Digestibility and fecal characteristics of dogs fed with Bacillus subtilis in diet

Félix, Ananda Portella; Netto, M. V. Teixeira; Murakami, Fabiane Yukiko; Brito, Cleusa Bernardete Marcon de; Oliveira, Simone Gisele de; Maiorka, Alex

doi:10.1590/s0103-84782010005000166

Cited by 29 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 6 publications

(7 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, elevated lactic acid in feces of the fermented vs. non-fermented snack did not affect fecal pH. Decreased ammonia content and increased lactic acid in feces induced by dietary fermented snack may be in part secondary to balanced gut microbiota, i.e., LAB which could then inhibit pathogenic bacteria [21].…”

Section: Effect Of Feeding Of the Fermented And Non-fermented Snacks mentioning

confidence: 88%

Pediococcus spp.-fermented chicken meat for dogs

Lee¹,

Nam²,

Lee³

et al. 2020

J Anim Sci Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An experiment was conducted to evaluate Pediococcus spp.-fermented chicken meat as a snack for dogs. The fermented or non-fermented snacks used in this study were prepared through the following process; meat mixtures containing 52.8% MDCM, 35.2% chicken breast meat (CBM) and 9.7% corn starch were inoculated with or without Pediococcus spp., incubated at 37℃ for 24 h and then sterilized at 121℃ for 20 min. During the 24-h fermentation, the pH of fermented chicken snack dropped rapidly with concomitant increase in number of lactic acid bacteria. The nutritional composition was not altered by fermentation. In vitro pepsin nitrogen digestibility was higher (p < 0.05) in the fermented snack compared with the non-fermented snack. Upon storage at room temperature for 14 days, bacteria grew slowly in fermented vs. non-fermented snack samples. In a palatability trial, dogs preferred non-fermented over fermented snack food. In 12-d-long feeding trial, fecal ammonia content was lowered, but fecal lactic acid content was increased in dogs fed the fermented vs. non-fermented snack food. Our study shows that the fermented MDCM-based snack exhibited good preservability upon storage, and improved in vitro nitrogen digestibility and fecal characteristics in dogs.

show abstract

Section: Effect Of Feeding Of the Fermented And Non-fermented Snacks mentioning

confidence: 88%

Pediococcus spp.-fermented chicken meat for dogs

Lee¹,

Nam²,

Lee³

et al. 2020

J Anim Sci Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…; Félix et al . ). However, mere survival might be not the most important feature of a probiotic, and they all need to be tested for their benefit in clinical situations.…”

Section: The Effect Of Probiotics On Selected Parameters In Healthy Dogsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Only one study found that Bacillus subtilis C‐3102 can improve faecal texture and odour in dogs due to a decreased content of faecal ammonia (Félix et al . ). Once again, the clinical relevance of this finding and the justification of calling bacilli ‘probiotics’ in this situation is highly questionable and the usage of Bacilli as probiotics cannot be recommended.…”

Section: The Effect Of Probiotics On Selected Parameters In Healthy Dogsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Understanding the canine intestinal microbiota and its modification by pro‐, pre‐ and synbiotics – what is the evidence?

Schmitz

Suchodolski

2016

Veterinary Medicine & Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interest in the composition of the intestinal microbiota and possibilities of its therapeutic modifications has soared over the last decade and more detailed knowledge specific to the canine microbiota at different mucosal sites including the gut is available. Probiotics, prebiotics or their combination (synbiotics) are a way of modifying the intestinal microbiota and exert effects on the host immune response. Probiotics are proposed to exert their beneficial effects through various pathways, for example production of antimicrobial peptides, enhancing growth of favourable endogenous microorganisms, competition for epithelial colonisation sites and immune‐modulatory functions. Despite widespread use of pro‐, pre‐ and synbiotics, scientific evidence of their beneficial effects in different conditions of the dog is scarce. Specific effects of different strains, their combination or their potential side‐effects have not been evaluated sufficiently. In some instances, in vitro results have been promising, but could not be transferred consistently into in vivo situations. Specific canine gastrointestinal (GI) diseases or conditions where probiotics would be beneficial, their most appropriate dosage and application have not been assessed extensively. This review summarises the current knowledge of the intestinal microbiome composition in the dog and evaluates the evidence for probiotic use in canine GI diseases to date. It wishes to provide veterinarians with evidence‐based information on when and why these products could be useful in preventing or treating canine GI conditions. It also outlines knowledge about safety and approval of commercial probiotic products, and the potential use of faecal microbial transplantation, as they are related to the topic of probiotic usage.

show abstract

“…DFM has been defined by the US Food and Drug Administration as the feed product containing the source of naturally-existing live microbes, like some bacteria of the Bacillus genus. When supplemented in the diet, these microorganisms may favour non-pathogenic bacteria [5,6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus licheniformis reduce faecal protein catabolites concentration and odour in dogs

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Direct-fed microbials (DFM), such as Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus licheniformis, may improve gut functionality of the host by favouring non-pathogenic bacteria and reducing the formation of putrefactive compounds. The aim of this study was to assess the nutrient digestibility, faecal characteristics and intestinalfermentation products in dogs fed diets with Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus licheniformis. Sixteen dogs were randomly divided into two groups. Every eight dogs were fed with the control diet or the diet with the addition of 62.5 g of DFM (B. subtilis and B. licheniformis)/ton. Diets were provided throughout a 20-day adaptation period, followed by 5 days of total faecal collection. Nutrient digestibility and the metabolisable energy of the diets, plus the dogs' faecal characteristics and intestinal fermentation products were assessed. Results: There were no differences in nutrient digestibility (P > 0.05). However, DFM supplementation improved faecal score and resulted in less fetid faeces (P < 0.001). DFM inclusion reduced (P < 0.05) the biogenic amines concentration: putrescine, spermidine and cadaverine, besides the concentration of phenols and quinoline. Conclusions: The use of B. subtillis and B. licheniformis as DFM reduce the concentration of nitrogen fermentation products in faeces and faecal odour, but the digestibility of nutrients is not altered in dogs.

show abstract

Digestibility and fecal characteristics of dogs fed with Bacillus subtilis in diet

Cited by 29 publications

References 6 publications

Pediococcus spp.-fermented chicken meat for dogs

Pediococcus spp.-fermented chicken meat for dogs

Understanding the canine intestinal microbiota and its modification by pro‐, pre‐ and synbiotics – what is the evidence?

Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus licheniformis reduce faecal protein catabolites concentration and odour in dogs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About