Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:45:27.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Divergent modulation of swine ileal microbiota by formic acid and methionine hydroxy analogue-free acid

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

J. Apajalahti ,
M. Rademacher ,
J. K. Htoo ,
M. Redshaw  and
A. Kettunen
J. Apajalahti*
Affiliation:
Alimetrics Ltd, Koskelontie 19 B, FIN-02920 Espoo, Finland
M. Rademacher
Affiliation:
Evonik Degussa GmbH, Rodenbacher Chaussee 4, 63457 Hanau-Wolfgang, Germany
J. K. Htoo
Affiliation:
Evonik Degussa Canada Inc., PO Box 1000, Highway 643 East, Gibbons, Alberta, T0A 1N0, Canada
M. Redshaw
Affiliation:
Evonik Degussa GmbH, Rodenbacher Chaussee 4, 63457 Hanau-Wolfgang, Germany
A. Kettunen
Affiliation:
Alimetrics Ltd, Koskelontie 19 B, FIN-02920 Espoo, Finland
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Management of intestinal microbiota of monogastric animals has increased in importance since the ban of growth promoting antibiotics in many countries. Organic acids have been used as alternatives to antibiotics by many feed manufacturers. Regardless of the wide usage, the effect, dose response and mode of action of acids on intestinal microbes is poorly understood. In this study, we investigated the effects of dietary supplementation of three commonly used products, namely formic acid (FA) (90%), dl-methionine (DLM) (99%) and liquid methionine hydroxy analogue-free acid (88%), on ileal microbiota of pigs. Laboratory simulation system, mimicking swine ileum, was used to study the products at various concentrations and combinations. Furthermore, selected combinations were tested in a piglet trial to confirm the findings made in in vitro studies. FA turned out to have a dual effect on ileal microbiota. At concentrations below 0.5%, it significantly stimulated bacteria, but at higher inclusion rates it was highly inhibitory. This finding, which was consistent in in vitro and in vivo studies, implies that reducing the dose of FA does not lead to a diluted inhibitory effect, but in fact, an opposite, stimulatory effect on intestinal microbiota. It is highly important that feed compounders acknowledge this finding. Unlike FA, the inhibitory effect of methionine hydroxy analogue on ileal bacteria was linearly dose dependent and significant at inclusion levels above 0.2%, in vitro. Partial replacement of methionine hydroxy analogue by FA, or FA by methionine hydroxy analogue, led to an unpredictable outcome due to the dual effects of FA; e.g., a minor inclusion of added FA changed the inhibitory effect of methionine hydroxy analogue into microbial stimulation by FA. Inhibition of ileal microbiota by methionine hydroxy analogue was detected only in in vitro studies, suggesting that intact methionine hydroxy analogue may not have reached the ileum, in live animals. Therefore, if the target is to ensure the inhibitory effect of FA, the FA level in feed should be kept above 0.6%, and not reduced, if methionine hydroxy analogue is used as a methionine source instead of DLM. DLM was totally inert with regard to bacterial growth and metabolism, both in vitro and in vivo. The results of these studies reveal the importance of knowing how each acid product works. Inconsistent results in animal trials may have been partly due to quadratic dose–response effects of products, and unpredictable product combination effects.

Keywords

dl-methionineformic acidmethionine hydroxy analogue-free acidbacteria in swine ileumin vitro and in vivo studies
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 3 , Issue 6 , June 2009 , pp. 817 - 825
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Apajalahti, JHA, Särkilahti, LK, Mäki, BR, Heikkinen, JP, Nurminen, PH, Holben, WE 1998. Effective recovery of bacterial DNA and percent-guanine-plus-cytosine-based analysis of community structure in the gastrointestinal tract of broiler chickens. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 64, 4084–4088.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Apajalahti, JHA, Kettunen, H, Kettunen, A, Holben, WE, Nurminen, PH, Rautonen, N, Mutanen, M 2002. Culture-independent microbial community analysis reveals that inulin in the diet primarily affects previously unknown bacteria in the mouse caecum. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 68, 4986–4995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Awati, A, Williams, BA, Bosch, MW, Li, YC, Verstegen, MWA 2006. Use of the in vitro cumulative gas production technique for pigs: An examination of alterations in fermentation products and substrate losses at various time points. Journal of Animal Science 84, 1110–1118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bauer, E, Williams, BA, Bosch, MW, Voigth, C, Mosenthin, R, Verstegen, MVA 2004. Difference in microbial activity of digesta from three sections of the porcine large intestine according to in vitro fermentation of carbohydrate-rich substrates. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 84, 2097–2104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolduan, G, Jung, H, Schneider, R, Block, J, Klenke, B 1988. Effect of propionic and formic acids in piglets. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 59, 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canibe, N, Højberg, O, Højsgaard, S, Jensen, BB 2005. Feed physical form and formic acid addition to the feed affect the gastrointestinal ecology and growth performance of growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 83, 1287–1302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Close, WH 2000. Producing pigs without antibiotic growth promoters. Advances in Pork Production 11, 47–56.Google Scholar
Creus, E, Pérez, JF, Peralta, B, Baucells, F, Mateu, E 2007. Effect of acidified feed on the prevalence of Salmonella in market-age pigs. Zoonoses Public Health 54, 314–319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dijkhuizen, L, Harder, W 1975. Substrate inhibition in Pseudomonas oxalaticus OX1: a kinetic study of growth inhibition by oxalate and formate using extended cultures. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 41, 135–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doyle, ME 2001. Alternatives to antibiotic use for growth promotion in animal husbandry. Food Research Institute Briefings, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved March 25, 2008, from http://www.wisc.edu/fri/briefs.htmGoogle Scholar
Enthoven, P, van den Hoven, S, Wiltenburg, R 2002. Salmonella inhibiting activity of 2-hydroxy-2-(methylthio)butyric acid (HMB, Alimet). World Poultry Science Association Conference, Bremen, Germany, 6pp.Google Scholar
Franco, LD, Fondevila, M, Lobera, MB, Castrillo, C 2005. Effect of combinations of organic acids in weaned pig diets on microbial species of digestive tract contents and their response on digestibility. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 89, 88–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gabert, VM, Sauer, WC, Schmitz, M, Ahrens, F, Mosenthin, R 1995. The effect of formic acid and buffering capacity on the ileal digestibilities of amino acids and bacterial populations and metabolites in the small intestine of weanling pigs fed semipurified fish meal diets. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 75, 615–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holben, WE, Williams, P, Gilbert, MA, Saarinen, M, Särkilahti, LK, Apajalahti, JHA 2002. Phylogenetic analysis of intestinal microflora indicates a novel Mycoplasma phylotype in farmed and wild salmon. Microbial Ecology 44, 175–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Højberg, O, Canibe, N, Knudsen, B, Jensen, BB 2003. Potential rates of fermentation in digesta from the gastrointestinal tract of pigs: effect of feeding fermented liquid feed. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 69, 408–418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, YY, Kil, DY, Oh, HK, Han, IK 2005. Acidifier as an alternative material to antibiotics in animal feed. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 18, 1048–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, BG, Lindeman, MD, Rademacher, M, Brennan, JJ, Cromwell, GL 2006. Efficacy of DL-methionine hydroxy analog free acid and DL-methionine as methionine sources for pigs. Journal of Animal Science 84, 104–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirchgessner, M, Gedek, B, Wiehler, S, Bott, A, Eidelsburger, U, Roth, FX 1992. Influence of formic acid, calcium formate and sodium hydrogen carbonate on the microflora in different segments of the gastrointestinal tract. 10. Investigation about the nutritive efficacy of organic acids in the rearing of piglets. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 68, 73–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knarreborg, A, Miquel, N, Granli, T, Jensen, BB 2002. Establishment and application of an in vitro methodology to study the effects of organic acids on coliform and lactic acid bacteria in the proximal part the gastrointestinal tract of piglets. Animal Feed Science and Technology 99, 131–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, CD, Atwell, CA, Wuelling, CW, Ivey, FJ, Dibner, JJ 1998. The relative effectiveness of 2-hydroxy-4-(methylthio)butanoic acid and DL-methionine in young swine. Journal of Animal Science 76, 781–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lallès, J-P, Bosi, P, Smidt, H, Stokes, CR 2007. Nutritional management of gut health in pigs around weaning. The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 66, 260–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maenz, DD, Engele-Schaan, CM 1996. Methionine and 2-hydroxy-4-methylthiobutanoic acid are partially converted to non-absorbed compounds during passage through the small intestine and heat exposure does not affect small intestinal absorption of methionine sources in broiler chicks. The Journal of Nutrition 126, 1438–1444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malik, G, Drew, MD, Hoehler, D, Rademacher, M, Van Kessel, AG 2006. Effect of diet on apparent intestinal retention of methionine and 2-hydroxy-4-methylthiobutanoic acid in pigs. Abstract 19 in Midwestern section ASAS and Midwest Branch ADSA 2006 Meeting, Des Moines, IA, USA.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, SGA, Dilger, JP 1980. Transport of protons across membranes by weak acids. Physiological Reviews 60, 825–863.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mroz, Z 2005. Organic acids as potential alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters for pigs. Advances in Pork Production 16, 169–182.Google Scholar
Overland, M, Granli, T, Kjos, NP, Fjetland, O, Steien, SH, Stokstad, M 2000. Effect of dietary formates on growth performance, carcass traits, sensory quality, intestinal microflora, and stomach alterations in growing-finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 78, 1875–1884.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Partanen, KH 2001. Organic acids – Their efficacy and modes of action in pigs. In Gut Environment of Pigs (ed. A Piva, KE Bach-Knudsen and JE Lindberg), pp. 201–217. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
Partanen, KH, Mroz, Z 1999. Organic acid for performance enhancement of pig diets. Nutrition Research Reviews 12, 117–145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Partanen, K, Jalava, T, Valaja, J 2007. Effects of a dietary organic acid mixture and of dietary fibre levels on ileal and faecal nutrient apparent digestibility, bacterial nitrogen flow, microbial metabolite concentrations and rate of passage in the digestive tract of pigs. Animal 1, 389–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pasricha, A, Bhalla, P, Sharma, KB 1979. Evaluation of lactic acid as an antibacterial agent. Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology 45, 149–161.Google ScholarPubMed
Piva, A, Casadei, G, Biagi, G 2002. An organic acid blend can modulate swine intestinal fermentation and reduce microbial proteolysis. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 82, 527–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ravindran, V, Kornegay, ET 1993. Acidification of weaner pig diets: A review. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 62, 313–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, JD, Atwell, CA, Vázquez-Añon, M, Dibner, JJ 2005. Comparative in vitro and in vivo absorption of 2-hydroxy-4-(methylthio)butanoic acid and methionine in broiler chicken. Poultry Science 84, 1397–1405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, FX, Kirchgessner, M 1998. Organic acids as feed additive for young pigs: nutritional and gastrointestinal effects. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 7 (suppl. 1), 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar