Investigation of the effects of probiotic, Bacillus subtilis on stress reactions in laying hens using infrared thermography.

The goal of the study was to assess whether tonic immobility (TI)-induced stress reactions in laying hens can be reduced by probiotic supplementation and if the changes in body surface temperature, as a stress indicator, are genetically dependent and can be detected using infrared thermography (IRT). Seventy-one white and 70 brown hens were used. Hens were randomly assigned to three treatments at 1-day-old: beak trimmed and fed a regular diet; non-beak trimmed and fed a regular diet; and non-beak trimmed and fed a diet supplemented with probiotics, Bacillus subtilis. At 40 weeks of age, hens were tested for TI reactions. Eye and face temperatures were measured with IRT immediately before and after TI testing. Results revealed that the probiotic supplementation did not affect hens' stress responses to TI testing; the left and right eye temperatures increased by 0.26s°C and 0.15°C, respectively, while right face temperature tended to increase following TI testing. However, the right eye (32.60°C for white, and 32.35°C for brown) and face (39.51°C for white, and 39.36°C for brown) temperatures differed significantly among genetic lines. There was a positive correlation between TI duration and the changes of the left and right eye temperatures after TI testing in white hens. Based on these results, hens experienced TI-induced surface temperature changes that were detectable using IRT. White hens experienced greater stress reactions in response to TI than brown hens. However, supplementation with Bacillus subtilis did not attenuate hens' reaction to TI testing.

Introduction

Commercial poultry experience various conditions that affect their welfare and productivity over their productive lifespan. Laying hens, in particular, may experience stress and fear associated with routine husbandry procedures and interactions with humans [1,2]. Poultry industry transitions go toward cage free housing systems for laying hens where hens are housed in larger groups than in cages, social disruption and injurious pecking among hens may lead to higher levels of stress and detrimental effects on hen welfare [3]. One of the possible alternatives for reducing stress in laying hens is to provide hens with supplementary probiotics.

Recent advances in research have demonstrated the importance of gut microbiota to animal health and behavior [4]. The gut-brain axis is a bidirectional pathway. Gut microbiota influence the central nervous system through neural, endocrine and immune pathways, and thereby influence brain functions in regulating physiological homeostasis and behavior [5,6]. Disturbances in gut microbiota, for example, alter the response of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis to internal and external stimulation, contributing to various pathogenic conditions such as gut inflammation, reduced gut nutrient absorption, and eating disorders, which adversely affects animal health and increases the costs of production [7].

Probiotics, as nontoxic feed supplements, are gaining momentum because of their beneficial effects on the host’s health by improving intestinal microbial balance, increasing nutrient absorption, enhancing local immunity, and reducing gut permeability [8,9]. Studies with humans have demonstrated the roles of probiotic supplementation in decreasing stress responses and improving mood in patients with major depressive disorder [10], irritable bowel syndrome [11] or chronic fatigue [12]. Messaoudi et al. [13], for example, reported beneficial psychological effects and decreased serum cortisol levels with a probiotic formulation (Lactobacillus helveticus R0052 and Bifidobacterium longum R0175) in humans. In rodents, Lactobacillus reduces anxiety, despair-like behaviors and decreases stress-induced plasma corticosterone levels [14]. In farm animals, probiotics have been mostly used to increase production performance and improve animal health and welfare [15]. In particular, probiotics have been used to increase growth performance [16] and to increase resistance to immune challenges [17] and heat stress [18,19] in broiler chickens. Studies with laying hens indicate that probiotics increase feed efficiency, egg production [20] and improve egg quality [21]. Thus, the presence of microorganisms and specific composition of probiotics have critical influences on host physiological and metabolic homeostasis. Consequently, probiotics may be beneficial in reducing stress reactions from various management-related factors under intensified farm animal production systems. However, the potential for using probiotic supplementation to reduce stress reactions of laying hens has not been well investigated.

