Phytogenic feed additives have been largely tested in poultry production with the aim to identify their effects on the gastrointestinal function and health, and their implications on the birds’ systemic health and welfare, the production efficiency of flocks, food safety, and environmental impact. These feed additives originating from plants, and consisting of herbs, spices, fruit, and other plant parts, include many different bioactive ingredients. Reviewing published documents about the supplementation of phytogenic feed additives reveals contradictory results regarding their effectiveness in poultry production. This indicates that more effort is still needed to determine the appropriate inclusion levels and fully elucidate their mode of actions. In this frame, this review aimed to sum up the current trends in the use of phytogenic feed additives in poultry with a special focus on their interaction with gut ecosystem, gut function, in vivo oxidative status and immune system as well as other feed additives, especially organic acids.

An experiment was performed to evaluate the effect of four different microencapsulated blends of organic acids (OA) and nature-identical aromatic compounds (AC) on growth performance and gut health of broilers challenged with a recycled NE litter. A total of 600 one-day-old male Ross 308 broilers were randomly assigned to five treatments consisting of a basal diet (as negative control) supplemented with each of the tested microencapsulated blends: OA1 (malic and fumaric acid) + AC; 2.5 g/kg; OA2 (calcium butyrate+fumaric acid) + AC; 1.7 g/kg; MCFA (capric-caprylic; caproic and lauric acid) + AC; 2 g/kg; and MCFA + OA3 (calcium butyrate+fumaric and citric acid) + AC; 1.5 g/kg. The AC used was the same for all treatments; including cinnamaldehyde, carvacrol, and thymol (8:1:1), as major compounds. Three tested blends enhanced growth performance by improving intestinal histomorphology (p < 0.001). The tested blends enhanced the abundance of some beneficial families such as Ruminococcaceae and Lachnospiraceae; while reducing that of harmful ones such as Enterobacteriaceae and Helicobacteraceae. A further dose-response experiment showed that 0.5 g/kg of the blend 2 and 2 g/kg of the blend 4 improved growth performance and intestinal histomorphology of chickens on d 42 and decreased fecal Enterobacteriaceae and C. perfringens counts. Similar effects to the previous experiment were observed for cecum microbiota.

Neuropeptide Y (NPY) is one of the most abundant and ubiquitously expressed neuropeptides in both the central and peripheral nervous systems, and its regulatory effects on feed intake and appetite- have been extensively studied in a wide variety of animals, including mammalian and non-mammalian species. Indeed, NPY has been shown to be involved in the regulation of feed intake and energy homeostasis by exerting stimulatory effects on appetite and feeding behavior in several species including chickens, rabbits, rats and mouse. More recent studies have shown that this neuropeptide and its receptors are expressed in various peripheral tissues, including the thyroid, heart, spleen, adrenal glands, white adipose tissue, muscle and bone. Although well researched centrally, studies investigating the distribution and function of peripherally expressed NPY in avian (non-mammalian vertebrates) species are very limited. Thus, peripherally expressed NPY merits more consideration and further in-depth exploration to fully elucidate its functions, especially in non-mammalian species. The aim of the current review is to provide an integrated synopsis of both centrally and peripherally expressed NPY, with a special focus on the distribution and function of the latter.