1887
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.

Current Status of the Preharvest Application of Pro- and Prebiotics to Farm Animals to Enhance the Microbial Safety of Animal Products

MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
Buy this Microbiology Spectrum Article
Price Non-Member $15.00
  • Authors: Rolf D. Joerger1, Arpeeta Ganguly2
  • Editors: Kalmia Kniel3, Siddhartha Thakur4
  • VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: Department of Animal and Food Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716; 2: Department of Animal and Food Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716; 3: Department of Animal and Food Science, University of Delaware, Newark, DE; 4: North Carolina State University, College of Veterinary Medicine, Raleigh, NC
  • Source: microbiolspec February 2017 vol. 5 no. 1 doi:10.1128/microbiolspec.PFS-0012-2016
  • Received 05 January 2016 Accepted 30 November 2016 Published 10 February 2017
  • Rolf D. Joerger, rjoerger@udel.edu
image of Current Status of the Preharvest Application of Pro- and Prebiotics to Farm Animals to Enhance the Microbial Safety of Animal Products
    Preview this microbiology spectrum article:
    Zoom in
    Zoomout

    Current Status of the Preharvest Application of Pro- and Prebiotics to Farm Animals to Enhance the Microbial Safety of Animal Products, Page 1 of 2

    | /docserver/preview/fulltext/microbiolspec/5/1/PFS-0012-2016-1.gif /docserver/preview/fulltext/microbiolspec/5/1/PFS-0012-2016-2.gif
  • Abstract:

    The selection of microorganisms that act as probiotics and feed additives that act as prebiotics is an ongoing research effort, but a sizable range of commercial pro-, pre- and synbiotic (combining pro- and prebiotics) products are already available and being used on farms. A survey of the composition of commercial products available in the United States revealed that , , and were the three most common species in probiotic products. Of the nearly 130 probiotic products (also called direct-fed microbials) for which information was available, about 50 also contained yeasts or molds. The focus on these particular bacteria and eukaryotes is due to long-standing ideas about the benefits of such strains, research data on effectiveness primarily in laboratory or research farm settings, and regulations that dictate which microorganisms or feed additives can be administered to farm animals. Of the direct-fed microbials, only six made a claim relating to food safety or competitive exclusion of pathogens. None of the approximately 50 prebiotic products mentioned food safety in their descriptions. The remainder emphasized enhancement of animal performance such as weight gain or overall animal health. The reason why so few products carry food safety-related claims is the difficulties in establishing unambiguous cause and effect relationships between the application of such products in varied and constantly changing farm environments and improved food safety of the end product.

  • Citation: Joerger R, Ganguly A. 2017. Current Status of the Preharvest Application of Pro- and Prebiotics to Farm Animals to Enhance the Microbial Safety of Animal Products. Microbiol Spectrum 5(1):PFS-0012-2016. doi:10.1128/microbiolspec.PFS-0012-2016.

Key Concept Ranking

Lactic Acid Bacteria
0.5522558
Lactobacillus helveticus
0.49760392
0.5522558

References

1. Anukam KC, Reid G. 2007. Probiotics: 100 years (1907–2007) after Elie Metchnikoff’s observation. Commun Curr Res Educ Top Trends Appl Microbiol 1:466–474.
2. Metchnikoff E. 1907. The Prolongation of Life: Optimistic Studies. p 171. Translated and edited by Mitchell PC. Heinemann, London, United Kingdom.
3. Hill C, Guarner F, Reid G, Gibson GR, Merenstein DJ, Pot B, Morelli L, Canani RB, Flint HJ, Salminen S, Calder PC, Sanders ME. 2014. Expert consensus document: The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 11:506–514. [PubMed]
4. Gibson GR, Roberfroid MB. 1995. Dietary modulation of the human colonic microbiota: introducing the concept of prebiotics. J Nutr 125:1401–1412. [PubMed]
5. Pineiro M, Asp N-G, Reid G, Macfarlane S, Morelli L, Brunser O, Tuohy K. 2008. FAO technical meeting on prebiotics. J Clin Gastroenterol 42(Suppl 3 Pt 2):S156–S159. [PubMed]
6. Roberfroid M. 2007. Prebiotics: the concept revisited. J Nutr 137:830S–837S. [PubMed]
7. Milner KC, Shaffer MF. 1952. Bacteriologic studies of experimental Salmonella infections in chicks. J Infect Dis 90:81–96. [PubMed]
8. Nurmi E, Rantala M. 1973. New aspects of Salmonella infection in broiler production. Nature 241:210–211. [PubMed]
9. Kerr AK, Farrar AM, Waddell LA, Wilkins W, Wilhelm BJ, Bucher O, Wills RW, Bailey RH, Varga C, McEwen SA, Rajio A. 2013. A systematic review-meta-analysis and meta-regression on the effect of selected competitive exclusion products on Salmonella spp. prevalence and concentration in broiler chickens. Prev Vet Med 111:112–25. [PubMed]
10. Anderson RC, Nisbet DJ, Buckley SA, Genovese KJ, Harvey RB, Deloach JR, Keith NK, Stanker LH. 1998. Experimental and natural infection of early weaned pigs with Salmonella choleraesuis. Res Vet Sci 64:261–262. [PubMed]
11. Rasmussen MA, Casey TA. 2001. Environmental and food safety aspects of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 infections in cattle. Crit Rev Microbiol 27:57–73. [PubMed]
12. Brashears MM, Jaroni D, Trimble J. 2003. Isolation, selection, and characterization of lactic acid bacteria for a competitive exclusion product to reduce shedding of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 in cattle. J Food Prot 66:355–363. [PubMed]
13. Brashears MM, Galyean ML, Loneragan GH, Mann JE, Killinger-Mann K. 2003. Prevalence of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 and performance by beef feedlot cattle given Lactobacillus direct-fed microbials. J Food Prot 66:748–754. [PubMed]
14. APHIS. 2011. Direct-fed microbials (probiotics) in calf diets. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/dairy/downloads/bamn/BAMN11_Probiotics.pdf.
15. FDA. 2015. CPG Sec. 689.100 direct-fed microbial products. http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManual/ucm074707.htm.
17. FDA. 2013. Actions taken by FDA center for veterinary medicine. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/animalveterinary/products/approvedanimaldrugproducts/ucm346319.pdf.
18. Penton Agriculture. 2015. Microbial compendium. http://microbialcompendium.com/.
19. Wisener LV, Sargeant JM, O’Connor AM, Faires MC, Glass-Kaastra SK. 2014. The evidentiary value of challenge trials for three pre-harvest food safety topics: a systematic assessment. Zoonoses Public Health 61:449–476. [PubMed]
20. Bull M, Plummer S, Marchesi J, Mahenthiralingam E. 2013. The life history of Lactobacillus acidophilus as a probiotic: a tale of revisionary taxonomy, misidentification and commercial success. FEMS Microbiol Lett 349:77–87. [PubMed]
21. Sanders ME, Klaenhammer TR. 2001. Invited review: the scientific basis of Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM functionality as a probiotic. J Dairy Sci 84:319–331.
22. Elam NA, Gleghorn JF, Rivera JD, Galyean ML, Defoor PJ, Brashears MM, Younts-Dahl SM. 2003. Effects of live cultures of Lactobacillus acidophilus (strains NP45 and NP51) and Propionibacterium freudenreichii on performance, carcass, and intestinal characteristics, and Escherichia coli strain 0157 shedding of finishing beef steers. J Anim Sci 81:2686–2698. [PubMed]
23. Pajarillo EAB, Chae JP, Balolong MP, Kim HB, Park C-S, Kang D-K. 2015. Effects of probiotic Enterococcus faecium NCIMB 11181 administration on swine fecal microbiota diversity and composition using barcoded pyrosequencing. Anim Feed Sci Technol 201:80–88.
24. Ritzi MM, Abdelrahman W, Hohnl M, Dalloul R. 2014. Effects of probiotics and application methods on performance and response of broiler chickens to an Eimeria challenge. Poult Sci 93:2772–2778. [PubMed]
25. Shivaramaiah S, Wolfenden RE, Barra JR, Morgan MJ, Wolfenden AD, Hargis BM, Tellez G. 2011. The role of early Salmonella Typhimurium infection as a predisposing factor for necrotic enteritidis in a laboratory challenge model. Avian Dis 55:319–323. [PubMed]
26. Volkova VV, Wills RW, Hubbard SA, Magee D, Byrd JA, Bailey RH. 2011. Associations between vaccinations against protozoal and viral infections and Salmonella in broiler flocks. Epidemiol Infect 139:206–215. [PubMed]
27. Pedroso AA, Hurley-Bacon AL, Zedek AS, Kwan TW, Jordan APO, Avellaneda G, Hofacre CL, Oakley BB, Collett SR, Maurer JJ, Lee MD. 2013. Can probiotics improve the environmental microbiome and resistome of commercial poultry production? Int J Environ Res Public Health 10:4534–4559. [PubMed]
28. Cutting SM. 2011. Bacillus probiotics. Food Microbiol 28:214–220. [PubMed]
29. Ricke SC, Saengkerdsub S. 2015. Bacillus probiotics and biologicals for improving animal and human health: current applications and future prospects, p 341–360. In Rai VR, Bai JA (ed), Beneficial Microbes in Fermented and Functional Foods. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
30. Ripamonti B, Stella S. 2009. Bacterial spore formers as probiotics for animal nutrition. Large Anim Rev 15:7–12.
31. Novak KN, Davis E, Wehnes CA, Shields DR, Coalson JA, Smith AH, Rehberger TG. 2012. Effect of supplementation with an electrolyte containing a Bacillus-based direct-fed microbial on immune development in dairy calves. Res Vet Sci 92:427–434. [PubMed]
32. Zhou D, Zhu Y-H, Zhang W, Wang M-L, Fan W-Y, Song D, Yang G-Y, Jensen BB, Wang J-F. 2015. Oral administration of a select mixture of Bacillus probiotics generates Tr1 cells in weaned F4ab/acR(-) pigs challenged with an F4(+) ETEC/VTEC/EPEC strain. Vet Res 46:95–110. [PubMed]
33. Abudabos AM, Alyemni AH, Al Marshad MBA. 2013. Bacillus subtilis PB6-based probiotic (CloSTATTM) improves intestinal morphological and microbiological status of broiler chickens under Clostridium perfringens challenge. Int J Agric Biol 15:978–982.
34. Picard C, Fioramonti J, Francois A, Robinson T, Neant F, Matuchansky C. 2005. Review article: bifidobacteria as probiotic agents: physiological effects and clinical benefits. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 22:495–512. [PubMed]
35. Asahara T, Shimizu K, Nomoto K, Hamabata T, Ozawa A, Takeda. Y. 2004. Probiotic bifidobacteria protect mice from lethal infection with shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli 0157:H7. Infect Immun 72:2240–2247. [PubMed]
36. Yoshimura K, Matsui T, Itoh K. 2010. Prevention of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 infection in gnotobiotic mice associated with Bifidobacterium strains. Anton Leeuw Int J Gen Mol Microbiol 97:107–117. [PubMed]
37. Tanner SA, Chassard C, Zihler Berner A, Lacroix C. 2014. Synergistic effect of Bifiodbacterium thermophilum RBL67 and selected prebiotics on inhibition of Salmonella colonization in the swine proximal colon PolyFermS model. Gut Pathogens 6:44–55. [PubMed]
38. Baffoni L, Gaggia F, Di Gioia D, Santini C, Mogna L, Biavati B. 2012. A Bifidobacterium-based synbiotic product to reduce the transmission of C. jejuni along the poultry food chain. Int J Food Microbiol 157:156–161. [PubMed]
39. Biloni A, Quintana CF, Menconi A, Kallapura G, Latorre J, Pixley C, Layton S, Dalmagro M, Hernadnez-Velasco X, Wolfenden A, Hargis BM, Tellez G. 2013. Evaluation of effects of EarlyBird associated with FloraMax-B11 on Salmonella Enteritidis, intestinal morphology, and performance of broiler chickens. Poult Sci 92:2337–2346. [PubMed]
40. Menconi A, Wolfenden AD, Shivaramaiah S, Rerraes JC, Urbano T, Kuttel J, Kremer C, Hargis BM, Tellex G. 2011. Effect of lactic acid bacteria probiotic culture for the treatment of S. enterica serovar Heidelberg in neonatal broiler chickens and turkey poults. Poult Sci 90:561–565. [PubMed]
41. Mantere-Alhonen S. 1995. Propionibacteria used as probiotics: a review. Le Lait 75:447–452.
42. Campaniello D, Bevilacqua A, Sinigaglia M, Altieri C. 2015. Screening of Propionibacterium spp. for potential probiotic properties. Anaerobe 34:169–173. [PubMed]
43. Cozzi G, Prevedello P, Stefani AL, Piron A, Contiero B, Lante A, Gottardo F, Chevaux E. 2011. Effect of dietary supplementation with different sources of selenium on growth response, selenium blood levels and meat quality of intensively finished Charolais young bulls. Animal 5:1531–1531. [PubMed]
44. Delezie E, Rovers M, Van der Aa A, Ruttens A, Wittocx S, Segers L. 2014. Comparing responses to different selenium sources and dosages in laying hens. Poult Sci 93:3083–3090. [PubMed]
45. Ganner A, Schatzmayr G. 2012. Capability of yeast derivatives to adhere enteropathogenic bacteria and to modulate cells of the innate immune system. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 95:289–297. [PubMed]
46. Ricke SC. 2015. Potential of fructooligosaccharide prebiotics in alternative and nonconventional poultry production systems. Poult Sci 94:1411–1418. [PubMed]
47. Jordan K, Dalmasso M, Zentek J, Mader A, Bruggeman G, Wallace J, De Medici D, Fiore A, Prukner-Radovcic E, Lukac M, Axelsson L, Holck A, Ingmer H, Malakauskas M. 2014. Microbes versus microbes: control of pathogens in the food chain. J Sci Food Agric 94:3079–3089. [PubMed]
48. Totton SC, Farrar AM, Wilkins W, Bucher O, Waddell LA, Wilhelm BJ, McEwen SA, Rajic A. 2012. The effectiveness of selected feed and water additives for reducing Salmonella spp. of public health importance in broiler chickens: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression approach. Prev Vet Med 106:197–213. [PubMed]
49. Hopkins MJ, Cummings JH, Macfarlane GT. 1998. Inter-species differences in maximum specific growth rates and cell yields of bifidobacteria cultured on oligosaccharides and other simple carbohydrate sources. J Appl Microbiol 85:381–386.
50. Grimoud J, Durand H, Courtin C, Monsan P, Ouarne F, Theodorouo V, Rogues C. 2010. In vitro screening of probiotic lactic acid bacteria and prebiotic glucooligosaccharides to select effective symbiotics. Anaerobe 16:493–500. [PubMed]
51. Pourabedin M, Zhao X. 2015. Prebiotics and gut microbiota in chickens. FEMS Microbiol Lett 362: fnv122 [PubMed]
52. Patro JN, Ramachandran P, Lewis JL, Mammel MK, Barnab T, Pfeiler EA, Elkins CA. 2015. Development and utility of the FDA ‘GutProbe’ DNA microarray for identification, genotyping and metagenomic analysis of commercially available probiotics. J Appl Microbiol 118:1478–1488. [PubMed]
53. Lee SI, Park SH, Ricke SC. 2015. Assessment of cecal microbiota, integrin occurrence, fermentation responses, and Salmonella frequency in conventionally raised broilers fed a commercial yeast-based prebiotic compound. Poult Sci 95:144–153. [PubMed]
54. Rolig AS, Parthasarathy R, Burns AR, Bohannan BJM, Guillemin K. 2015. Individual members of the microbiota disproportionately modulate host innate immune responses. Cell Host Microbe 18:613–620. [PubMed]
55. European Union. 2003. Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition. Off J Europ Union 46:29–43.
57. de LeBlanc AD, del Carmen S, Chatel JM, Miyoshi A, Azevedo V, Langella P, Bermudez-Humaran LG, LeBlanc JG. 2015. Current review of genetically modified lactic acid bacteria for the prevention and treatment of colitis using murine models. Gastorenterol Res Pract. 2015:146972. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/146972.
58. Bedford A, Li Z, Li M, Ji S, Liu W, Huai Y, de Lange CEM, Li J. 2012. Epidermal growth factor-expressing Lactococcus lactis enhances growth performance of early-weaned pigs fed diets devoid of blood plasma. J Anim Sci 90:4–6. [PubMed]
59. Gil de los Santos JR, Storch OB, Fernandes CG, Gil-Turnes C. 2012. Evaluation in broilers of the probiotic properties of Pichia pastoris and a recombinant P. pastoris containing the Clostridium perfringens alpha toxin gene. Vet Microbiol 156:448–451. [PubMed]
60. Bedford A, Chen T, Huynh E, Zhu C, Medeiros S, Wey D, de Lange C, Li J. 2015. Epidermal growth factor containing culture supernatant enhances intestine development of early-weaned pigs in vivo: potential mechanisms involved. J Biotechnol 196:9–19. [PubMed]
61. AAFCO. 2015. 2015 Official Publication. Association of American Feed Control Officials, Champaign, IL.
62. EFSA. 2013. Scientific opinion on the maintenance of the list of QPS biological agents intentionally added to food and feed (2013 update). EFSA Journal 11(11):3449.
microbiolspec.PFS-0012-2016.citations
cm/5/1
content/journal/microbiolspec/10.1128/microbiolspec.PFS-0012-2016
Loading