Stress intensity has been previously measured in laying hens using stress induced hyperthermia (SIH), characterized by an increase in core body temperature together with an initial rapid decrease followed by an increase in skin surface temperature [22-24]. Skin surface temperature can be measured non-invasively using infrared thermography (IRT). IRT detects infrared radiation (heat), providing a pictorial representation of body surface temperature distribution in animals [25], offering both qualitative and quantitative information on the surface temperature of the targeted tissues [26]. IRT in poultry has a broad range of applications including thermoregulation, welfare and stress assessment [27]. Previous research demonstrated that the surface temperature of chickens’ head area, including the eye and face regions, varies in response to stress [22,24,28]. Edgar et al. [22] investigated SIH in chickens by measuring the face and eye areas before and after handling procedures. Eye temperature initially decreased by 0.8°C, then rose to levels significantly higher than baseline temperature. Face temperature also increased over the 20 min post-handling period to reach levels significantly higher than baseline temperature. Similarly, Moe et al. [24] reported that face surface temperature of chickens increased by 0.76°C in response to handling. The levels of stress and fear that chickens experience are closely related to their genetic background [29]. Compared to commercial brown hens, white hens have higher fear responses [30,31], as indicated by longer durations of tonic immobility (TI).

TI is an anti-predator strategy adopted by various prey animals [32]. Increased TI duration is related to higher fear responses [33,34], and could lead to increased glucocorticoid levels, a common stress indicator [35]. Based on the aforementioned studies, IRT is a useful, non-invasive tool to detect stress response in laying hens, but stress responses associated with fear have not been examined using IRT.

The overall goal of this study was to assess whether TI-induced stress reactions in laying hens can be reduced by probiotic supplementation and if the temperature alteration, as a stress indicator, is genetically dependent and can been detected with IRT.

Material and methods

All procedures were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Purdue University (PACUC number: 1607001454)

Animals and husbandry

This study was part of a large scale study investigating the effects of probiotic supplementation on the behavior and welfare of laying hens. Hens tested in here had not been handled in the preceding three months.

A total of 396 female chicks of each line, Hy-Line W-36 and Hy-Line Brown, were housed in two rooms (separated by line) at the grower research unit of the Purdue University Animal Sciences Research and Education Center from day old to 12 wk of age. Hens had been randomly distributed to 36 cages per room. A third of the hens from each strain were infrared beak trimmed (BT) at the hatchery as a common practice to reduce aggressive pecking and related injury [36]. Chicks of each line were randomly assigned to three treatments (n = 12 cages/treatment): group G, G’- beak-trimmed chicks fed a regular diet; group B, B’—non-beak trimmed chicks fed the regular diet; and group Y, Y’–non-beak trimmed chicks fed the regular diet supplemented with a probiotic. At 12 wk of age, all pullets were transferred and housed in an enriched caging system at the same research farm. Each cage was equipped with a feed trough, 2 nipple drinkers, perch and nesting area. There were 9 hens/cage, providing 1026 cm2/hen.

The chicks were fed a starter diet containing 20% crude protein, 1.0% Ca, and 0.45% non-phytate phosphorus up to 3.9 wk of age; and a grower diet containing 18.6% crude protein, 1.0% Ca and 0.40% non-phytate phosphorus from 4 to 15.9 wk; then a pre-lay diet with 18.4% crude protein, 2.50% Ca, and 0.35% non-phytate phosphorus from 16 to 17 wk of age, followed by a laying diet with 18.3% crude protein, 4.2% Ca, and 0.3% non-phytate phosphorus. The probiotic diet consisted of the regular diet based on the growth phased mixed with sporulin (Novus International, MO) at 250 ppm. Sporulin contains 3 strains of Bacillus subtillis. Hens had free access to food and water throughout the experiment. The lighting schedule was gradually stepped up to 16L: 8D, which was achieved at 30 wk of age.

