Review Article

Beneficial Implementation of Probiotics in Farm Animals and Poultry Husbandry

Ehab A. Fouad1*, Magdy A. Kamel2 and Ashraf S. Hakim2

1Department of Zoonosis, National Research Centre, 33 Bohouth St., Dokki, Cairo, Postal code 12622, Egypt

2Department of Microbiology and Immunology, National Research Centre, Dokki, Cairo, Egypt

Corresponding author: ehabfoaud@gmail.com

Submitted:December16th, 2022

Revised:February25th, 2023

Accepted: March1st, 2023

Published: June 28th, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33687/ricosbiol.01.01.0016

 

Abstract

Probiotics have become highly realized as additives for livestock because of their beneficial impacts on health and well-being. The current article aims to provide knowledge about the potential probiotic microbial strains referred to their relation to animal health. Lactic acid bacteria are the most regularly used microorganisms as probiotics, "besides other microbiota including certain fungi" which can be obtained from human, animal, plant, and environment. Not all microbiota be a good probiotic but there are main selection criteria for any potential probiotic microorganism. Nowadays, probiotics are used on large scale as growth promoters and productivity enhancers in both poultry and farm animals. Finally the promising probiotic must achieve the safety status for humans or animals and lack of antibiotic resistance genes transfer.

Keywords: Probiotics- Mechanism of Probiotic- Probiotics selection criteria

Introduction

Probiotics are nonpathogenic beneficial microorganisms. They have microbiological, and metabolic effects. They are very important for the health of man and animal. Lactic acid bacteria and bifidobacteria strains are mostly used as probiotics. In clinical and veterinary practices, they consider as prophylaxes and are used for therapeutic purposes. They are safe, good chance of replacing antibiotics in animal husbandry, and viable alternative to antibiotics for increasing performance in livestock, besides nutrient digestibility [1]. It was reported that about 4.4 and 4.8 billion dollars in 2020 and 2021 respectively profits from probiotic global market, expected to reach 7.3 billion dollars in 2026 at a CAGR 8.8% in the animal feed market; farm and pets animals [2]. Therefore, probiotics are very important not only for health and the disease in man and animal but also, for economic purposes. Traditional applications of probiotics have been mostly presented through the fermentation process usually directed to digestive processes. More than 1000 years ago, old Carthusian silos and ancient evidence from Egyptian drawings show that farmers used silage for their animals during winter times as it was an excellent way to preserve summer crops [3].

1. What is a Probiotic?

The term probiotic is meaning ‘for life’. It is a composite of the Latin preposition pro (“for”) and the Greek adjective (biotic) from the noun bios (“life”) [4] although they have sundry different meanings over the years. Probiotics are nowadays defined as “Live microorganisms that when administered in adequate amounts confer a health benefit on the host” [5].

2. Classification of Probiotics:

Figure (1): classification pattern of probiotics; [1, 6-8]. 

2.1. Lactic acid bacteria (LAB):

·       Genus Lactobacillus: Lactobacillus acidophilus, L. brevis, L. bulgaricus, L. casei,            L. cellobiosus, L. curvatus, L. delbrueckii spp. bulgaris, L. fermentum, L. gallinarum,

L. helveticus, L. johnsonii, L. lactis, L. paracasei, L. plantarum, L. reuteri, L. rhamnosus;

·       Genus: Streptococcus spp.: Streptococcus salivaris, Streptococcus thermophiles;

·       Genus: Lactococcus: L. lactis cremoris;

·       Genus: Leuconostoc: Lc. mesenteroides

·       Genus: Pediococcus: P. pentosaceus, P. acidilactici.

2.2.          Bifidobacteria:

·       Genus: Bifidobacterium: B. adolescentis, B. animalis, B. bifidum, B. breve,     B. essensis, B. infantis, B. laterosporum, B. thermophilum, B. longum.

2.3.          Propionibacteria:

·       Genus: Propionibacterium: P. acidipropionici, P. jensenii, P. freudenreichii, P. thoenii.

2.4.          Enterobacteria:

·       Genus: Enterococcus: E. fecalis, E. faecium.

2.5.          Sporulated bacteria:

·       Genus: Bacillus: B. alcolophilus, B. cereus, B. clausii, B. coagulans, B. subtilis.

2.6.          Other bacteria:

·       Genus: Escherichia: E. coli;

·       Genus: Sporolactobacillus: S. inulinus.

2.7.          Yeasts: Genus: Saccharomyces: S. cerevisae (boulardii).

 3. How to select a good probiotic?

The good probiotic has certain features; viable cells, non-toxic, non-pathogenic, a beneficial effect on the host animal, surviving and metabolizing in the gut environment condition at low pH and presence of bile, adherence to intestinal cells lines, stabilization of the intestinal microflora, production of certain preparations (i.e., bacteriocins), colonization and multiplication faster, generic specificity of probiotics and viable for long periods under certain conditions [9].

