Prophylactic and Therapeutic Efficacy of Prebiotic Supplementation against Intestinal Coccidiosis in Rabbits

Abstract

Simple SummaryThere are limitations for using chemical products in meat production. The use of prebiotics to control Eimeria infections in rabbits may be of value. Prebiotics as a prophylaxis resulted in diminishing adverse effects caused by Eimeria spp. through decreasing fecal oocyst counts, retaining body weight, and reducing the number of parasitic stages in the intestinal tissues when compared with the non-supplemented controls. AbstractThis study was conducted to investigate the effect of prebiotic supplementation against intestinal coccidiosis in rabbits. Fifty male rabbits aged 35–60 days (1–1.5 kg) were divided into prophylactic and therapeutic experiments (five groups, 10 rabbits per group). Prophylactic experiment had prebiotic supplemented (PS-P), non-supplemented infected control (NI-P), and non-supplemented non-infected control (NN-P) groups. Ten days post-prebiotic supplementation (PPS), rabbits in groups PS-P and NI-P were infected orally with 5.0 × 104 sporulated oocysts of mixed Eimeria species. However, therapeutic experiment had prebiotic supplemented (PS-T) and untreated infected (UI-T) groups of naturally infected rabbits with Eimeria species. A significant reduction in oocyst count per gram feces (OPG) (p ≤ 0.05) was reported in the PS-P (57.33 × 103 ± 2.84) and NI-P (130.83 × 103 ± 43.38) groups during the experiment. Additionally, rabbits in groups (PS-P, 970.33 ± 31.79 g and NI-P, 870.66 ± 6.66 g) showed weight loss after infection. However, a significant (p ≤ 0.05) decrease in OPG was observed at day seven PPS in the PS-T group (4 × 103 ± 0.00) when compared with the UI-T group (32 × 103 ± 7.54). Furthermore, the PS-T group had a higher body weight than rabbits in the UI-T group. Histopathological findings of the intestinal tissues (duodenum, jejunum, and ileum) showed that the counts of the endogenous stages were significantly higher in the NI-P and UI-T groups than in the prebiotic-supplemented groups (PS-P and PS-T). Supplementation of the prebiotic did not have any adverse effects on biochemical parameters, such as AST, ALT, creatinine, total protein, and total cholesterol. In conclusion, prebiotic supplementation can be used to minimize the adverse effects of intestinal coccidiosis in rabbits, which in turn limits body weight loss, especially for the prophylaxis of coccidial infection.

Investigation of Pre- and Post-Weaning Mortalities in Rabbits Bred in Egypt, with Reference to Parasitic and Bacterial Causes

“…Regarding the parasitic causes of mortality, oocysts of coccidia were a prominent cause of young rabbit mortality in this investigation. Different species of Eimeria" including E. media, E. perforans, E. intestinalis, E. magna, E. coecicola, E. exigua, and E. flavescens, were detected in line with previous studies [6,7,44] which revealed that rabbit coccidiosis was an important cause of mortality within the first three to four days after birth in rabbits and that the main source of Eimeria spp. for young rabbits was Eimeria oocysts shed by adult rabbits.…”

“…and bacteria (enteropathogenic Escherichia coli) remain the primary cause of nest mortality [5]. Coccidiosis is responsible for high losses in rabbit production and is considered a risk factor for intestinal disorders in the early postweaning period [6] and for liver condemnations as a result of hepatic coccidiosis [7]. Otherwise, sarcoptic mange infestation is one of the most common and major problems in the rabbit industry [8,9].…”

Microbiome Product Toxicology: Regulatory View on Translational Challenges

“…In addition, the microbiome field has grown considerably, and the development of new applications may render obsolete some of these definitions. Prebiotics and probiotics have often been considered as food components or foods themselves (Pineiro et al 2008;Gibson and Roberfroid 1995;Patel and Denning 2013;El-Ashram et al 2019). However, such wording may conflict with applications in the therapeutic field: the European Regulation indicates that "Foods" should not designate Medicinal products (EMA 2002b).…”

“…However, such wording may conflict with applications in the therapeutic field: the European Regulation indicates that "Foods" should not designate Medicinal products (EMA 2002b). Some definitions also suggest that these products are limited to gastrointestinal applications (Gibson and Roberfroid 1995;El-Ashram et al 2019;Guarner and Schaafsma 1998;Parker 1974;LeBegue et al 2020), while the benefits of prebiotics and probiotics on other tissues such as skin (Kaur and Rath 2019), brain (Heyck and Ibarra 2019), or vagina (Al-Ghazzewi and Tester 2016) are gaining more and more interest. It has also been suggested that prebiotics, probiotics, or postbiotics could be limited to bacteria-related benefits (Gibson and Roberfroid 1995;Patel and Denning 2013;El-Ashram et al 2019;Havenaar and Huis In't Veld 1992).…”

“…Some definitions also suggest that these products are limited to gastrointestinal applications (Gibson and Roberfroid 1995;El-Ashram et al 2019;Guarner and Schaafsma 1998;Parker 1974;LeBegue et al 2020), while the benefits of prebiotics and probiotics on other tissues such as skin (Kaur and Rath 2019), brain (Heyck and Ibarra 2019), or vagina (Al-Ghazzewi and Tester 2016) are gaining more and more interest. It has also been suggested that prebiotics, probiotics, or postbiotics could be limited to bacteria-related benefits (Gibson and Roberfroid 1995;Patel and Denning 2013;El-Ashram et al 2019;Havenaar and Huis In't Veld 1992). Yet, the microbiome field is extending to other microorganisms such as yeasts (Massacci et al 2019), fungi (Pareek et al 2019;Huss and Raman 2020), or viruses (Pareek et al 2019;Huss and Raman 2020).…”