Experimental procedures

In order to investigate the effects of probiotic supplementation on hens’ stress reactions, a total of 141 40-wk-old hens, including 71 Hy-Line W-36 hens (group G—24 birds, B—24 birds, and Y- 23 birds) and 70 Brown hens (group G’ - 23 birds, B’- 24 birds and Y’- 23birds) were tested in a TI test. Testing was performed in a separate room, adjacent to where hens were housed. TI was performed based on the methods described by Jones and Faure [33]. Each hen was placed on its back in a wooden cradle, with the observer applying slight pressure on the hen’s sternum and head for 15 s. A stopwatch was used to record when the bird righted itself. If the bird righted itself in less than 10 s, the restraining procedure was repeated. If TI was not induced after the second attempt, a different bird from the same cage was randomly selected for testing. The maximum duration of TI was 15 min. The ambient temperature in the testing was maintained at 20°C and the humidity was 70%.

Infrared thermography

Thermographic images were taken at 2 time points using a thermal camera (uncooled microbolometer focal plane array, Focal Plane sensor Array: 640 × 480 pixels, spectral range 7.5–14 μm, accuracy ±1°C, sensitivity 0.02°C, InfraTec Dresden, Germany). The first thermographic examination was taken in the testing room immediately before the TI test. For the thermographic examination, each bird was gently held by an observer in a cradle hold with a fixed condition: 0.3 m distance and an 90° angle between the thermal imaging camera and the hen’s head for all imaging (Fig 1). The emissivity was set to 0.97 for all readings [23]. A second thermographic examination was conducted immediately after the TI test, but before the bird was returned to its original cage, with the entire process of handling and thermographic examination taking less than one min.

Fig 1

Thermographic image of hen.

An example of the thermographic image taken from a White Leghorn hen. The image was taken before tonic immobility testing with indicated the measurement regions of the left face (LF) and left eye (LE).

Thermal image analysis

Temperatures were obtained from the thermal images using the software package IRBIS 3 professional software (InfraTec, Dresden, Germany). On each image, each eye temperature (LE—left eye and RE, right eye) was obtained by identifying a spot in the eye center, while maximum face temperature (LF, left side and RF, right face) was obtained from polygons (including the areas of the face, ear, eye and base of the beak and wattle) (Fig 1), which was similar to the procedures of Edgar et al. [22].

Statistical analysis

A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with repeated measures was used for the temperature data. Treatment, time (before and after TI) and genetic line of the hens were considered as fixed effects. In addition, the Spearman rank correlation coefficient was calculated to verify the correlation between the duration of TI and the surface temperature after TI. All the computations were carried out using Statistica 13 software (Dell Inc., Tulsa, OK, USA). Statistically significant differences were reported when P ≤ 0.05, and a trend was reported when 0.05 < P ≤ 0.10.

Results

The effect of treatment had no significant influence on the eye and face temperatures (P = 0.51; Table 1). The effects of time (before and after TI) and genetic line on eye temperature were significant (P = 0.03 and 0.01, respectively), while the test time by treatment interaction tended toward significance (P = 0.08, Table 1).

Table 1

The multivariate analysis of variance results for individual factors affecting surface temperature.

Effect	Wilks' statistic	F	p
Intercept	0.00	228575.36	< 0.0001
Line	0.87	3.33	0.0137
Treatment	0.96	0.83	0.5109
Line×treatment	0.98	0.45	0.7710
Test time	0.89	2.80	0.0305
Test time×line	0.98	0.55	0.6990
Test time×treatment	0.91	2.16	0.0800
Test time×line×treatment	0.93	1.57	0.1901

Test time–before or after TI.

Both the LE and RE temperatures increased after TI testing (P < 0.0001 and 0.03, respectively, Tables 2 and 3), and the change in RF temperature approached significance (P = 0.07, Table 4). White hens had higher average RE and RF temperatures than brown hens (P = 0.01, Table 2 and P = 0.04, Table 4), and tended to have a higher LE temperature (P = 0.08, Table 2). There were no differences in the maximum temperature of the LF (Table 5).

Table 2

Mean and standard deviations for line, treatment, line and treatment for the temperature of the left eye (LE).