     4. Efficacy of Probiotics on farm animals:

        4.1. Polygastric Animals

The most widely distributed animals of mammals are ruminants, which moreover about 150 wild and domestic species, while cattle, sheep, goats, and water buffaloes are very important due to economic interest [10]. There are microorganisms in the rumen microbiome which composed mainly of bacterial species moreover, flagellated and ciliated protozoa, fungi, methanogenic archaea and bacteriophages [11] and present in the rumen with the level of 1010 (bacteria), 108 (protozoa), 107 (archaea), and 103 (fungal spores) CFU / ml in rumen fluid [12].

The fermentation process, in the ruminants and farm animals, is essential for health and productivity. It is depended on the rumen microorganisms which are killed or decreased due to the use of the systematic antibiotics “used as growth promoters in animal husbandry”. Not only had the use of antibiotics affected the rumen metabolism but also, releasing multidrug-resistant microorganisms and antibiotic residues in animal products [13].

Over the world; in the European Union, probiotics are widely used in animal husbandry and livestock production. Also, China, USA, and Australia use probiotics instead of antibiotics [14-19]. Digestive disorders and GIT pathogens can be treated via using probiotics [20], and control of pH in the rumen [21], enhanced animal performance, digestibility of fiber, and increased efficiency of feed conversion [22], production of huge milk yield and improved composition of milk and colostrum [23-25], treatment of mastitis [26, 27] and mitigation of methane [28, 29] stimulation of the immune system [30].

The pre-ruminant life of calves, lambs, and kids goat is critical life as they are more susceptible to enteric diseases so the administration of probiotics orally, directly, or in the feed is very essential to save them [31, 32]. Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Streptococcus, Enterococcus species, Escherichia coli, Bacillus, fibrolytic Prevotella species and lactic acid bacteria, (Propionibacterium and Megasphaera elsdenii) had been reported to use them as probiotics [33, 34]. In buffaloes and reindeers, cellulolytic Ruminococcus species are used [35, 36] Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Aspergillus oryzae are used as yeasts and fungi probiotics [37].

Table (1): some applications of probiotics in ruminants.

Effects

Probiotics

References

 

Control of disease of Feedlot cattle, beef steer, Lithuanian Black-and-White, calve

Propionibacterium spp., Enterococcus faecium, Lactobacillus acidophilus

[38]

Inhibition of Staphylococcus aureus invasion in bovine mammary epithelial cells

Lactobacillus casei CIRM-BIA 667, Lactobacillus casei BL23, and Lactobacillus casei CIRM-BIA 1542

[39]

Nutrition digestion of Calves(Holstein–Friesians, Friesian–Jersey)

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens

[40]

Yield improvement of newly born ruminants

Bacillus licheniformis,

Bacillus subtilis, Prevotella bryantii

[41]

Increase in growth performance, improving weight gain, feed conversion efficiency in weaning calves

Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus, and Enterococcus

[42]

 

In Egypt, some trials were performed to explore the beneficial effects of probiotics additives on ruminant performance, productivity and health; Hassan et al., (2020) [43] investigated the mixing of two different forms (powder or liquid) of Ruminococcus flavefaciens with concentrate feed that presented to group of Barki lambs for75 days. They mentioned that the addition of examined probiotics resulted in a significant increase in nearly all of the dry matter digestibility coefficients, average daily gain and nutrient digestibility compared to the control group. Another study probed the influence of Saccharomyces cerevisiae dietary yeast supplement fed by examined primiparous and multiparous Egyptian buffaloes in early to mid-lactation. The study’s results revealed increase in milk production in early lactation and a more persistent milk production during mid-lactation. Feed conversion and energy and nitrogen conversion efficiency increased with the use of yeast supplementation [44].

      4.2. Monogastric Animals

Pigs, poultry and horses are monogastric which have simple stomach. The bacteria, archaea, methanomicrobia, and thermococci have been identified as microbiota of pigs [45, 46]. There are 13 phyla of bacteria were estimated in the poultry GIT with firmicutes, bacteroidetes, and proteobacteria being the more 900 in chicken and in 500 turkey. Lactobacillus, Ruminococcus, Bacteroides, Clostridium, methanogenic archaea and fungi are most probiotics in chicken and turkeys [47, 48]. The GIT of horses is improved by the presence of beneficial bacteria, protozoa, fungi, and archaea [49, 50].

