No abstract

This review article summarizes the efficacy, feasibility and potential mechanisms of the application of essential oils as antibiotic alternatives in swine production. Although there are numerous studies demonstrating that essential oils have several properties, such as antimicrobial, antioxidative and anti-inflammatory effects, feed palatability enhancement and improvement in gut growth and health, there is still a need of further investigations to elucidate the mechanisms underlying their functions. In the past, the results has been inconsistent in both laboratory and field studies because of the varied product compositions, dosages, purities and growing stages and conditions of animals. The minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of essential oils needed for killing enteric pathogens may not ensure the optimal feed intake and the essential oils inclusion cost may be too high in swine production. With the lipophilic and volatile nature of essential oils, there is a challenge in effective delivery of essential oils within pig gut and this challenge can partially be resolved by microencapsulation and nanotechnology. The effects of essential oils on inflammation, oxidative stress, microbiome, gut chemosensing and bacterial quorum sensing (QS) have led to better production performance of animals fed essential oils in a number of studies. It has been demonstrated that essential oils have good potential as antibiotic alternatives in feeds for swine production. The combination of different essential oils and other compounds (synergistic effect) such as organic acids seems to be a promising approach to improve the efficacy and safety of essential oils in applications. High-throughput systems technologies have been developed recently, which will allow us to dissect the mechanisms underlying the functions of essential oils and facilitate the use of essential oils in swine production.

Butyrate is produced by microbial fermentation in the large intestine of humans and animals. It serves as not only a primary nutrient that provides energy to colonocytes, but also a cellular mediator regulating multiple functions of gut cells and beyond, including gene expression, cell differentiation, gut tissue development, immune modulation, oxidative stress reduction, and diarrhea control. Although there are a large number of studies in human medicine using butyrate to treat intestinal disease, the importance of butyrate in maintaining gut health has also attracted significant research attention to its application for animal production, particularly as an alternative to in-feed antibiotics. Due to the difficulties of using butyrate in practice (i.e., offensive odor and absorption in the upper gut), different forms of butyrate, such as sodium butyrate and butyrate glycerides, have been developed and examined for their effects on gut health and growth performance across different species. Butyrate and its derivatives generally demonstrate positive effects on animal production, including enhancement of gut development, control of enteric pathogens, reduction of inflammation, improvement of growth performance (including carcass composition), and modulation of gut microbiota. These benefits are more evident in young animals, and variations in the results have been reported. The present article has critically reviewed recent findings in animal research on butyrate and its derivatives in regard to their effects and mechanisms behind and discussed the implications of these findings for improving animal gut health and production. In addition, significant findings of medical research in humans that are relevant to animal production have been cited.

This article summarizes current experimental knowledge on the efficacy, possible mechanisms and feasibility in the application of phytogenic products as feed additives for food-producing animals. Phytogenic compounds comprise a wide range of plant-derived natural bioactive compounds and essential oils are a major group. Numerous studies have demonstrated that phytogenic compounds have a variety of functions, including antimicrobial/antiviral, antioxidative and anti-inflammation effects and improvement in the palatability of feed and gut development/health. However, the mechanisms underlying their functions are still largely unclear. In the past, there has been a lack of consistency in the results from both laboratory and field studies, largely due to the varied composition of products, dosages, purities and growing conditions of animals used. The minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of phytogenic compounds required for controlling enteric pathogens may not guarantee the best feed intake, balanced immunity of animals and cost-effectiveness in animal production. The lipophilic nature of photogenic compounds also presents a challenge in effective delivery to the animal gut and this can partially be resolved by microencapsulation and combination with other compounds (synergistic effect). Interestingly, the effects of photogenic compounds on anti-inflammation, gut chemosensing and possible disruption of bacterial quorum sensing could explain a certain number of studies with different animal species for the better production performance of animals that have received phytogenic feed additives. It is obvious that phytogenic compounds have good potential as an alternative to antibiotics in feed for food animal production and the combination of different phytogenic compounds appears to be an approach to improve the efficacy and safety of phytogenic compounds in the application. It is our expectation that the recent development of high-throughput and “omics” technologies can significantly advance the studies on the mechanisms underlying phytogenic compounds’ functions and, therefore, guide the effective use of the compounds.

Aims:  To assess the potential of essential oils and structurally related synthetic food additives in reducing bacterial pathogens in swine intestinal tract. Methods and Results:  The antimicrobial activity of essential oils/compounds was measured by determining the inhibition of bacterial growth. Among 66 essential oils/compounds that exhibited ≥80% inhibition towards Salmonellatyphimurium DT104 and Escherichia coli O157:H7, nine were further studied. Most of the oils/compounds demonstrated high efficacy against S. typhimurium DT104, E. coli O157:H7, and E. coli with K88 pili with little inhibition towards lactobacilli and bifidobacteria. They were also tolerant to the low pH. When mixed with pig cecal digesta, these oils/compounds retained their efficacy against E. coli O157:H7. In addition, they significantly inhibited E. coli and coliform bacteria in the digesta, but had little effect on the total number of lactobacilli and anaerobic bacteria. Conclusions:  Some essential oils/compounds demonstrated good potential, including efficacy, tolerance to low pH, and selectivity towards bacterial pathogens, in reducing human and animal bacterial pathogens in swine intestinal tract. Significance and Impact of the Study:  This study has identified candidates of essential oils/compounds for in vivo studies to develop antibiotic substitutes for the reduction of human and animal bacterial pathogens in swine intestinal tract.

The chicken gut-associated lymphoid tissue is made up of a number of tissues and cells that are responsible for generating mucosal immune responses and maintaining intestinal homeostasis. The normal chicken microbiota also contributes to this via the ability to activate both innate defense mechanisms and adaptive immune responses. If left uncontrolled, immune activation in response to the normal microbiota would pose a risk of excessive inflammation and intestinal damage. Therefore, it is important that immune responses to the normal microbiota be under strict regulatory control. Through studies of mammals, it has been established that the mucosal immune system has specialized regulatory and anti-inflammatory mechanisms for eliminating or tolerating the normal microbiota. The mechanisms that exist in the chicken to control host responses to the normal microbiota, although assumed to be similar to that of mammals, have not yet been fully described. This review summarizes what is currently known about the host response to the intestinal microbiota, particularly in the chicken.

This review summarizes advances in understanding the pathogenesis of necrotic enteritis of chickens caused by netB-positive Clostridium perfringens. The discovery of NetB as the essential toxin trigger for the disease was followed by recognition that it forms part of a large plasmid-encoded 42 kb pathogenicity locus (NELoc-1). While the locus is critical for toxin production, it likely has additional functions related to colonization and degradation of the mucus barrier, which are essential both to multiplication and to bringing NetB close to the intestinal epithelium. Two "chitinases" (glycoside hydrolases (GHs)) present on NELoc-1 are predicted to be involved in mucin degradation, as is the large carbohydrate-binding metalloprotease, shown to be involved in mucinase activity in other clostridia. A second pathogenicity locus found in netB-positive C. perfringens, NELoc-2, also encodes a GH likely involved in mucin degradation. Upon reaching a sufficient cell density on the intestinal mucosa, the Agr-like quorum-sensing system is triggered, which in turn up-regulates the VirR/VirS regulon. This regulon includes NetB. Where NetB initiates damage is unresolved, but it may be deep in the intestinal mucosa, rather than superficially. As the disease progresses, C. perfringens line what remains of the intestinal epithelium in large numbers. This likely involves a number of different bacterial adhesins, including additional NELoc-1-encoded bacterial surface proteins, some of which may adhere to epithelial cell ligands exposed by bacterial sialidases. Further studies of the pathogenesis of necrotic enteritis should lead to development of novel ways to control the infection.

2005. The gastrointestinal microbiota and its role in monogastric nutrition and health with an emphasis on pigs: Current understanding, possible modulations, and new technologies for ecological studies. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 85: 421-435. The gastrointestinal microbiota is an incompletely defined, dynamic community of several hundred species of primarily anaerobic bacteria. Species composition and bacterial numbers vary depending on animal age, the gastrointestinal location and a variety of nutritional and environmental factors. The microbiota positively and negatively impacts host physiology and performance in many important ways. This review will examine the establishment and composition of the normal microbiota; its beneficial and deleterious effects on the host; and methods by which to modify the microbiota. In addition, recent advances in methodology using the techniques of molecular biology to measure and describe the microbiota are discussed. Finally, recent results using the polymerase chain reaction-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (PCR-DGGE) technique to examine the microbiota of pigs at different ages, different intestinal sites, and after treatment with selected feed additives will be described.