Factor	Level	Before TI [°C]		After TI [°C]		Average (before and after TI) [°C]
		n	Mean	n	Mean	n	Mean
Line	White	71	32.37±0.56	71	32.51±0.72	142	32.44±0.65
	Brown	70	32.09±0.71	70	32.47±0.66	140	32.28±0.71
P-Value			NS		NS		P = 0.08
Treatment	Group G	47	32.16±0.63	47	32.47±0.69	94	32.32±0.68
	Group B	48	32.36±0.67	48	32.43±0.74	96	32.40±0.70
	Group Y	46	32.16±0.65	46	32.57±0.63	92	32.37±0.67
P-Value			NS		NS		NS
Line×treatment	White G	24	32.43±0.61	24	32.44±0.71	48	32.43±0.65
	White B	24	32.38±0.51	24	32.55±0.73	48	32.47±0.63
	White Y	23	32.31±0.58	23	32.55±0.73	46	32.43±0.66
	Brown G’	23	31.88±0.53	23	32.50±0.69	46	32.19±0.68
	Brown B’	24	32.35±0.81	24	32.32±0.75	48	32.33±0.77
	Brown Y’	23	32.02±0.70	23	32.59±0.53	46	32.31±0.68
Average		141	32.23a±0.65	141	32.49b±0.69	-	P < 0.0001

a, b–different superscript letters denote statistical significance at P≤0.05, TI–tonic immobility, group G, G’—beak trimmed chicks fed a regular diet, group B, B’—non beak trimmed chicks fed the regular diet; group Y, Y’—non beak trimmed chicks fed the regular diet supplemented with probiotics.

Table 3

Means and standard deviations for individual factors for the temperature of the right eye (RE).

Factor	Level	Before TI [°C]		After TI [°C]		Average (before and after TI) [°C]
		n	Mean	n	Mean	n	Mean
Line	White	71	32.55±0.62	71	32.65±0.68	142	32.60a±0.65
	Brown	70	32.25±0.67	70	32.45±0.71	140	32.35b±0.70
P-Value			NS		NS		P = 0.01
Treatment	Group G	47	32.35±0.65	47	32.47±0.71	94	32.41±0.68
	Group B	48	32.50±0.69	48	32.52±0.75	96	32.51±0.72
	Group Y	46	32.36±0.65	46	32.66±0.64	92	32.51±0.66
P-Value			NS		NS		NS
Line×treatment	White G	24	32.54±0.68	24	32.50±0.66	48	32.52±0.66
	White B	24	32.60±0.56	24	32.72±0.71	48	32.66±0.64
	White Y	23	32.51±0.63	23	32.72±0.69	46	32.62±0.66
	Brown G’	23	32.15±0.55	23	32.43±0.77	46	32.29±0.68
	Brown B’	24	32.39±0.79	24	32.32±0.76	48	32.36±0.77
	Brown Y’	23	32.21±0.65	23	32.59±0.59	46	32.40±0.64
Average	141	32.40a±0.66	141	32.55b±0.70	-	P = 0.03

a, b–different superscript letters denote statistical significance at P ≤ 0.05; TI–tonic immobility, group G, G’—beak trimmed chicks fed a regular diet, group B, B’—non beak trimmed chicks fed a regular diet; group Y, Y’—non beak trimmed chicks fed a diet supplemented with probiotics.

Table 4

Means and standard deviations for individual factors for the maximum temperature of the right face (RF).

