E

INTESTINAL HEALTH AND COGNITIVE FUNCTION:

A CONCERN FOR FARM ANIMAL WELFARE?
Dr. S.F. Bilgili and Dr. E.T. Moran, Jr.
Professor Emeriti, Department of Poultry Science
Auburn University

While it is difficult to define “animal welfare” precisely, it is widely accepted to encompass both physical and mental health states.1
Welfare includes many of the elements that contribute to an animal’s quality of life, including its ability to cope with the environment
in which it lives. An animal is considered to be in a good state of welfare if it is healthy, comfortable, well-nourished, safe, able to
express innate behavior, and not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear and distress. 2

Intestinal Integrity critical to health and productivity

Welfare of animals raised for food must include disease
prevention and appropriate veterinary treatment, shelter,
management and nutrition, humane handling and humane
slaughter or killing. There is a critical and indispensable
relationship between animal welfare and animal health. Farm
animal welfare is of major concern to producers and consumers
alike, and the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) can be a major player
given its dominant role in animal’s physiological and emotional
state. The GIT represents the largest surface of exposure to,
and input from, the external environment for the animal. The
intestinal mucosal surfaces not only play an essential role in
nutrient absorption to fuel growth and productivity but also
act as a selective barrier to protect the host animal from the
external insults. There are indispensable physical, chemical,
immunological and microbiological components to this
mucosal selective barrier. 3 One in particular is the intestinal
microbiome (complex communities of bacteria, protozoa, fungi,
yeasts, bacteriophages and viruses) that, when mature and
healthy, helps with digestion, fights off infections and helps
boost the immune system. The fact that less than one percent of
the microbiome can be identified by culture methods
underscores the tremendous complexity and diversity of
the intestinal microbiome.4

A mature, healthy intestinal microbiome helps with digestion, fights off

infections, and helps boost the immune system.

Structurally, post-hatch development of the intestine is fairly rapid in poultry compared to other animals. 5-8 However, the
establishment of a balanced microbiome is far from complete in young chickens (e.g., broilers) and highly influenced by stressors
such as the diet and feed form, exposure to infectious agents (bacterial, viral and zoo-parasitic), environmental conditions, handling,
immunization and stocking densities.9-11 Reducing and/or eliminating stress and distress in intensive poultry production systems is
essential for animal health and welfare, as well as for productivity. Stress triggers physiologically complex and metabolically costly
inflammatory and immune responses (both innate and adaptive) with potentially negative welfare consequences.
Avian Insight

Reducing and/or eliminating stress and distress in intensive poultry

production systems is essential for animal health and welfare.

Diet and the intestinal microbiome connected to animal behavior

There is increasing evidence that diet, the intestinal microbiome and animal behavior are interconnected.11-15 The intestinal-mental
link appears to be bidirectional; just as negative emotional states (anxiety or stress) influence the intestinal function, the intestine
can also communicate its state of health or imbalance to the central nervous system (CNS). It is well documented that changes in
feed ingredients or in feed composition can readily alter a bird’s behavior, although such modifications without impairment of health
likely represents adaptation by the animal to changes in nutrient accessibility and content.16-18

Feed form and feeding programs that either

unacceptably deprive food or contain additives Changes in feed ingredients or in feed
that may lead to feed refusal can also affect an
animal’s behavior.19 Animal welfare should be
composition can readily alter a bird’s
evaluated when deviant behavior is accompanied behavior.
by overt and/or debilitating abnormalities. 20

Far reaching effects of intestinal dysbiosis in production systems

Intestinal dysbiosis (inability to establish
and/or maintain a healthy microbiome)
can impact animal welfare directly
through injury to the intestinal mucosal
barrier, thereby inducing subclinical or
clinical enteritis and diuresis (diarrhea or
flushing) in chickens. Diarrhea, flushing or
feed passage increase litter moisture and
accentuate ammonia production, which
in turn can trigger contact dermatitis
as well as ocular and respiratory stress
in confined rearing environments. All
of these conditions can lead to welfare
issues in extensive production systems. 21-23
Intestinal dysbiosis can also result in
the production of excess and/or toxic
metabolites, some of which can serve
as signals of stress that alter animal
behavior and welfare indirectly. For
example, the accumulation of microbial
by-products, such as propionate and
D-lactate or production of endotoxins
by the commensal bacteria, have been
shown to cause anxiety, aggression
and cognitive dysfunction in laboratory
animals and humans. 21-23
The release of chemical messengers
(cytokines and C-reactive proteins, etc.)
during intestinal dysbiosis, inflammation,
oxidative stress and altered mucosal
permeability is communicated to the
CNS through the nervous system. 24-25
Inflammation also causes changes in
the metabolism of neurotransmitters
in the CNS.
For example, the amino acid tryptophan
can be shunted towards the production
of anxiety-provoking chemicals, such as
quinolinate, rather than the production
of serotonin and melatonin. Interestingly,
restoring the normal intestinal barrier
improves these emotional symptoms. 26-27
So far, the research on GIT and brain
connection in poultry has been limited to
assessing behavioral responses of birds to
feeds and feeding programs. Any link(s) to
animal welfare has been indirect at best.
However, new research on brain health,
cognitive function and social behavior of
domesticated chickens indicates striking
similarities in certain regions of the CNS
of primates and chickens. 28-29 If chickens
can display emotions comparable to those
of primates, then one can speculate that
the intestine is also likely to influence the
mental state of poultry.

