Cited by 55Animal Nutrition and PhysiologyOrganic Food and AgricultureAgricultural safety and regulations

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

Open access
Huber, Machteld, van de Vijver, Lucy P. L., Parmentier, Henk, Savelkoul, Huub, Coulier, Leon, Wopereis, Suzan, Verheij, Elwin, van der Greef, Jan +2 more·2010·British Journal of Nutrition

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0007114509992236

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Brandt K (2007) Food Utilization Invited review commissioned by FAO. [
  2. Huber M (2003) Minutes Workshop Food Quality and Health (FQH), October 2003. Louis Bolk Instituut, Driebergen, The Netherlands. http://www.organicfqhresearch.org
  3. Fragner J (1965) Vitamine und Biochemie, Band I (Vitamins and Biochemistry, Band I). Jena: Gustav Fisher Verlag pp. 273.
  4. Kwakkel RP (1994) Multiphasic growth in the layer pullet - effects of nutrient restriction during rearing PhD Thesis, Wageningen University
  5. Khovidhunkit W, Kim MS, Memon RA, et al. (2004) Effects of infection and inflammation on lipid and lipoprotein metabolism: mechanisms and consequences to the host. Review. J Lipid Res 45, 69-96 (Epublication 21 April 2004).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huber, M., van de Vijver, L. P. L., Parmentier, H., Savelkoul, H., Coulier, L., Wopereis, S., Verheij, E., van der Greef, J., Nierop, D., & Hoogenboom, R. A. P.
Affiliations
  • Louis Bolk Instituut (NL)
  • Wageningen University & Research (NL)
Corresponding author
Huber, Machteld
Venue
British Journal of Nutrition
Published
2009-10-28
Volume
103
Issue
5
Pages
663-676
ISSN
  • 0007-1145 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2662
OpenAlex
W2159197273
Cited by
55
References
58
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 8
FWCI
8.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal Of Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
  • TNO Repository (submittedVersion)
  • Repository hosted by TU Delft Library (TU Delft) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Organic Food and Agriculture
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
Keywords
organic feed, chicken model, health biomarkers, immune responsiveness, immune challenge, catch-up growth, feed composition, micronutrients, metabolomics, growth rate, body weight, feed intake, heavy metals, trace elements
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Feed, Chickens, Diet, Dietary Proteins, Growth, Random Allocation, Biomarkers, Weight Gain, Micronutrients, Models, Animal, Adaptive Immunity, Food, Organic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review