In monogastric animals, the most probiotics are used Lactobacillus, Enterococcus, Pediococcus, Bacillus (bacteria) and Saccharomyces boulardii and S. cerevisiae (yeasts) that targeting the cecum and the colon. The probiotics in monogastric animals are beneficial in increasing body weight, reducing diarrhea risk, improving feed efficiency, and digestibility of diet [51]. In swine, there was increased diet intake and weight performance in the period of pregnancy and lactation [52, 53]. Probiotics have been provided supportive care to piglets during their suckling and weaning life, Kim et al. (2014b) [54] illustrated that probiotics are more effective than antibiotics on the growth performance of pigs. Reduction of Salmonella infection [55], and protect against other enteric pathogens in post weaning piglets [56].

On the other hand, the concentration of ammonia in the excreta of poultry can be reduced by using probiotics like Enterococcus faecium and Bacillus subtilis [8], reduction of Salmonella and Campylobacter colonization [55, 57, 58], prevention or treatment E. coli infection in broilers [59]

Regarding poultry industry in Egypt, studies have recently directed to the impact of probiotics in poultry and poultry meat production; it was found that probiotic cell-free supernatants of four probiotic strains, Lactobacillus rhamnosus, Lactobacillus fermentum, Pediococcus acidilactici and Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. lactis could significantly inhibit the growth of Clostridium perfringens in poultry meat during storage as well as their antioxidant effect [60].

5. Antibiotic resistance associated with probiotics:

The genes transformation is one of the serious risks combined with probiotics; they have antibiotic resistance genes that may be transferred to certain pathogenic microorganisms, leading to emergence of antibiotic resistance microorganisms [61]. Therefore, it is very important criteria should be considered at choosing of probiotics; Lactobacillus, Bacillus and Entero­coccus are of greater risks, as they carry transferable genes, while Bifidobacteria are considered less risky as these bacteria are non-transferable [63].

However, even the antibiotic resistance genes present, the probiotic strains may not be dangerous if these genes are intrinsic; in chromosomes and not transferable. Nevertheless, precautions should be taken in used probiotics to prevent antibiotic resistance genes transfer [63].

6. Probiotics action mechanisms:

Major action mechanisms of probiotic include competitive exclusion of pathogenic microorganisms, improvement of the epithelial barrier of GIT, increased mucosal adhesion of intestine, and inhibition of pathogen adhesion, releasing of anti-microorganism molecules, and immune system modulation as shown in figure (2) and table (2) [64, 65].

Fig. (2): probiotics action mechanisms.

6.1. Competitive exclusion:

The exact mechanism of action of probiotics associated with "competitive exclusion" or "bacterial antagonism" which refers to the physical colonization blocking of pathogen and it depends on microbe-to-microbe interaction by competition for available epithelial adhesion sites and nutrients figure (3) [10].

Primary and secondary metabolites; organic acid, volatile fatty acid (VFA), and lactic acid lower the gut pH that is detrimental to the survival of pathogenic bacteria such as Salmonella and E. coli [66].

     Fig. (3): competition between probiotics and pathogenic bacteria for binding sites on the intestinal epithelium.        

6.2. The epithelial barrier:

There is permanent contact between intestinal epithelium cells besides their contents and the dynamic, variable enteric bacteria. The major defense mechanism which protects the host from the microorganisms is the intestinal barrier and its integrity [67]. The production of mucous, antimicrobial molecules, IgA secretion, and the adhesion complex of the epithelial junction are defense mechanisms for the epithelial barrier [68].

6.3. Intestinal mucosa adhesion:

The intestinal mucosa adhesion plays an important role for preventing pathogen colonization and pathogens antagonism. It is considered one of the most selection criteria of proper probiotics. Lactic acid bacteria (LABs) display different surface determinants that involved in interaction with intestinal epithelial cells (IECs) and mucous membrane. Mucin is a glycoprotein that secreted from IECs, and represented as the main component of mucous. It contains immunoglobulins, free proteins, salts, lipids that prevent pathogenic bacteria adhesion [69].

 

Table (2): summary of different mechanism of action of probiotics in the GIT [70].

 

 

Target

 

Mode of Action

 

1. Promote epithelial cell homeostasis

·   Enhance barrier function

·   Promote cytoprotective responses

·   Improve cell survival and increase mucin production.

 

2. Neuromodulatory effects

·   Induce receptors on epithelial cells

·   Reduce visceral hypersensitivity and stress response

 

3. Block effects of pathogenic bacteria

·    Reduce pathogen binding

·   Decrease luminal pH

·   Produce antibacterial bacteriocins

 

4. Nutritional benefits

·   Assist in the breakdown of un-digestible foods to produce usable nutrients

 

6.4. Production of antimicrobial substances:

            Probiotics can produce various molecules that inhibit pathogenic bacteria such as hydrogen peroxide, bacteriocins and organic acids [71, 72]. There are three different types of protective cultures; antagonistic bacteriocinogenic protective cultures acting by releasing one or more bacteriocins or bacteriocin-like substances, figure (4), non-bacteriocinogenic protective cultures table (3) and the last one is protective cultures producing antifungal molecules figure (5) [10, 73- 76].

