Table 5.
Relative abundance of bacterial families in the caecum chymus of broiler chickens as affected by dietary treatments and age (%).
| Family | Caecum Chymus | FDR p-Values | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dietary Treatment | Age of Birds | Mean (Dietary Treatment) | |||||||
| d 7 | d 14 | d 21 | d 40 | Dietary Treatment | Age | Int. | |||
| Ruminococcaceae | C | 41.49 | 42.64 | 36.99 | 29.84 | 37.74 | 0.960 | 0.920 | |
| Br | 41.54 | 47.36 | 36.87 | 30.13 | 38.98 | ||||
| Sy | 39.87 | 49.55 | 35.57 | 29.03 | 38.50 | ||||
| Mean (Age) | 40.96 ab | 46.52 a | 36.48 bc | 29.67 c | 0.001 | ||||
| Lachnospiraceae | C | 30.35 | 30.30 | 21.86 | 19.39 | 25.47 | 0.960 | 0.910 | |
| Br | 30.20 | 27.64 | 21.22 | 18.46 | 24.38 | ||||
| Sy | 33.51 | 25.03 | 21.67 | 18.11 | 24.58 | ||||
| Mean (Age) | 31.35 a | 27.65 ab | 21.58 bc | 18.65 c | 0.001 | ||||
| Rikenellaceae | C | 0.01 | 8.90 | 10.41 | 5.37 | 6.17 | 0.970 | 0.830 | |
| Br | 0.06 | 7.10 | 8.52 | 7.33 | 5.75 | ||||
| Sy | 0.00 | 8.62 | 8.15 | 6.61 | 5.84 | ||||
| Mean (Age) | 0.02 b | 8.21 a | 9.03 a | 6.44 a | 0.001 | ||||
| Clostridiales vadinBB60 group | C | 10.92 | 7.53 | 1.95 | 2.55 | 5.74 | 0.960 | 0.430 | |
| Br | 15.68 | 6.27 | 2.03 | 2.32 | 6.57 | ||||
| Sy | 8.00 | 8.38 | 2.82 | 1.01 | 5.05 | ||||
| Mean (Age) | 11.53 a | 7.39 a | 2.27 b | 1.96 b | 0.001 | ||||
| Anaeroplasmataceae | C | 4.89 | 1.87 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 1.72 | 0.960 | 0.430 | |
| Br | 1.31 | 2.37 | 0.31 | 0.08 | 1.02 | ||||
| Sy | 2.88 | 1.76 | 0.08 | 0.04 | 1.19 | ||||
| Mean (Age) | 3.03 a | 2.00 ab | 0.16 b | 0.06 b | 0.001 | ||||
| Lactobacillaceae | C | 1.67 | 3.03 | 10.95 | 15.45 | 7.78 | 0.960 | 0.020 | |
| Br | 0.31 | 0.91 | 10.87 | 21.61 | 8.43 | ||||
| Sy | 1.74 | 1.73 | 8.02 | 20.85 | 8.09 | ||||
| Mean (Age) | 1.24 c | 1.89 c | 9.95 b | 19.30 a | 0.001 | ||||
| Enterobacteriaceae | C | 5.46 | 1.52 | 0.50 | 0.16 | 1.91 | 0.960 | 0.770 | |
| Br | 8.16 | 3.62 | 0.38 | 0.10 | 3.07 | ||||
| Sy | 10.06 | 1.94 | 0.59 | 0.18 | 3.19 | ||||
| Mean (Age) | 7.89 a | 2.36 b | 0.49 b | 0.15 b | 0.001 | ||||
| Christensenellaceae | C | 0.20 | 0.16 | 1.26 | 1.69 | 0.83 | 0.990 | 0.890 | |
| Br | 0.07 | 0.33 | 1.07 | 1.88 | 0.84 | ||||
| Sy | 0.06 | 0.43 | 1.13 | 1.77 | 0.85 | ||||
| Mean (Age) | 0.11 c | 0.31 c | 1.15 b | 1.78 a | 0.001 | ||||
| Erysipelotrichaceae | C | 1.50 | 0.95 A | 3.47 | 6.85 A | 3.19 | 0.370 | 0.150 | |
| Br | 1.02 | 0.52 B | 2.97 | 4.31 B | 2.21 | ||||
| Sy | 1.65 | 0.64 AB | 3.39 | 5.34 AB | 2.75 | ||||
| Mean (Age) | 1.39 c | 0.70 c | 3.28 b | 5.50 a | 0.001 | ||||
| Bacillaceae | C | 1.53 | 0.89 | 2.07 | 0.95 | 1.36 | 0.940 | 0.980 | |
| Br | 0.87 | 0.72 | 1.28 | 0.63 | 0.88 | ||||
| Sy | 0.82 | 0.64 | 1.27 | 0.85 | 0.89 | ||||
| Mean (Age) | 1.07 | 0.75 | 1.54 | 0.81 | 0.220 | ||||
| Peptostreptococcaceae | C | 0.08 | 0.04 | 1.75 | 4.81 | 1.67 | 0.940 | 0.160 | |
| Br | 0.03 | 0.06 | 1.23 | 4.09 | 1.35 | ||||
| Sy | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.96 | 5.40 | 1.63 | ||||
| Mean (Age) | 0.06 c | 0.06 c | 1.31 b | 4.77 a | 0.001 | ||||
| Akkermansiaceae | C | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2.59 | 0.49 | 0.77 | 0.970 | 1.000 | |
| Br | 0.00 | 0.01 | 2.78 | 0.77 | 0.89 | ||||
| Sy | 0.00 | 0.04 | 2.89 | 0.82 | 0.94 | ||||
| Mean (Age) | 0.00 b | 0.01 b | 2.75 a | 0.69 b | 0.001 | ||||
| Bacteroidaceae | C | 0.00 | 0.71 | 2.61 | 6.44 | 0.83 | 0.960 | 0.230 | |
| Br | 0.00 | 0.00 | 6.77 | 3.93 | 1.69 | ||||
| Sy | 0.00 | 0.00 | 9.45 | 3.31 | 2.36 | ||||
| Mean (Age) | 0.00 b | 0.24 b | 6.28 a | 4.56 a | 0.001 | ||||
| Streptococcaceae | C | 0.23 | 0.14 | 1.62 | 1.45 | 0.86 | 0.960 | 0.900 | |
| Br | 0.03 | 0.04 | 1.44 | 0.69 | 0.55 | ||||
| Sy | 0.02 | 0.11 | 2.09 | 0.68 | 0.72 | ||||
| Mean (Age) | 0.09 b | 0.10 b | 1.72 a | 0.94 ab | 0.001 | ||||
Bacterial family differences between groups were assessed using two-way ANOVA test, with Benjamini–Hochberg false discovery rate (FDR) correction. FDR-corrected p-values below 0.05 were considered significant. Dietary treatment effects at each sampling days were also compared with one-way ANOVA The significance of Tukey’s HSD multiple group comparison’s post hoc tests was indicated at p ˂ 0.05. a, b, c: values within the mean (Age) rows with different lowercase letters were significantly different (p < 0.05). A, B: values within the mean columns with different capital letter superscripts were significantly different (p < 0.05). The table shows only those families for which the group average of relative abundance was higher than 1%. “Int.” means the FDR p-values of interaction between the two main factors, age, and dietary treatment.