Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T12:17:37.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Probiotics and other prophylactic agents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

A. H. Andrews
A. H. Andrews*
Affiliation:
Department of Large Animal Medicine and Surgery, Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield AL9 7TA
Get access

Abstract

There are many agents which can assist in ensuring neonatal survival and growth. The most important is still colostrum and although there are many substitutes available, the best of which will be prepared from colostrum of the same species (cattle, sheep and goats), or where this is impracticable, from plasma or serum (horses, pigs). Other agents which can enhance viability include antibiotics, probiotics, vitamins, minerals, the lactoperoxidase system, lactoferrin, lysozyme, hyperimmune sera, vaccines, acidifiers, enzymes and oligosaccharides. Many probiotic products are available containing different organisms which may be live or dead. Probiotics have been available for many years as nutritional supplements. However, results obtained with them have been variable and often of dubious validity. There is at present a trend to suggest such products have therapeutic or prophylactic activity. Thus it would appear that they are developing along the reverse route to that of antibiotics which initially were used for therapy or prevention, only later to be used as food additives and growth promoters. It is likely that any successful probiotic will need to meet criteria laid down by proponents of their use in human beings 50 years ago. These include that they contain live organisms capable of multiplication in the alimentary tract and of a strain indigenous to the species. A large number of organisms will be required daily and the diet of the animal will need to be defined. It would appear that treatment should commence as soon as possible after birth.

As therapeutic claims are often directly or indirectly implied it would seem justified that probiotics should be registered and criteria for their evaluation discussed. Results of recent trials with oral colostrum substitute and injection of hyperimmune serum are used to illustrate the type of trials likely to be required for probiotics.

Other methods of enhancing survival are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 15 , 1992 , pp. 119 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Production 1992

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

Agricultural Development and Advisory Service. 1989. In vitro evaluation of the antagonism of lactic acid bacteria and the product “Provita WD” against pathogenic bacteria. Contract no. C/89/0044/0421, pp. 1–30. ADAS, Slough.Google Scholar
Andrews, A. H. 1983. Colostrum and its importance. In Calf management and disease notes, pp. 53–57. A. H. Andrews, Harpenden.Google Scholar
Andrews, A. H. 1990. Colostrum — part of nature's survival kit. In Biotechnology in the feed industry (ed. Lyons, T. D.), proceedings of Alltech's sixth annual symposium, pp. 277–291. Alltech Technical Publications, Nicholasville, USA.Google Scholar
Besser, T. E. and Gay, C. C. 1985. Septicaemic colibacillosis and failure of passive transfer of colostral immunoglobulin in calves. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice 1: 445–459.Google ScholarPubMed
Blood, D. C. and Studdert, V. P. 1988. Bailliere's comprehensive veterinary dictionary, pp. 55, 739. Bailliere Tindall, London.Google Scholar
Bourlioux, P. 1986. Interet de l'ingestion volontaire de microorganisms cas de la microflora du vaourt cahiers. Nutrition Dietetique 21: 204–208.Google Scholar
Brander, G. C., Pugh, D. M. and Bywater, R. J. 1982. In Veterinary applied pharmacology and therapeutics. 4th ed., pp. 356. Bailliere Tindall, London.Google Scholar
Brink, B. ten, Minekus, M., Bol, J. and Huis in t'Veld, J. H. J. 1987. Production of antibacterial compounds by lactobacilli. FEMS Microbiology Reviews 46, 64. (Cited by Fuller and Cole, 1989).Google Scholar
Buenrostro, J. L. and Kratzer, F. H. 1983. Effect of Lactobacillus inoculation and antibiotic feeding of chickens on availability of dietary biotin. Poultry Science 62: 2022–2029.Google Scholar
Bullen, J. J., Rogers, H. J. and Leigh, L. 1972. Iron binding proteins in milk and resistance to Escherichia coli infections in infants. British Medical Journal 446: 69–75.Google Scholar
Burnett, G. S. 1966. Studies of viscosity as the probable factor involved in the improvement of certain barleys for chickens by enzyme supplementation. British Poultry Science 7: 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, J. E. 1973. Synthesis and distribution of immunoglobulins, journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 163: 795–798.Google Scholar
Chapman, J. D. 1988. Probiotics, acidifiers and yeast culture: a place for natural additives in pig and poultry production. In Biotechnology in the feed industry (ed. Lyons, T. P.), proceedings of Alltech's fourth annual symposium, pp. 219–233. Alltech Technical Publications, Nicholasville, USA.Google Scholar
Clarkson, M. J., Faull, W. B. and Kerry, J. B. 1985. Vaccination of cows with clostridial antigens and passive transfer of clostridial antibodies from bovine colostrum to lambs. Veterinary Record 116: 467–469.Google Scholar
Cole, C. B., Fuller, R. and Newport, M. S. 1987. The effect of diluted yoghurt on the gut microbiology and growth of piglets. Food Microbiology 4: 83–85.Google Scholar
Cunningham, H. M. and Brisson, G. J. 1957. The effect of amylases on the digestibility of starch by baby pigs. Journal of Animal Science 16: 370–376.Google Scholar
Davidson, J. N. and Hirsch, D. C. 1976. Bacterial competition as a means of preventing neonatal diarrhoea in pigs. Infection and Immunity 13: 1773–1776.Google Scholar
Dawson, K. A. 1990. Designing the yeast culture of tomorrow — mode of action of yeast culture for ruminants and non-ruminants. In Biotechnology in the feed industry (ed. Lyons, T. P.), proceedings of Alltech's sixth annual symposium, pp. 59–75. Alltech Technical Publications, Nicholasville, USA.Google Scholar
Duke, M. and Headon, D. R. 1988. Lactoferrin: its functions and its future. In Biotechnology in the feed industry (ed. Lyons, T. P.), proceedings of Alltech's fourth annual symposium, pp. 189–197. Alltech Technical Publications, Nicholasville, USA.Google Scholar
Ekstrand, B. 1989. Antimicrobial factors in milk — a review. Food Biotechnology 3: 105–126.Google Scholar
Ewing, W. and Haresign., W. 1989. Probiotics UK, the guide to probiotics in the United Kingdom. Chalcombe Publications, Marlow.Google Scholar
Fallon, R. J. 1987. Yeast culture in calf rations. In Biotechnology in the feed industry (ed. Lyons, T. P.), proceedings of Alltech's fourth annual symposium, pp. 127–136. Alltech Technical Publications, Nicholasville, USA.Google Scholar
Fowler, N. G. and Mead, G. C. 1990. Competitive exclusion and Salmonella enteritidis . Veterinary Record 126:489.Google Scholar
Fuller, R. 1973. Ecological studies on the lactobacillus flora associated with the crop epithelium of the fowl. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 36: 131–139.Google Scholar
Fuller, R. 1989. Probiotics in man and animals. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 66: 365–378.Google Scholar
Fuller, R. and Cole, G. B. 1989. The scientific basis of the probiotic concept. In Probiotics: theory and practice (ed. Stark, B. A. and Wilkinson, J. M.), pp. 1–14. Chalcombe Publications, Marlow.Google Scholar
Gilliland, S. E. 1987. Importance of bile tolerance in lactobacilli used as dietary adjuncts. In Biotechnology in the feed industry (ed. Lyons, T. P.), proceedings of Alltech's fourth annual symposium, pp. 149–156. Alltech Technical Publications, Nicholasville, USA.Google Scholar
Gilliland, S. E., Staley, T. E. and Bush, L. J. 1984. Importance of bile tolerance of Lactobacillus acidophilus used as a dietary adjunct. Journal of Dairy Science 67: 3045–3051.Google Scholar
Great Britain Parliament. 1968. Medicines act (1968). Chapter 67. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Grun, V. E. 1984. Die bedeutung des laktoperoxidase-thiozyanat-peroxid-systems für die erhaltung der gesundheit des euters und des kalbes. Monatshefte für Veterinarmedizin 39: 698–700.Google Scholar
Hale, O. H. and Newton, G. L. 1979. Effects of nonviable Lactobacillus species fermentation produce on performance of pigs. Journal of Animal Science 48: 770–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herter, C. A. 1897. On certain relations between bacterial activity in the intestine and the indican of the urine. British Medical Journal, 25 December, pp. 1847–1849.Google Scholar
Hindson, J. C. and Winter, A. C. 1990. Outline of clinical diagnosis in sheep. Wright, London.Google Scholar
Hinton, M. and Mead, G. C. 1990. The control of feed-borne bacterial and viral pathogens in farm animals. In Recent advances in animal nutrition — 1990 (ed. Haresign, W. and Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 31–46, Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Hughes, J. 1988. Calf, heifer and beef nutrition: designing tomorrow's natural feeds. In Biotechnology in the feed industry (ed. Lyons, T. P.), proceedings of Alltech's fourth annual symposium, pp. 67–78. Alltech Technical Publications, Nicholasville, USA.Google Scholar
Hurst, A. 1981. Nisin. Advances in Applied Microbiology 27: 85–123.Google Scholar
Jones, C. D. and Thomas, C. N. 1987. The maintenance of strain specificity and bile tolerance when producing stable bacteria. In Biotechnology in the feed industry (ed. Lyons, T. P.), proceedings of Alltech's fourth annual symposium, pp. 157–166. Alltech Technical Publications, Nicholasville, USA.Google Scholar
Jonsson, E., Bjorck, L. and Claesson, C. O. 1985. Survival of orally administered Lactobacillus strains in the guts of cannulated pigs. Livestock Production Science 12: 278–285.Google Scholar
Jonsson, E. and Olsson, I. 1985. The effect on performance, health and faecal microflora of feeding Lactobacillus strains to neonatal calves. Journal of Agricultural Research 15: 71–76.Google Scholar
Kawai, Y. and Shegara, W. 1977. Specific adhesion of Lactobacilli to keratinized epithelial cells of the rat stomach. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 30: 1777–1780.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klockars, M. and Roberts, P. 1976. Stimulation of phagocytosis by human lysozyme. Acta Haematologica 55: 289–295.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. J., Catron, D. V., Liu, C. H., Speer, V. C. and Ashton, G. C. 1955. Enzyme supplementation of baby pig diets. Agricultural and Food Chemistry 3: 1047–1050.Google Scholar
Lilley, D. M. and Stillwell, R. H. 1965. Probiotics: growth promotion factors produced by microorganisms. Science, New York 147: 747–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, A. M. 1988. Effect of probiotics on the incidence of yellowish diarrhoea in piglets. Master's Thesis, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of the Philippines, Quezon City. (Cited by Chapman, 1988).Google Scholar
Logan, E. F., Penhale, W. J. and Jones, R. A. 1973. Changes in the serum immunoglobulin levels of colostrum-fed calves during the first 12 weeks post partum. Research in Veterinary Science 14: 394–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, C. V., Buchanan, D. S., Owens, F. N., Gilliland, S. E., Luce, W. G. and Vencl, R. 1983. Effect of probiotic supplementation on performance, fecal parameters and digestibility in growing-finishing swine. Annals of Scientific Research Reports OSU MP-114, p. 157.Google Scholar
McCormick, M. E. 1984. Probiotics in ruminant nutrition and health. Proceedings of Georgia nutrition conference for the feed industry, pp. 62–69.Google Scholar
McLean, K. A. 1990. The primary evaluation of commercially available probiotic bacteria and their subsequent application in pig production. Silcock fellowship for livestock research report no. 4, pp. 1–57.Google Scholar
Metchnikoff, E. 1903. The nature of man. Studies in optimistic philosophy. English translation edited by Mitchell, P. Chalmers. Revised by Beadnell, C. M.. 1938. Watts and Co., London.Google Scholar
Metchnikoff, E. 1908. The prolongation of life. Optimistic studies. English translation edited by Mitchell, P. Chalmers. Putnam, The Knickerbocker Press, New York and London. (Reprinted by Arno Press, New York, 1977).Google Scholar
Mitchell, I. G. and Kenworthy, R. 1976. Investigations on the metabolite from Lactobacillus bulgaricus which neutralises the effect of enterotoxin from Escherichia coli pathogenic for pigs. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 41: 163–174.Google Scholar
Monnom, D., Prieels, J. P., Delahaut, P. H. and Kaeckenbeeck, A. 1989. La systeme lactoperoxydase. Annales de Medecine Veterinaire 133: 125–140.Google Scholar
Muirhead, S. 1986. Addition of lactobacillus reduces scours in dairy calves. Feedstuffs, 23 06, pp. 10, 22.Google Scholar
Newby, T. J. and Stokes, C. R. 1984. Local immune responses of the gut. CRC Press, Bocca Raton.Google Scholar
Nielson, N. C., Suhr-Jessen, T. and Jensen, M. M. 1988. Inhibitive effect of 5 probiotic porcine Lactobacillus strains on the incidence and severity of experimentally induced post-weaning E.coli syndrome in pigs. Proceedings of International Pig Veterinary Society Congress, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, pp. 111.Google Scholar
Nurmi, E. and Rantala, M. 1973. New aspects of salmonella infection in broiler production. Nature, London, 241: 210–211.Google Scholar
Oyofu, B. A., Deloach, J. R., Corner, D. E., Norman, J. O., Ziprin, R. L. and Mollenhauer, H. H. 1989. Effect of carbohydrates on Salmonella typhimurium colonisation in broiler chickens. Avian Diseases 33: 531–534.Google Scholar
Ozawa, K., Yabu-Uchi, K., Yamanaka, K., Yamashita, Y., Nomura, S. and Oku, I. 1983. Effect of Streptococcus faecalis B10-4R on intestinal flora of weanling piglets and calves. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 45: 1513–1518.Google Scholar
Pahud, J. J., Schellenberg, D., Monti, J. C. and Scherg, J. C. 1983. Lysozyme: an abomasal enzyme in the ruminant. Annales de Recherches Véterinaires 14: 493–501.Google Scholar
Parker, R. B. 1974. Probiotics: the other half of the antibiotics story. Animal Nutrition and Health, 29: 12, pp. 4–8.Google Scholar
Parker, R. B. 1984. Probios microbial cultures. The Feed Compounder, 05, pp. 31–35.Google Scholar
Perdigan, E., de Macias, M. E. N., Alvarez, S., Oliver, G. and Ruiz Holgado, A. A. de. 1986. Effect of per orally administered lactobacilli on macrophage activation in mice. Infection and Immunity 53: 404–410.Google Scholar
Porter, P. 1972. Immunoglobulins in bovine mammary secretions — quantitative changes in early lactation and absorption by the neonatal calf. Immunology 23: 225–238.Google Scholar
Prieels, J. R., Monnom, D., Delahaut, Ph., Jacquemin, E. R. and Kaeckenbeeck, A. 1989. Essai d'application du systeme lactoperoxydase au traitement de la diarrhee colibacillaire du veau. Annales de Medecine Véterinaire 133: 143–150.Google Scholar
Reid, C. R. and Barnum, D. A. 1983. Evaluation of turkey cecal microflora in protecting day-old poults from Salmonella typhimurium challenge. Avian Diseases 27: 632–643.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reiter, B. 1985. Protective proteins in milk: biological significance and exploitation. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation, no. 191, pp. 1–35. International Dairy Federation, Brussels.Google Scholar
Reiter, B., Fulford, R. J., Marshall, V. M., Yarrow, N., Ducker, M. J. and Knutsson, M. 1981. An evaluation of the growth promoting effect of the lactoperoxidase system in newborn calves. Animal Production 32: 297–306.Google Scholar
Rettger, L. F., Levy, M. N., Weinstein, L. and Weiss, J. F. 1935. Lactobacillus acidophilus and its therapeutic application, pp. 1–203. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
Rosell, V. 1987. Acidification and probiotics in Spanish pig and calf rearing. In Biotechnology in the feed industry (ed. Lyons, T. P.), proceedings of Alltech's fourth annual symposium, pp 177–180. Alltech Technical Publications, Nicholasville, USA.Google Scholar
Rural Development and Training Services. 1990a. Report on a field assessment of Provita lacteal in calves. RDT Services, Sandy.Google Scholar
Rural Development and Training Services. 1990b. Report on a field assessment of Provita New Born in pigs. RDT Services, Sandy.Google Scholar
Rusch, V., Hyde, R. M. and Luckey, T. D. 1983. Applications of S.faecalis and E.coli oral vaccines in humans and animals. Proceedings of the Federation of Nutritional Scientists 7: 39–52.Google ScholarPubMed
Simm, G., Chamberlain, A. G. and Davies, A. B. 1980. The effect of acid milk replacers on faecal coliform populations of pre-weaned calves. Veterinary Record 107: 64.Google Scholar
Swann, M. M. 1969. Joint Committee on the use of antibiotics in animal husbandry and veterinary use. Department of Health and Social Services and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Cmnd. 4190. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Tafani, J. P. 1984. Scientific evidence supporting animal performance improvement due to the use of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) in animal feed. Microbiologie-Aliments-Nutrition 2: 407–419.Google Scholar
Tannock, G. W. 1983. Effect of dietary and environmental stress on the gastrointestinal microbiota. In Human intestinal microflora in health and disease (ed. Hertges, D. J.), pp. 517–539. Academic Press, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thacker, P. A. 1988. Novel approaches to growth in the pig. In Recent advantages in animal nutrition — 1986 (ed. Haresign, W. and Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 73–84. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Thomlinson, J. R. and Lawrence, T. L. J. 1981. Dietary manipulation of gastric pH in the prophylaxis of enteric disease in weaned pigs; some field observations. Veterinary Record 109: 120–122.Google Scholar
Timms, L. 1968. Observations on the bacterial flora of the alimentary tract in three groups of normal chickens. British Veterinary Journal 124: 470–477.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Underdahl, N. R. 1983. The effect of feeding Streptococcus faecium upon Escherichia coli induced diarrhea in gnotobiotic pigs. Proceedings of the Food and Nutrition Society 7: 5–12.Google Scholar
Underdahl, N. R., Torres-Medina, A. and Doster, A. R. 1982. Effect of Streptococcus faecium C-68 in control of Escherichia coli induced diarrhea in gnotobiotic pigs. American Journal of Veterinary Research 43: 2227–2232.Google Scholar
Watkins, B. A. and Kratzer, F. H. 1983. Effect of oral dosing of Lactobacillus strains of gut-colonisation and liver biotin in broiler chicks. Poultry Science 62: 2088–2094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, D. G. and Andrews, A. H. 1986. Adequate concentrations of circulating colostral proteins for market calves. Veterinary Record 119: 112–113.Google Scholar
White, F., Wenham, G., Sharman, G. A. M., Jones, A. S., Rattray, E. A. S. and McDonald, I. 1969. Stomach function in relation to a scour syndrome in the piglet. British Journal of Nutrition 23: 847–858.Google Scholar
Williams, P. E. V. 1991. Probiotic problems. Farmers Weekly, 1 05, p. 62.Google Scholar
Wu, J. F. 1987. The microbiologists' function in developing action-specific microorganisms. In Biotechnology in the feed industry (ed. Lyons, T. P.), proceedings of Alltech's fourth annual symposium, pp. 181–197. Alltech Technical Publications, Nicholasville, USA.Google Scholar