Factor	Level	Before TI [°C]		After TI [°C]		Average (before and after TI) [°C]
		n	Mean	n	Mean	n	Mean
Line	White	71	39.47±0.43	71	39.56±0.43	142	39.51a±0.43
	Brown	70	39.34±0.56	70	39.39±0.54	140	39.306b±0.55
P-Value			NS		NS		P = 0.04
Treatment	Group G	47	39.45±0.48	47	39.57±0.49	94	39.51±0.49
	Group B	48	39.39±0.55	48	39.49±0.48	96	39.44±0.52
	Group Y	46	39.37±0.46	46	39.37±0.50	92	39.37±0.48
P-Value			NS		NS		NS
Line×treatment	White G	24	39.52±0.45	24	39.59±0.40	48	39.55±0.42
	White B	24	39.36±0.47	24	39.61±0.44	48	39.49±0.47
	White Y	23	39.52±0.34	23	39.48±0.46	46	39.50±0.40
	Brown G’	23	39.37±0.51	23	39.55±0.58	46	39.46±0.55
	Brown B’	24	39.41±0.63	24	39.37±0.50	48	39.39±0.57
	Brown Y’	23	39.23±0.53	23	39.25±0.53	46	39.24±0.52
Average		141	39.40±0.50	141	39.48±0.49	-	P = 0.07

a, b–different superscript letters denote statistical significance at P ≤ 0.05, TI–tonic immobility, group G, G’—beak trimmed chicks fed a regular diet, group B, B’—non beak trimmed chicks fed a regular diet; group Y, Y’—non beak trimmed chicks fed a diet supplemented with probiotics.

Table 5

Means and standard deviations for individual factors for the maximum temperature of the left face (LF).

Factor	Level	Before TI [°C]		After TI [°C]		Average (before and after TI) [°C]
		n	Mean	n	Mean	n	Mean
Line	White	71	39.53±0.42	71	39.56±0.42	142	39.54±0.42
	Brown	70	39.49±0.51	70	39.56±0.51	140	39.52±0.51
P-Value			NS		NS		NS
Treatment	Group G	47	39.58±0.47	47	39.64±0.43	94	39.61±0.45
	Group B	48	39.53±0.47	48	39.58±0.44	96	39.56±0.45
	Group Y	46	39.40±0.45	46	39.45±0.51	92	39.42±0.48
P Value			NS		NS		NS
Line× treatment	White G	24	39.67±0.48	24	39.61±0.47	48	39.64±0.47
	White B	24	39.47±0.38	24	39.59±0.37	48	39.53±0.38
	White Y	23	39.44±0.36	23	39.47±0.42	46	39.45±0.38
	Brown G’	23	39.50±0.45	23	39.68±0.40	46	39.59±0.43
	Brown B’	24	39.60±0.55	24	39.58±0.50	48	39.59±0.52
	Brown Y’	23	39.36±0.53	23	39.42±0.60	46	39.39±0.56
Average		141	39.51±0.47	141	39.56±0.47	-	NS

TI–tonic immobility, group G, G’—beak trimmed chicks fed a regular diet, group B, B’—non beak trimmed chicks fed the regular diet; group Y, Y’—non beak trimmed chicks fed the regular diet supplemented with probiotics.

Moderate positive correlations were found between the duration of TI and both eye temperatures after TI in white hens (rs = 0.36, 0.34 and 0.38 for left, right and average eye temperature, P < 0.05, respectively, Table 6).

Table 6

The Spearman rank correlation coefficients between the time of tonic immobility and surface temperature after tonic immobility for White Leghorn and Hy-Line brown line (n = 141).

Variable	rs
White
LE temperature	0.36*
RE temperature	0.34*
AE temperature	0.38*
Brown
LE temperature	-0.08
RE temperature	-0.04
AE temperature	-0.03

LE–left eye, RE–right eye, AE–average eye temperature of the left and right eye.

Discussion

To our knowledge, the current study is the first to use IRT to examine the effects of probiotic supplementation on reducing stress reactions in laying hens. Previous studies have clearly demonstrated that subjugation to various management stressors, such as changing environmental conditions and diets as well as transportation, disrupt the microenvironment of the gastrointestinal tract in humans and other animals, including chickens [37,38]. Similarly, physical and or psychological tests including a TI test may cause stress responses in the tested animals.

TI is one of the most common fear tests used in poultry. The process of TI includes capture, handling and manual restraint, which is considered to be stressful to the tested chickens. Increased HPA activation has been evidenced in genetically selected high fear chickens that have a longer average TI duration [39,40]. Longer TI duration has also been revealed in poultry exposed to other non-handling stressors, such as heat stress [41] and dietary mycotoxin [42]. Stress upregulates the HPA axis, leading to the release of corticotropin releasing factor and cortisol [43-45], and has a direct effect on the gastrointestinal tract to increase intestinal permeability, known as “leaky gut” [46]. Probiotics, as beneficial bacteria, have been used as therapeutics for stress related inflammatory bowel disease [47,48] and mental disorders in humans [49]. The underlying cellular mechanisms of probiotic functions are able to inhibit binding of pathogenic bacteria to intestinal epithelial cells, enhance barrier function and suppress the growth of pathogens [50]. The intestinal microbiota also have an influence on the synthesis and release of various neuroactive factors, neurotransmitters and neuromodulators, by which microbiota directly and indirectly deliver signals to the brain, thereby adjusting stress reactions via the gut-brain axis [43-45].

In poultry, dietary supplementation of probiotics has been used to reduce deleterious effects of heat stress [18, 19]. However, the results from the current experiment did not support our hypothesis that probiotics supplementation can provide a modulatory effect on TI-induced stress in laying hens. A possible explanation for this is that compared to other stressors such as heat stress, TI is a relatively mild and acute stressor which might not be enough to cause gastrointestinal disruption. In addition, physiological parameters, including heart rate, body temperature and brain activities (measured by electroencephalogram), are usually elevated immediately when TI is induced and gradually return to baseline before TI is terminated [51]. Probiotics may have potential to attenuate the stress response if the animals are exposed to a more prolonged or more intense stressor.

Although there was a lack of treatment difference, the left and right eye temperatures were increased by 0.26°C and 0.15°C, respectively, following TI testing. This finding is in agreement with other studies on stress reactions in animals, including poultry. Stress-induced hyperthermia has been characterized by increased core temperature and decreased surface temperature as a part of the broad physiological process of body hyperthermia [52]. Previous research has determined that core body temperature can be evaluated noninvasively using eye temperature measurements in cattle [53], and horses [54]. In laying hens, core body temperature initially decreased following the induction of TI, while hyperthermia occurred shortly after the response terminated [51,55,56]. In the current study, core temperature was not measured to avoid adding further stress to the birds. In addition, due to the restriction of group housing, we were unable to take baseline measurements of individual hens’ face and eye to indicate the temperature changes in response to the initial stress stimuli (catching, removing, and handling); instead, the comparison was made between before and after TI testing for each bird. However, the current results indicate that the increased eye temperature could be used as a stress indicator of chickens in response to TI. Similarly, eye temperature change in response to stressors has been reported in various poultry studies. Edgar et al. [22] reported that eye temperature immediately decreased, reaching a minimum of 0.8°C within the first 3 minutes and then increased significantly after 10 minutes of handling. In a recent study, hens that wore an unfamiliar device for behavior monitoring had higher eye temperatures in the acclimation period compared to hens in the control group [57]. In addition, Herborn et al. [58] reported that face and eye surface temperature increases could also be used as a long-term marker for stress responses in laying hens. In contrast, Herborn et al. [23] reported an initial drop in eye temperature of 0.4°C in reaction to handling only, with no temperature elevation mentioned. In our study, the average duration of TI was 7.2 minutes and we were still able to detect a temperature increase in both eyes, which indicate SIH could be a useful non-invasive method for stress detection, even if the stressor is considered to be relatively mild or short-lasting.

Interestingly, temperature only tended to increase in the right side of the face following TI testing, which partially agrees with results reported by Edgar et al. [22] and Moe et al. [24]. Edgar et al. [22] reported that 20 minutes was needed to monitor temperature changes in the head region in response to a handling procedure. In the present study, the maximum time allotted for TI was 15 minutes, with an average duration of 7.2 min. Shorter duration of TI could be a reason why face temperature tended to increase only on one side. Possible longer TI would significantly increase face temperature and decrease the level of discrepancy between both sides of the face, as according to Jones and Mills [59] a longer TI response is related to increased fearfulness and therefore stress reactions.

