Effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae subspecies boulardii CNCM I-1079 on feed intake by healthy beef cattle treated with florfenicol and on health and performance of newly received beef heifers1

Abstract

The effects of a live yeast supplement [Saccharomyces cerevisiae subspecies boulardii CNCM I-1079; ProTernative Stress Formula (PTSF) yeast, Ivy Natural Solutions, Overland Park, KS] on DMI, performance, and health of beef cattle were evaluated in 3 experiments. In Exp. 1, a pilot study was conducted with 10 healthy beef steers fed a 65% concentrate diet to evaluate the effects of florfenicol (s.c. in the neck vs. sterile water injection) on DMI. Steers injected with florfenicol had 15.6 (P = 0.092) and 22.2% (P = 0.015) decreases in DMI compared with controls on the day of and day after injection, respectively, with no differences for the remainder of the 7-d period. In the main study of Exp. 1, healthy beef steers (6 pens of 5 steers each/treatment) were fed the control or PTSF yeast diets (0.5 g of yeast x steer(-1) x d(-1)) for 5 d before being injected s.c. with florfenicol. Compared with the 5 d before injection, DMI decreased after injection, but it did not differ (P > 0.66) between treatments on the day of and day after injection. By the second day after injection, DMI tended (P = 0.107) to increase for steers fed PTSF yeast vs. control steers, with a trend for a similar pattern on the third day after injection (P = 0.197). No differences were noted between treatments for the remainder of the 7-d period or for the subsequent 2 wk. In Exp. 2, 3 loads of beef heifers (277 heifers; average initial BW = 230.3 kg) were shipped from auction barns and assigned randomly to 1 of 2 treatments (5 pens/treatment in each load) during 35-d receiving periods: 1) control = 65% concentrate receiving diet; or 2) PTSF yeast = 65% concentrate receiving diet with PTSF yeast added to supply 0.5 g of yeast x heifer(-1) x d(-1). All heifers were treated with florfenicol on arrival, and PTSF yeast heifers received approximately 1 g of yeast via an oral paste at the time of processing. Averaged over the 3 loads, treatments did not affect (P > or = 0.12) DMI, ADG, or G:F during the 35-d period, but the percentage of cattle treated once or more for bovine respiratory disease (BRD) was greater for control (P = 0.04) than for PTSF yeast heifers (24.0 vs. 13.78% respectively). In Exp. 3, 2 loads of beef heifers (180 heifers; average initial BW = 209.0 kg) that were not treated with antibiotic at the time of arrival processing were fed a 70% concentrate receiving diet and assigned the same 2 treatments as in Exp. 2. No differences (P > 0.72) were noted between treatments in ADG, DMI, and G:F for the 35-d receiving period, and BRD morbidity pooled across loads did not differ between treatments (40.2 vs. 33.1% for control vs. PTSF yeast). Providing PTSF yeast in an oral paste at the time of processing combined with the addition of 0.5 g of yeast x animal(-1) x d(-1) in the diet had little effect on receiving period performance; however, it decreased BRD morbidity in heifers given florfenicol on arrival but was without effect on BRD morbidity in heifers that did not receive a prophylactic antibiotic.

Preparation, characterization, and pharmacokinetics in swine of a florfenicol enteric formulation prepared using hot‐melt extrusion technology

“…Most cosolvents of normal injections, such as dimethylformamide (DMF) and pyrrolidone (Pyr), have high toxicity and thus cause damage to the bodies of animals (Soni, Solanki, & Maheshwari, ). Additionally, the high toxicity of these cosolvents severely irritates the body, causing a stress response and affecting the treatment (Keyser, McMeniman, Smith, MacDonald, & Galyean, ).…”

“…These findings for QIMEI were in agreement with the t 1/2λ and MRT 0-∞ values of 2.63 ± 0.51 hr and 2.91 ± 0.81 hr in healthy pigs and 3.06 ± 0.09 hr and 3.75 ± 0.46 hr in infected pigs reported by Liu, Fung, Chen, Zeng, and Zhang (2003), as well as those of 6.7 ± 1.6 hr and 6.8 ± 1.2 hr in pigs reported by Jiang, Zeng, Chen, Liu, and Fung (2006 icity and thus cause damage to the bodies of animals (Soni, Solanki, & Maheshwari, 2014). Additionally, the high toxicity of these cosolvents severely irritates the body, causing a stress response and affecting the treatment (Keyser, McMeniman, Smith, MacDonald, & Galyean, 2007).…”

Yeast cell wall supplementation alters aspects of the physiological and acute phase responses of crossbred heifers to an endotoxin challenge

“…Yeast supplementation has been demonstrated to improve dry matter intake and average daily gain (ADG), while decreasing morbidity in cattle. [3][4][5] In addition, a previous study using live yeast and/or YCW products reported lower rectal temperature and cytokine concentrations in response to endotoxin administration in steers, suggesting yeast products can improve cattle health. 6 Therefore, the present study was designed to determine the effect of supplementing two different YCW products on the physiological and acute phase responses of newly received heifers following LPS challenge.…”

Oral administration of Saccharomyces cerevisiae boulardii reduces mortality associated with immune and cortisol responses to Escherichia coli endotoxin in pigs1

“…The utilization of probiotics in swine production may be a viable alternative as indicated by contemporary research (Collington et al, 1990;De Angelis et al, 2006;Collado et al, 2007). Recent evidence suggests that the live yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae boulardii may be one such probiotic capable of eliciting changes to the intestinal microbiota (Plein and Hotz, 1993;Izadnia et al, 1998;Keyser et al, 2007) concurrent with host-specific alterations (Plein and Hotz, 1993;Kamm et al, 2004;Schroeder et al, 2004) resulting in improved performance. However, similar to most other probiotics, the mechanism(s) whereby S. boulardii results in beneficial physiological effects is poorly defined.…”