymus index | ||||
| Spleen index | ||||
| Bursa index |
Significant relationships (
P < 0.05,
P < 0.01) expressed as Pearson correlation coefficients (.