In farm animal industries, genetic traits play an important role in numerous areas, such as production yield, stress response, immune function, skeletal health, and behavior patterns. Our results indicate that genetic line has a significant influence on temperatures in the head areas. The average temperature before and after TI of the white hens was warmer in RE and RF, with a tendency for warmer temperatures in LE compared to brown hens. The results are in agreement with previous studies indicating that white hens are more fearful and have higher stress reactions than brown hens [29, 30, 33, 60]. The genetic difference could also explain the current findings of the lack of correlation between the surface temperature changes and TI duration in brown hens, whereas white hens had a moderate positive correlation between eye temperature change and TI duration, as well as the temperatures of the LE and RE. In other words, there is a higher temperature increase with longer TI duration. These findings agree with the results presented by Edgar [22], where eye temperature rose gradually as the handling time increased. The current results are also supported by studies showing that the birds selected for long TI duration have upregulated stress responses compared to birds with a shorter TI duration [39, 61].

Conclusions

The study is the first to demonstrate the effects of probiotic supplementation on the stress response of laying hens assessed by IRT. Both LE and RE temperatures were significantly increased in response to TI testing, indicating a stress response. There was a correlation between the duration of TI and the TI-induced temperature changes of the LE and RE for white hens. In addition, white hens had higher temperatures on the right side of the head, suggesting a greater reaction to TI than brown hens. However, probiotic supplementation did not affect eye and face temperatures measured by IRT. These results suggest that IRT could be used as a non-invasive technique to assess stress, especially in white hens.

8 May 2020

PONE-D-20-10311

Investigation of the effects of probiotic, Bacillus subtilis on stress reactions in laying hens using infrared thermography

PLOS ONE

Dear dr Soroko,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

One reviewer made some minor editorial suggestions/comments that will help clarify the manuscript.  Please respond specifically to these comments in your revision.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 22 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Michael H. Kogut, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"No"

At this time, please address the following queries:

Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:

"No"

a. Please complete your Competing Interests statement to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

b. This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I have not found significant limitations; conversely, I think that this manuscript has many strengths, such as originality and methodological accuracy. I think that this paper I reviewed reports novel findings useful for poultry health and wellbeing. The methods, results and data interpretation meet the journal's standard; no errors have been detected and the conclusions have been properly supported. The trials were well described and the findings have been well discussed. Moreover, the language is also fine.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript investigates the use of a probiotic in laying hens as a way to reduce stress. To evaluate this stress, infrared thermography was used. The manuscript uses good approaches and is acceptable with regard to content. The manuscript concludes that probiotics did not reduce stress under the conditions evaluated. However, infrared thermography could be used to evaluate stress in laying hens.

Page 2, line 24-27: Why was a beak trimmed group included in the study? Should there have been a beak trimmed with probiotics to effectively compare?

The abstract reads that ”Seventy-one white and 70 brown hens were used.” But page 6, line 109 reads, “396 female chicks of each line” were housed. I assume this is the starting number of conditioned/pullets that will be selected from for the study.

To clarify the materials and methods, 141 birds were broken into 3 groups which will break the groups into 47 birds each. This would be further broken down into 23-24 Hyline W-36 hens and 23-24 Brown hens per group.

Page 10, line 171-173: Results. The beak trimmed birds and non-beaked trimmed were pooled for further analysis. How were these pooled with the other groups? Were they included in the non-probiotic groups or added to both of the other groups? Please clarify.

Is there a significance for the references that were in red or were these corrections?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Guillermo Tellez-Isaias

Reviewer #2: Yes: James A Byrd

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

18 May 2020

Responses to reviewers' comments, manuscript Ref: PONE-D-20-10311, entitled “Investigation of the effects of probiotic, Bacillus subtilis on stress reactions in laying hens using infrared thermography”.