Figure (4): different bacteriocin classes.

Table (3): Non-bacteriocin antimicrobial compounds (Gioia and Biavati 2018).

Non- bacteriocin antimicrobial

Substances

Mode of action

Target

Organic acids

Lactic acid

Decrease the pH

Broad spectrum against non-acidophilic microorganisms

Acetic acid

Undissociated hydrophobic form

Propionic acid (in traces amounts)

Disruption of the cytoplasmic membrane and interference with membrane potential

Carboxylic acids

Reduction in intracellular pH

Cinnamic acid derivatives

d-glucuronic acid

Salicylic acid

Benzoic acid

Hydroxybenzoic acids

CO2

Heterofermentative LAB

Creates an anaerobic environment

Aerobic bacteria

Diacetyl

Produced during citrate fermentation by some strains

Gram-negative bacteria are more sensitive than Gram-positive bacteria

Hydrogen peroxide

Produced by flavoprotein oxidases in presence of oxygen

Oxidative damage of proteins

Increase membrane permeability

Antimicrobial

Fatty acids

Long-chain hydroxylated fatty acids (C8–C12)

Partition of the lipid

bilayers of fungal

membranes resulting

in loss of membrane

integrity

Antibacterial and

antifungal activity

against a broad

spectrum of yeasts

and molds

 

Figure (5): antifungal peptides produced by different probiotic strains.

Conclusion and Future Prospects

Usage of probiotics leads to many health and production benefits in farm animals and poultry. Definitely, they will render as the best substitutional option for antibiotics in animal husbandry for obtaining of safe meat, milk and egg production. Many feedbacks of researchers deserve extra benefit of probiotic usage, and directed to find the optimal dose and proper strain of probiotic microorganism for certain required action. Refinement in their form and delivery methods will also help in fulfilling maximum potential of probiotics. Further area of benefit can also be explored which can be achieved via their prospect use with more clinical trials and promising research data. Moreover, better understanding of their mechanisms of action will help in profiting extra advantages. Although significant amount of work is available declaring positive impact of using probiotics in veterinary field, still more research is required to come out with some standard protocol for their applications.

References

  1. Alayande, K.A.; Aiyegoro, O.A. and Ateba, C.N. (2020): Probiotics in Animal Husbandry: Applicability and Associated Risk Factors. Sustainability, 12(3), 1087.
  2. Market Report (2021): Probiotics in animal feed market by livestock (poultry, ruminants, swine, aquaculture and pets), source (bacteria and yeast), form (dry, liquid) and region (North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, South America, & rest of world) - global forecast to 2026. http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/probiotics-animal-feed-market-85832335.html
  3. Mannetje, L. (2010): Silage for animal feed. In: Encyclopedia of life support systems [Online], vol 8. Eolss Publishers, Oxford, pp 123–135. http://www.eolss.net/sample-chapters /c17/E6-58-07-05.pdf
  4. Lilly, D.M. and Stillwell, R.H. (1965): Probiotics: Growth promoting factors produced by microorganisms. Science. 147:747-748.
  5. FAO (2016): Probiotics in animal nutrition. Production, impact and regulation. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper No. 179 Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5933e.pdf
  6. Abdel-Raheem, S.M; Abd-Allah, S.M. and Hassanein, K.M. (2012): The effects of prebiotic, probiotic and synbiotic supplementation on intestinal microbial ecology and histomorphology of broiler chickens. International Journal for Agro Veterinary and Medical Sci., 6(4): 277-289.
  7. Abdel-Rahman, H.; Shawky, S.; Ouda, H.; Nafeaa, A., and Orabi, S. (2013): Effect of two probiotics and bioflavonoids supplementation to the broilers diet and drinking water on the growth performance and hepatic antioxidant parameters. Global Veterinaria, 10(6): 734-741.
  8. Ahmed M.S., Ahmed R.E. and Sherin I. (2016): Pharmacokinetics, Bio­Equivalence and tissue residues of two oral colistin formulations in broiler chickens. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci., 8(4): 166-170.
  9. Barko, P.C.; McMichael, M.A. and Swanson, K.S. (2018): The gastrointestinal microbiome: a review. J Vet Intern Med., 32:9–25.
  10.  Zoumpopoulou, G.; Kazou, M.; Alexandraki, V.; Angelopoulou, A.; Papadimitriou, K.; Pot, B. and Tsakalidou, E. (2018): Probiotics and Prebiotics: An Overview on Recent Trends. Probiotics and Prebiotics in Animal Health and Food Safety 1-34. ISBN 978-3-319-71948-1, ISBN 978-3-319-71950-4 (eBook).
  11.  Chaucheyras-Durand, F. and Ossa, F. (2014): Review: the rumen microbiome composition, abundance, diversity, and new investigative tools. Prof Anim Sci., 30:1–12.
  12.  Deusch, S.; Tilocca, B.; Camarinha-Silva, A. and Seifert, J. (2015): News in livestock research use of omics-technologies to study the microbiota in the gastrointestinal tract of farm animals. Comput Struct Biotechnol J., 13:55–63.
  13.  Jami, E.; White, B.A. and Mizrahi, I. (2014): Potential role of the bovine rumen microbiome in modulating milk composition and feed efficiency. PLoS One, 9(1):e85423.
  14.  Landers, T.F.; Cohen, B.; Wittum, T.E. and Larson, E.L. (2012): A review of antibiotic use in food animals: perspective, policy, and potential. Public Health Rep., 127(1):4–22.
  15.  Papatsiros, V.G.; Katsoulos, P.D.; Koutoulis, K.C.; Karatzia, M., Dedousi, A. and Christodoulopoulos, G. (2013): Alternatives to antibiotics for farm animals. CAB Rev., 8:1–15.
  16.  Van Boeckel, T.P.; Brower, C.; Gilbert, M.; Grenfell, B.T.; Levin, S.A.; Robinson, T.P.; Teillant, A. and Laxminarayan, R. (2015): Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 112(18):5649–5654.
  17.  Haque MH, Sarker S, Islam MS, Islam MA, Karim MR, Kayesh MEH, Shiddiky MJA, Anwer MS. Sustainable Antibiotic-Free Broiler Meat Production: Current Trends, Challenges, and Possibilities in a Developing Country Perspective. Biology (Basel). 2020 Nov 23;9(11):411.
  18.  Robles-Jimenez LE, Aranda-Aguirre E, Castelan-Ortega OA, Shettino-Bermudez BS, Ortiz-Salinas R, Miranda M, Li X, Angeles-Hernandez JC, Vargas-Bello-Pérez E, Gonzalez-Ronquillo M. Worldwide Traceability of Antibiotic Residues from Livestock in Wastewater and Soil: A Systematic Review. Animals (Basel). 2021 Dec 28;12(1):60.
  19.  Azabo R, Dulle F, Mshana SE, Matee M, Kimera S. Antimicrobial use in cattle and poultry production on occurrence of multidrug resistant Escherichia coli. A systematic review with focus on sub-Saharan Africa. Front Vet Sci. 2022; 9:1000457.
  20.  Wang O, McAllister TA, Plastow G, Stanford K, Selinger B, Guan LL. Interactions of the Hindgut Mucosa-Associated Microbiome with Its Host Regulate Shedding of Escherichia coli O157:H7 by Cattle. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2017 Dec 15; 84(1):e01738-17.
  21.  Ngo TT, Bang NN, Dart P, Callaghan M, Klieve A, McNeill D. Pellets Inoculated with Bacillus amyloliquefaciens H57 Modulates Diet Preference and Rumen Factors Associated with Appetite Regulation in Steers. Animals (Basel). 2021 Dec 4; 11(12):3455.
  22.  Zhang, R.; Zhou, M.; Tu, Y.; Zhang, N.F.; Deng, K.D.; Ma, T. and Diao, Q.Y. (2015): Effect of oral administration of probiotics on growth performance, apparent nutrient digestibility and stress-related indicators in Holstein calves. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr., 100(1):33–38.
  23.  Ayad, M.A.; Benallou, B.; Saim, M.S.; Smadi, M.A. and Meziane, T. (2013): Impact of feeding yeast culture on milk yield, milk components, and blood components in Algerian dairy herds. J Vet Sci Technol., 4(2):1–5.
  24.  Maragkoudakis, P.A.; Mountzouris, K.C.; Rosu, C.; Zoumpopoulou, G.; Papadimitriou, K.; Dalaka, E.; Hadjipetrou, A.; Theofanous, G.; Strozzi, G.P.; Carlini, N.; Zervas, G. and Tsakalidou, E. (2010): Feed supplementation of Lactobacillus plantarum PCA 236 modulates gut microbiota and milk fatty acid composition in dairy goats-a preliminary study. Int J Food Microbiol., 141(Suppl 1):S109– S116.
  25.  Ort SB, Aragona KM, Chapman CE, Shangraw E, Brito AF, Schauff DJ, Erickson PS. The impact of direct-fed microbials and enzymes on the health and performance of dairy cows with emphasis on colostrum quality and serum immunoglobulin concentrations in calves. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl). 2018 Apr; 102(2):e641-e652.
  26.  Espeche, M.C.; Pellegrino, M.; Frola, I.; Larriestra, A.; Bogni, C. and Nader-Macias, M.E. (2012): Lactic acid bacteria from raw milk as potentially beneficial strains to prevent bovine mastitis. Anaerobe, 18(1):103–109.
  27.  Steinberg RS, Silva LCSE, de Souza MR, Reis RB, Bicalho AF, Nunes JPS, Dias AAM, Nicoli JR, Neumann E, Nunes ÁC. Prospecting of potentially probiotic lactic acid bacteria from bovine mammary ecosystem: imminent partners from bacteriotherapy against bovine mastitis. Int Microbiol. 2022 Jan;25(1):189-206.
  28.  Alazzeh, A.Y.; Sultana, H.; Beauchemin, K.A.; Wang, Y.; Holo, H.; Harstad, O.M. and McAllister, T.A. (2012): Using strains of Propionibacteria to mitigate methane emissions in vitro. Acta Agric Scand Sect A Anim Sci 62(4):263–272.
  29.  Doyle N, Mbandlwa P, Kelly WJ, Attwood G, Li Y, Ross RP, Stanton C, Leahy S. Use of Lactic Acid Bacteria to Reduce Methane Production in Ruminants, a Critical Review. Front Microbiol. 2019 Oct 1;10:2207.
  30.  Spaniol, J.; Oltramari, C.; Locatelli, M.; Volpato, A.; Campigotto, G.; Stefani, L. and Da Silva, A. (2015): Influence of probiotic on somatic cell count in milk and immune system of dairy cows. Comp Clin Pathol., 24(3):677–681.
  31.  Apas, A.L.; Gonzalez, S.N. and Arena, M.E. (2014): Potential of goat probiotic to bind mutagens. Anaerobe, 28:8–12.
  32.  Prazdnova EV, Mazanko MS, Chistyakov VA, Bogdanova AA, Refeld AG, Kharchenko EY, Chikindas ML. Antimutagenic Activity as a Criterion of Potential Probiotic Properties. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins. 2022 Dec; 14(6):1094-1109.
  33.  Rafat, A. and Hussain, M.A. (2013): Environmental ethics in animal farming: agricultural probiotics. Am J Agric Sci., 1:1–6.
  34.  Puniya, A.K.; Salem, A.Z.M.; Kumar, S.; Dagar, S.S.; Griffith, G.W.; Puniya, M.; Ravella, S.R.; Kumar, N.; Dhewa, T. and Kumar, R. (2015): Role of live microbial feed supplements with reference to anaerobic fungi in ruminant productivity: a review. J Integr Agric., 14(3):550–560.
  35.  Praesteng, K.E.; Pope, P.B.; Cann, I.K.; Mackie, R.I.; Mathiesen, S.D.; Folkow, L.P.; Eijsink, V.G. and Sundset, M.A. (2013): Probiotic dosing of Ruminococcus flavefaciens affects rumen microbiome structure and function in reindeer. Microb Ecol., 66(4):840–849.
  36.  Moraïs S, Cockburn DW, Ben-David Y, Koropatkin NM, Martens EC, Duncan SH, Flint HJ, Mizrahi I, Bayer EA. Lysozyme activity of the Ruminococcus champanellensis cellulosome. Environ Microbiol. 2016 Dec;18(12):5112-5122.
  37.  Chuang WY, Lin WC, Hsieh YC, Huang CM, Chang SC, Lee TT. Evaluation of the combined use of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Aspergillus oryzae with phytase fermentation products on growth, inflammatory, and intestinal morphology in broilers. Animals (Basel). 2019 Dec 1; 9(12):1051.
  38.  Jatkauskas, J. and Vrotniakiene, V. (2010): Effects of probiotic dietary supplementation on diarrhea patterns, fecal microbiota and performance of early-weaned calves. Vet Med Czech, 55:494–503.
  39.  Bouchard, D.S.; Rault, L. and Berkova, N. (2013): Inhibition of Staphylococcus aureus invasion into bovine mammary epithelial cells by contact with live Lactobacillus casei. Appl Environ Microbiol., 79:877–885.
  40.  Du R, Jiao S, Dai Y, An J, Lv J, Yan X, Wang J, Han B. Probiotic Bacillus amyloliquefaciens C-1 Improves Growth Performance, Stimulates GH/IGF-1, and Regulates the Gut Microbiota of Growth-Retarded Beef Calves. Front Microbiol. 2018 Aug 28;9: 2006.
  41.  Kawauchi D, Angthong W, Keaokliang O, Ishida T, Takahashi T, Kawashima T. Effect of feeding Bacillus subtilis on rumen fermentation, blood metabolites, nutrient digestibility, and energy and nitrogen balances in non-lactating crossbred cows. Anim Sci J. 2021 Jan; 92(1):e13531.
  42.  Zábranský, L.; Poborská, A; Gálik, B.; Šoch, M.; Brož, P.; Kantor, M.; Kernerová, N.; Rezáˇc, I ;ˇRolinec, M.; Hanušovský, O.; et al. Influence of Probiotic Strains Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus, and Enterococcus on the Health Status and Weight Gain of Calves, and the Utilization of Nitrogenous Compounds. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 1273.
  43.  Hassan, A.; Gado, H.; Anele, U.Y.; Berasain, M.A.M. and Salem, A.Z.M. (2020): Influence of dietary probiotic inclusion on growth performance, nutrient utilization, ruminal fermentation activities and methane production in growing lambs. Anim. Biotechnol., 31(4):365-372.
  44.  Hansen H. H., El-Bordeny N. E., and Ebeid H.M. (2017): Response of primiparous and multiparous buffaloes to yeast culture supplementation during early and mid-lactation. Anim Nutr., 3(4):411-418.
  45.  Duarte ME, Kim SW. Intestinal microbiota and its interaction to intestinal health in nursery pigs. Anim Nutr. 2022 Mar;8(1):169-184. 
  46.  Luo Y, Ren W, Smidt H, Wright AG, Yu B, Schyns G, McCormack UM, Cowieson AJ, Yu J, He J, Yan H, Wu J, Mackie RI, Chen D. Dynamic Distribution of Gut Microbiota in Pigs at Different Growth Stages: Composition and Contribution. Microbiol Spectr. 2022 Jun 29; 10(3):e0068821. 
  47.  Ngunjiri JM, Taylor KJM, Abundo MC, Jang H, Elaish M, Kc M, Ghorbani A, Wijeratne S, Weber BP, Johnson TJ, Lee CW. Farm Stage, Bird Age, and Body Site Dominantly Affect the Quantity, Taxonomic Composition, and Dynamics of Respiratory and Gut Microbiota of Commercial Layer Chickens. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2019 Apr 18;85(9):e03137-18. 
  48.  Du W, Deng J, Yang Z, Zeng L, Yang X. Metagenomic analysis reveals linkages between cecal microbiota and feed efficiency in Xiayan chickens. Poult Sci. 2020 Dec;99(12):7066-7075.
  49.  Laustsen L, Edwards JE, Hermes GDA, Lúthersson N, van Doorn DA, Okrathok S, Kujawa TJ, Smidt H. Free Faecal Water: Analysis of Horse Faecal Microbiota and the Impact of Faecal Microbial Transplantation on Symptom Severity. Animals (Basel). 2021 Sep 23;11(10):2776. 
  50.  Mach N, Lansade L, Bars-Cortina D, Dhorne-Pollet S, Foury A, Moisan MP, Ruet A. Gut microbiota resilience in horse athletes following holidays out to pasture. Sci Rep. 2021 Mar 3;11(1):5007. 
  51.  ASML A, Agazzi A, Invernizzi G, et al. The beneficial role of Probiotics in monogastric animal nutrition and health. J Dairy Vet Anim Res. 2015;2(4):116-132.
  52.  Liu H, Wang S, Zhang D, Wang J, Zhang W, Wang Y, Ji H. Effects of dietary supplementation with Pediococcus acidilactici ZPA017 on reproductive performance, fecal microbial flora and serum indices in sows during late gestation and lactation. Anim Biosci. 2020 Jan; 33(1):120-126. 
  53.  Nam NH, Truong ND, Thanh DTH, Duan PN, Hai TM, Dao BTA, Sukon P. Bacillus subtilis QST 713 supplementation during late gestation in gilts reduces stillbirth and increases piglet birth weight. Vet Med Int. 2022 Jun 6; 2022:2462241.
  54.  Kim, K.H.; Ingale, S.L.; Kim, J.S.; Lee, S.H.; Lee, J.H.; Kwon, I.K. and Chae, B.J. (2014b): Bacteriophage and probiotics both enhance the performance of growing pigs but bacteriophage are more effective. Anim Feed Sci Technol., 196:88–95.
  55.  Yin, F.; Farzan, A. and Wang, Q.C. (2014): Reduction of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium DT104 infection in experimentally challenged weaned pigs fed a Lactobacillus-fermented feed. Foodborne Pathog Dis., 11:628–634.
  56.  Kantas, D.; Papatsiros, V.G. and Tassis, P.D. (2015): A feed additive containing Bacillus toyonensis (Toyocerin®) protects against enteric pathogens in post weaning piglets. J Appl Microbiol., 118:727–738.
  57.  Bardina, C.; Spricigo, D.A.; Cortes, P. and Llagostera, M. (2012): Significance of the bacteriophage treatment schedule in reducing Salmonella colonization of poultry. Appl Environ Microbiol., 78(18):6600–6607.
  58.  Marietto-Gonçalves, G.; Curotto, S.M.R.; Baptista, A.; Donato, T.; Takahira, R.; Sequeira, J. and Andreatti Filho, R. (2014): Effects of lactobacillus probiotic, P22 bacteriophage and Salmonella typhimurium on the heterophilic burst activity of broiler chickens. Rev Bras Cienc Avic., 16:257–264.
  59.  Li T, Castañeda CD, Miotto J, McDaniel C, Kiess AS, Zhang L. Effects of in ovo probiotic administration on the incidence of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli in broilers and an evaluation on its virulence and antimicrobial resistance properties. Poult Sci. 2021 Mar; 100(3):100903. 
  60.  Hamad, G.M.; Abdelmotilib, N.M.; Darwish, A.M.G. and Zeitoun, A.M. (2020): Commercial probiotic cell-free supernatants for inhibition of Clostridium perfringens poultry meat infection in Egypt. Anaerobe, 62:102181.
  61.  Bali V, Panesar PS, Bera MB, Kennedy JF. Bacteriocins: Recent Trends and Potential Applications. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2016; 56(5):817-34.
  62.  Majhi S. (2020). Immuno-modulation under synbiotic supplementation in coloured broilers. Indian Journal of Poultry Science, (2012) 47(2): 164-167.
  63.  Wieërs G, Belkhir L, Enaud R, Leclercq S, Philippart de Foy JM, Dequenne I, de Timary P, Cani PD. How Probiotics Affect the Microbiota. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2020 Jan 15; 9:454.
  64.  Ashaolu, T.J. (2020): Immune boosting functional foods and their mechanisms: A critical evaluation of probiotics and prebiotics. Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy, (130) 110625.
  65.  Nwobodo, D.C. and Ugwu, M.C. (2020): Immunomodulatory Potentials of Probiotics: A Review. Asian Journal of Immunology, 3(2): 1-15.
  66.  Mountzouris K.C.,Tsirtsikos P., Kalamara E., Nitsch S., Schatzmayr G. and Fegeros K. (2007): Evaluation of the efficacy of a probiotic containing Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Enterococcus and Pediococcus strains in promoting broiler performance and modulating cecal microflora composition and metabolic activities. Poult Sci., 86(2): 309-317.
  67.  Ghasemi, H.A.; Shivazad, M.; Esmaeilnia, K.; Kohram, H. and Karimi, M.A. (2010): The effects of a synbiotic containing Enterococcus faeciumand inulin on growth performance and resistance to coccidiosis in broiler chickens. J. Poultry Sci., 47(2), 149-155.
  68.  Ohland, C.L. and Macnaughton, W.K. (2010): Probiotic bacteria and intestinal epithelial barrier function. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol., 298:G807–G819.
  69.  Anadón, A.; Martínez-Larrañaga, M.R.; Arés, I. and Martínez, M.A. (2016a): Chapter 1. Prebiotics and probiotics: an assessment of their safety and health benefits. In: Ross Watson R, Preedy VR (eds) Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics. Bioactive foods in promoting health: probiotics and prebiotics. Academic, San Diego, CA; 3–23.
  70.  Ciorba, M.A. (2012): Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology: the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association , 10(9):960-8.
  71.  Anadón, A.; Martínez-Larrañaga, M.R. and Aresi, M.M.A. (2016b): Chapter 55. Probiotics: safety and toxicity considerations. In: Gupta RC (ed) Nutraceuticals: efficacy, safety and toxicity. Academic, Amsterdam, pp 777–853.
  72.  Delgado, S.; Sánchez, B.; Margolles, A.; Ruas-Madiedo, P. and Ruiz, L. (2020): Molecules produced by probiotics and intestinal microorganisms with immunomodulatory activity. Nutrients J., 12(2): 391. 
  73.  Vermeiren, L.; Devlieghere, F.; Vandekinderen, I. and Debevere, J. (2006): The interaction of the non-bacteriocinogenic Lactobacillus sakei 10A and lactocin S producing Lactobacillus sakei 148 towards Listeria monocytogenes on a model cooked ham. Food Microbiol., 23:511–518.
  74.  Elsser-Gravesen, D. and Elsser-Gravesen, A. (2014): Biopreservatives. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol 143:29–49
  75.  Goncalves, A.T. and Gallardo-Escarate, C. (2017): Microbiome dynamic modulation through functional diets based on pre- and probiotics (mannan-oligosaccharides and Saccharomyces cerevisiae) in juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). J Appl Microbiol., 122:1333–1347
  76.  Sohier M. Syame, Asmaa S. Mansour, Wahid H. El-Dabae, Nagwa S. Atta, Ashraf S. Hakim and Doaa D. Khalaf. Detection, purification and characterization of newly bacteriocin by lactic acid bacteria isolated from dairy products in Egypt, a promising approach in food biopreservation World Appl. Sci. J., 39 (3): 93-102, 2021.