ArticlePoultry science2022
Effects of cage versus floor rearing system on goose intestinal histomorphology and cecal microbial composition.
Article in Poultry science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gut microbiota in poultry: Roles in nutrition, metabolism and production performance.Poultry science · 2026Review
- Soft-Pellet Feed Strategy for Broilers: Effects on Growth Performance and Liver-Intestinal Health.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Lipidomic and Transcriptomic Reveals Variations in Lipid Deposition During Goose Fatty Liver Formation.Biology · 2025Article
- Amino Acid Balanced Compound Low-Protein Diets Improve Resource Efficiency in Sanhua Goose Production: Impacts on Metabolism, Gut Health, and Microbial Diversity.Microorganisms · 2025Article
- Dietary jack bean (Heliyon · 2024Article
- Effects of cage vs. net-floor mixed rearing system on goose spleen histomorphology and gene expression profiles.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- Effects of rearing systems (cage versus floor) on the microbial composition and transcriptome of goose ileum.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- Influence of the rearing system on the ileum microbiome, metabolome, and transcriptome in meat rabbits.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- Effects of grape seed procyanidins on antioxidant function, barrier function, microbial community, and metabolites of cecum in geese.Poultry science · 2023Article
- Effects and Mechanisms of Cage versus Floor Rearing System on Goose Growth Performance and Immune Status.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Association of residual feed intake with intestinal microbiome and metabolome in laying period of ducks.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to the demand for modern goose production and the pressure of environmental protection, the rearing systems of geese are changing from traditional waterside rearing to intensive rearing systems such as floor rearing (FR) and cage rearing (CR) systems. However, little is known about the effects of different rearing systems on goose intestinal functions and cecal microbial composition. Therefore, this study aimed to compare intestinal histomorphology and cecal microbial composition differences in geese reared under CR and FR at 270 d of age. Histomorphological analysis showed that the ileal villus height (VH) to crypt depth (CD) ratio was significantly greater in CR than in FR (P < 0.001). Taxonomic analysis showed that the dominant bacteria of cecal microorganisms in both rearing systems were roughly similar, with Bacteroidota, Firmicutes, Fusobacteriota, and Proteobacteria being the dominant phyla while Bacteroides, Fusobacterium, and uncultured_bacterium_o_Bacteroidales being the dominant genera. Differentially abundant taxa between CR and FR were also identified using Linear Discriminant Analysis Effect Size (LEfSe) analysis (P < 0.05, LDA score > 3.5). Megamonas and Anaerobiospirillum were significantly enriched in the CR group at the genus level, while uncultured_bacterium_f_Rikenellaceae and Sutterella were significantly enriched in the FR group. Notably, we found that the relative abundance of uncultured_bacterium_f_Rikenellaceae was significantly negatively correlated with the ileal VH and VH/CD (P < 0.05). The relative abundance of Megamonas and Anaerobiospirillum were significantly negatively correlated with abdominal fat weight and relative abdominal fat weight (P < 0.01), whereas that of Sutterella was significantly positively correlated with abdominal fat weight and relative abdominal fat weight (P < 0.01). Furthermore, PICRUSt2 analysis indicated that the lipid metabolism pathways of cecal microorganisms were lower enriched in CR than in FR. In conclusion, compared with FR, the CR significantly changed goose ileal histomorphological characteristics and cecal microbial composition, thereby affecting goose physiological functions and production performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.