Citations loading...

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/microbiolspec/10.1128/microbiolspec.PFS-0012-2016
2017-02-10
2017-03-26

Abstract:

The selection of microorganisms that act as probiotics and feed additives that act as prebiotics is an ongoing research effort, but a sizable range of commercial pro-, pre- and synbiotic (combining pro- and prebiotics) products are already available and being used on farms. A survey of the composition of commercial products available in the United States revealed that , , and were the three most common species in probiotic products. Of the nearly 130 probiotic products (also called direct-fed microbials) for which information was available, about 50 also contained yeasts or molds. The focus on these particular bacteria and eukaryotes is due to long-standing ideas about the benefits of such strains, research data on effectiveness primarily in laboratory or research farm settings, and regulations that dictate which microorganisms or feed additives can be administered to farm animals. Of the direct-fed microbials, only six made a claim relating to food safety or competitive exclusion of pathogens. None of the approximately 50 prebiotic products mentioned food safety in their descriptions. The remainder emphasized enhancement of animal performance such as weight gain or overall animal health. The reason why so few products carry food safety-related claims is the difficulties in establishing unambiguous cause and effect relationships between the application of such products in varied and constantly changing farm environments and improved food safety of the end product.

Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

Figures

Image of FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1

Number of products entered in the Microbial Compendium ( 18 ) that contain particular bacteria or groups of bacteria. Abbreviations: L., ; B., ; Ped., ; Bif., ; Prop., ; E., .

Source: microbiolspec February 2017 vol. 5 no. 1 doi:10.1128/microbiolspec.PFS-0012-2016
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE 1

List of microorganisms approved for use in DFBs in the United States and the European Union

Source: microbiolspec February 2017 vol. 5 no. 1 doi:10.1128/microbiolspec.PFS-0012-2016

Supplemental Material

No supplementary material available for this content.

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error