Comments to the Author

1. Comment: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Response: The article style according to journal requirements has been checked and corrected.

2. Comment: Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"No"

At this time, please address the following queries:

a. Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

Response: The authors received no specific funding for this work. Maria Soroko was supported by Fulbright Scholarship (Fulbright Senior Award) to conduct thermographic examination on birds at Purdue University. Rest of the research on poultry was supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Foundation program of the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program under the Award No: 2017-67015-26567. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this article is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement of the USDA. The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

b. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Response: The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

c. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

Response: None of the authors received any financial support.

d. If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Response: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

e. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response: Amended statements have been added in the cover letter.

3. Comment: Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:

"No"

a) Please complete your Competing Interests statement to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

b) This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. The information has been included in the cover letter.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

Reviewers' comments:

Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: I have not found significant limitations; conversely, I think that this manuscript has many strengths, such as originality and methodological accuracy. I think that this paper I reviewed reports novel findings useful for poultry health and wellbeing. The methods, results and data interpretation meet the journal's standard; no errors have been detected and the conclusions have been properly supported. The trials were well described and the findings have been well discussed. Moreover, the language is also fine.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript investigates the use of a probiotic in laying hens as a way to reduce stress. To evaluate this stress, infrared thermography was used. The manuscript uses good approaches and is acceptable with regard to content. The manuscript concludes that probiotics did not reduce stress under the conditions evaluated. However, infrared thermography could be used to evaluate stress in laying hens.

1. Comment: Page 2, line 24-27: Why was a beak trimmed group included in the study? Should there have been a beak trimmed with probiotics to effectively compare?

Response: Thank you for your comment. We included beak trimmed group fed regular diet because according to previous studies beak trimming reduces stress response in birds. Therefore we wanted to indicate if there are any temperature changes between beak trimmed – fed regular diet, non-beak trimmed fed a regular diet; and non-beak trimmed fed a diet supplemented with probiotics. Future research could include temperature differences between: beak trimmed fed a diet supplemented with probiotics and beak trimmed fed a regular diet (as a control group).

2. Comment: The abstract reads that ”Seventy-one white and 70 brown hens were used.” But page 6, line 109 reads, “396 female chicks of each line” were housed. I assume this is the starting number of conditioned/pullets that will be selected from for the study.

Response: Thank you for your comment. I confirm 396 female chicks of each line that was a starting number and in the research we included a part od those birds n = 141 of both lines.

3. Comment: To clarify the materials and methods, 141 birds were broken into 3 groups which will break the groups into 47 birds each. This would be further broken down into 23-24 Hyline W-36 hens and 23-24 Brown hens per group.

Response: Thank you for that comment: 141 bird included 2 lines: 71 Hy-Line W-36 hens and 70 Brown hens. Each line was broken into 3 groups: including 71 Hy-Line W-36 hens (group G - 24 birds, B - 24 birds, and Y- 23 birds) and 70 Brown hens (group G’ - 23 birds, B’- 24 birds and Y’- 23 birds). More information about groups has been added at lines: 132-133 page 7 and 8.

4. Comment: Page 10, line 171-173: Results. The beak trimmed birds and non-beaked trimmed were pooled for further analysis. How were these pooled with the other groups? Were they included in the non-probiotic groups or added to both of the other groups? Please clarify.

Response: Thank you for very much your comment. This sentence is superfluous. It has been delete from the manuscript.

5. Comment: Is there a significance for the references that were in red or were these corrections?

Response: Thank you for pointing this. There was no reason for highlighting references, it was done by mistake.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

20 May 2020

Investigation of the effects of probiotic, Bacillus subtilis on stress reactions in laying hens using infrared thermography

PONE-D-20-10311R1

Dear Dr. Górniak,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Michael H. Kogut, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

2 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-10311R1

Investigation of the effects of probiotic, Bacillus subtilis on stress reactions in laying hens using infrared thermography

Dear Dr. Soroko:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Michael H. Kogut

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE