Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:00:00.349Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative in vitro efficacy of kefir produced from camel, goat, ewe and cow milk on Haemonchus contortus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 April 2018

D. Alimi ,
M. Rekik  and
H. Akkari
D. Alimi*
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Parasitologie, Université de la Manouba, École Nationale de Médecine Vétérinaire de Sidi Thabet, 2020, Tunisia Faculté des Sciences de Bizerte, Université de Carthage, 7021, Zarzouna, Tunisia
M. Rekik
Affiliation:
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), P.O. Box, 950764 Amman 11195, Jordan
H. Akkari
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Parasitologie, Université de la Manouba, École Nationale de Médecine Vétérinaire de Sidi Thabet, 2020, Tunisia
*
Author for correspondence: D. Alimi, Fax.: +216 71 537044, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of the great challenges of veterinary parasitology is the search for alternative methods for controlling gastrointestinal parasites in small ruminants. Milk kefir is a traditional source of probiotic, with great therapeutic potential. The objective of this study was to investigate the anthelmintic effects of kefir on the abomasal nematode Haemonchus contortus from sheep. The study used camel, goat, ewe and cow milk as a starting material, to produce camel, goat, cow and ewe milk kefir. All kefirs showed a significant concentration-dependent effect on H. contortus egg hatching at all tested concentrations. The highest inhibition (100%) of eggs was observed with camel milk kefir at a concentration 0.125 mg/ml. In relation to the effect of kefirs on the survival of adult parasites, all kefirs induced concentration-dependent mortality in adults, with variable results. The complete mortality (100%) of adults of H. contortus occurred at concentrations in the range 0.25–2 mg/ml. The highest inhibition of motility (100%) of worms was observed after 8 h post exposure with camel milk kefir at 0.25 mg/ml. These findings indicate that kefir can be considered a potential tool to control haemonchosis in sheep. Further investigations are needed to assess the active molecules in kefir responsible for its anthelmintic properties and to investigate similar in vivo effects.

Type
Research Paper
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 93 , Issue 4 , July 2019 , pp. 440 - 446
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Abd El-Tawab, MM, et al. (2016) Role of probiotics in nutrition and health of small ruminants. Polish Journal of Veterinary Science 19, 893–906.Google Scholar
AFNOR (1993) Contrôle de la qualité des produits alimentaires. In Lait et produits laitiers. Paris, Association Française de Normalisation.Google Scholar
Ali, ZK, Essa, RH and Mohamed, AT (2016) Immunological study for the role of probiotic for control on the Leishmaniadonovani. International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology 3, 174–182.Google Scholar
Alimi, D, et al. (2016) First report of the in vitro nematicidal effects of camel milk. Veterinary Parasitology 228, 153–159.Google Scholar
AOAC (2000) Minerals in infant formula, enteral products, and pet foods. In Official methods of analysis. 17th edn. Arlington, USA.Google Scholar
Arslan, S (2015) A review: chemical, microbiological and nutritional characteristics of kefir. Journal of Food 13, 340–345.Google Scholar
Coles, GC, et al. (1992) World association for the advancement of veterinary parasitology (WAAVP) methods for the detection of anthelmintic resistance in nematodes of veterinary importance. Veterinary Parasitology 44, 35–44.Google Scholar
Dalloul, RA and Lillehoj, HS (2005) Recent advances in immunomodulation and vaccination strategies against coccidiosis. Avian Diseases 49, 1–8.Google Scholar
Daş, G et al. (2007) Can kefir reduce coccidial oocysts output in goat kids? Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Davies, MG and Thomas, AJ (1973) Investigations of hydrolytic techniques for the amino-acid analysis of food stuffs. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 24, 1525–1540.Google Scholar
El Mogheth, S and El-Gendy, AO (2017) Investigation and characterization of biologically active compounds recovered from kefir. Journal of Probiotics and Health 5, 1–10.Google Scholar
Franco, MC, et al. (2013) Administration of kefir-fermented milk protects mice against Giardiaintestinalis infection. Journal of Medical Microbiology 62, 1815–1822.Google Scholar
Gamba, RR, et al. (2015) Antifungal activity against Aspergillus parasiticus of supernatants from whey permeates fermented with kefir grains. Advances in Microbiology 5, 479–492.Google Scholar
Hassan Yassin, M, et al. (2015) Antimicrobial effects of camel milk against some bacterial pathogens. Journal of Food and Nutrition Research 3, 162–168.Google Scholar
Hounzangbe-Adote, MS, et al. (2005) In vitro effects of four tropical plants on three life-cycle stages of the parasitic nematode, Haemonchus contortus. Research in Veterinary Science 78, 155–160.Google Scholar
Ismaiel, AA, Ghaly, MF and El-Naggar, AK (2011) Milk kefir: ultrastructure, antimicrobial activity and efficacy on aflatoxin b1 production by Aspergillus flavus. Current Microbiology 62, 1602–1609.Google Scholar
Jimenez, RR and Ladho, JK (1993) Automated elemental analysis: a rapid and reliable but expensive measurement of total carbon and nitrogen in plant and soil samples. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 24, 1897–1924.Google Scholar
Mohamed, ST (2016) Role of kefir milk on the pathogenesis of Entamoeba histolytica. Iraqi Journal of Science 57, 1116–1124.Google Scholar
Pogačić, T, et al. (2013) Microbiota of kefir grains. Mljekarstvo 63, 3–14.Google Scholar
Prado, MR, et al. (2015) Milk kefir: composition, microbial cultures, biological activities, and related products. Frontiers in Microbiology 6, 1–10.Google Scholar
Puspitasari, S, Farajallah, A and Sulistiawati, E (2016) Effectiveness of ivermectin and albendazole against Haemonchus contortus in sheep in West Java, Indonesia. Tropical Life Sciences Research 27, 135–144.Google Scholar
Rosa, DD, et al. (2017) Milk kefir: nutritional, microbiological and health benefits. Nutrition Research Reviews 30, 82–96.Google Scholar
Santos, FO, et al. (2017) In vitro anthelmintic and cytotoxicity activities the Digitariainsularis (Poaceae). Veterinary Parasitology 245, 48–54.Google Scholar
Satık, S and Günal, M (2017) Effects of kefir as a probiotic source on the performance and health of young dairy calves. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology 5, 139–143.Google Scholar
Ünsal, BÜ and Arslanoğlu, A (2013) Phylogenetic identification of bacteria within kefir by both culture-dependent and culture-independent methods. African Journal of Microbiology Research 7, 4533–4538.Google Scholar
Wang, YP, et al. (2010) Physical characterization of exopolysaccharide produced by Lactobacillus plantarum KF5 isolated from Tibet kefir. Carbohydrate Polymers 82, 895–903.Google Scholar
Yaman, H, et al. (2006) The effect of a fermented probiotic, the kefir, on intestinal flora of poultry domesticated geese (Anser anser). Journal of Veterinary Medicine 157, 379–386.Google Scholar
Yilmaz-Ersan, L, et al. (2016) The antioxidative capacity of kefir produced from goat milk. International Journal of Chemical Engineering and Applications 7, 22–26.Google Scholar