New research on brain health, cognitive function and social behavior of

domesticated chickens indicates striking similarities in certain regions of
CNS of primates and chickens.
 Avian Insight

The intestine-mental health link must be considered within the context of complex interaction of genetics, dietary and
environmental factors, as well as the microbial challenge normally present in animal production facilities. Broiler chickens are
marketed at very young ages (28 to 66 days of age), well before the establishment of the balanced and stable microbiome commonly
present in adult birds. Early and frequent shifts in the intestinal microbiome can increase the susceptibility of broiler chickens to
intestinal dysbiosis and subsequently to intestinal disease.

Manage health risks with targeted, supervised interventions

Poultry and other farm animals live in large numbers and
in close association with each other, and must coexist with
bacteria, viruses and parasites from their surroundings. The
exposure to vectors (e.g., flies, rodents, etc.) within their
environment is a fact of life. Hence, there is a significant health
risk from potentially infectious agents in the environment.
Animal housing, flock management, feeding and health programs
have evolved to reduce this health risk not only to animals but
also to humans.
At times, targeted medical interventions are necessary to
protect the health and welfare of poultry and to assure food
safety. Health programs may require targeted applications
of various antimicrobials, vaccines or antibiotics specifically
developed for farm animals and poultry. These interventions,
when implemented judiciously and under the supervision of
veterinarians, have been extremely successful in stabilizing the
microbiome or treating intestinal disease in broilers. Sanitation
and biosecurity alone are not adequate to achieve predictable
and sustainable health and welfare outcomes.

Health programs may require targeted applications of various

antimicrobials, vaccines, or antibiotics specifically developed for farm
animals and poultry.

Recent trends to replace some of these proven interventions (e.g., antibiotics) with probiotics, prebiotics, enzymes, organic acids
or herb extracts have yet to be proven consistently effective. 30 Yes, there can be negative outcomes from irresponsible use of
antimicrobials or antibiotics, but that is not how these products are intended nor used by the industry. Judicious use under the
oversight of a veterinarian is essential, as these antimicrobials are not a panacea or quick bandage to management problems. In the
meantime, the welfare of broiler chickens may be compromised, whether directly or indirectly, with the indiscriminate elimination of
targeted interventions in broiler production.
Avian Insight

1
T. I. J. H. Duncan. 1987. “The welfare of farm animals: an ethological approach.” Sci. Prog., Oxf. 71:317-326.
2
World Organisation for Animal Health. 2010. “Introduction to the recommendations for animal welfare.” Chapter 7.1, Article 7.1.1.,Terrestrial Animal Health Code.
3
Equilibrium in the gut ecosystem for productive healthy birds. E. O. Oviedo-Rondon and M. E. Hume, 2013.
4
P. Hugenholtz, P., B.M. Goebel, B.M., and N.R. Pace. 1998. “Impact of culture-independent studies on the emerging phylogenetic view of bacterial diversity.” J. of
Bact. 4765-4774.
5
M. Yegani and D. R. Korver. 2008. “Factors affecting intestinal health in poultry.” Poultry Sci., 87: 2052-2063.
6
D. Sklan World’s Poult. 2001. “Development of the digestive tract of poultry.” Sci. J. 57:415–427.
7
D. Sklan. 2005. “Development of defense mechanisms in the digestive tract of the chick.” J. Appl. Poult. Res. 14:437–443.
8
E. T. Moran, Jr. 1985. “Nutrition of the developing embryo and hatchling.” Poultry Sci., 86:1-7.
9
D. B. Anderson. July 9-11, 2002. “Intestinal microbes: When does normality change into a health and performance insult.” Elanco Global Enteritis Symp.
10
H. Karunajeewa. 1987. “A review of current poultry feeding systems and their potential acceptability to animal welfarists.” Worlds Poult. Sci. J., 43:20-32.
11
D. W. Kononen, J.R. Hockstein, and R.K. Ringer. 1986. “A quantitative method for evaluating avian food avoidance behavior.” Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 5:823-830.
12
A. C. Bested, A. C. Logan and E. M. Selhub. 2013. “Intestinal microbiota, probiotics and mental health: from Metchnikoff to modern advances: Part I –
autointoxication revisited.” Gut Pathogens, 5:5.
13
A. C. Bested, A. C. Logan and E. M. Selhub. 2013. “Intestinal microbiota, probiotics and mental health: from Metchnikoff to modern advances: Part II –
contemporary contextual research.” Gut Pathogens, 5:3.
14
A. C. Bested, A. C. Logan and E. M. Selhub. 2013. “Intestinal microbiota, probiotics and mental health: from Metchnikoff to modern advances: Part II – convergence
towards clinical trials.” Gut Pathogens, 5:4.
15
J. F. Cryan, and S. M. O’Mahony. 2011. “The microbiome-gut-brain axis: from bowel to behavior.” Neurogastroenterol. Motil., 23:187–192.
16
R. K. Newman and D. C. Sands. 1983. “Dietary selection for lysine by the chick.” Physiol. Behavior, 31:13-19.
17
M. Adret-Hausberger and R. B. Cumming. 1987. “Social experience and selection of diet in domestic chickens.” Bird Behavior, 7:37-43.
18
M. J. Haskell, M. Vilarino, M. Savina, J. Atamna, and M. Picard. 2001. “Do broiler chicks have a cognitive representation of food quality? Appetite, behavioural and
ingestive responses to a change in diet quality.” Appl. Anim. Behavioral Sci., 72:63-77.
19
D. O. Skinner-Noble, L. J. McKinney, and R.G. Teeter. 2005. “Predicting calorific value of nonnutritive factors: III. Feed form affects broiler performance by modifying
behavioral patterns.” Poult. Sci., 84:403-411.
20
W. Bessei. 1993. “The influence of stocking density on performance, behavior and health of broilers- A literature review.” Arch. Geflugelk., 57:97-102.
21
R. H. Thomas, M. M. Meeking, J. R. Mepham, L. Tichenoff, F. Possmayer, S. Liu, and D. F. MacFabe. 2012. “The enteric bacterial metabolite propionic acid alters brain
and plasma phospholipid molecular species: further development of a rodent model of autism spectrum disorders.” J Neuroinflammation, 9:153.
22
R. Diaz Heijtz , S. Wang, F. Anuar, Y. Qian, B. Björkholm, A. Samuelsson, M. L. Hibberd, H. Forssberg, S. Pettersson. 2011. “Normal gut microbiota modulates brain
development and behavior.” Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 108:3047–3052.
23
M. Pimentel, D. Hallegua, E. J. Chow, D. Wallace, G. Bonorris, and H. C. Lin. 2000. “Eradication of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth decreases symptoms in
chronic fatigue syndrome: a double blind, randomized study.” Gastroenterology, 118:A414.
24
A. Reichenberg, R. Yirmiya, A. Schuld, T. Kraus, M. Haack, A. Morag, and T. Pollmächer. 2001. “Cytokine-associated emotional and cognitive disturbances in
humans.” Arch. Gen Psychiatry, 58:445–52.
25
Miller et al Biol Psychiatry. 2009. “Inflammation and its discontents: the role of cytokines in the pathophysiology of major depression.” Biol Psychiatry; 65(9): 732–741.
26
K. A. Neufeld, N. Kang, J. Bienenstock, and J. A. Foster. 2011. “Effects of intestinal microbiota on anxiety-like behavior.” Commun Integr Biol., 4:492–494
27
P. Bercik, E. Denou, J. Collins, W. Jackson, J. Lu, J. Jury, Y. Deng, P. Blennerhassett, J. Macri, K. D. McCoy, E. F. Verdu, and S. M. Collins. 2011. “The intestinal microbiota
affect central levels of brain-derived neurotropic factor and behavior in mice.” Gastroenterology, 141:599–609.
28
C. L. Smith and J. Johnson. 2012. “The Chicken Challenge: What contemporary studies of fowl mean for science and ethics.” Between the Species, 15:75-102.
29
C. L. Smith and S. L. Zielinski. 2014. “The startling intelligence of the common chicken.” Scientific American. 60-65.
30
T. Roberts, J. Wilson, A. Guthrie, K. Cookson, D. Vancraeynest, J. Schaeffer, R. Moody, and S. Clark. 2015. “New issues and science in broiler chicken intestinal health:
Emerging technology and alternative interventions.” J. Appl. Poult. Res. 24:257-266.

Elanco®, Full Value Poultry™ and the diagonal bar are all trademarks owned or licensed
by Eli Lilly and Company, its subsidiaries or affiliates.
© 2017 Eli Lilly and Company, its subsidiaries or affiliates. All rights reserved.
USPBUNON02088 | fvp 5560-2