You are here
Research of the probiotic efficiency preparation “sporo-leks” for use in field
Microbial contamination of feeds and objects of the environment leads to a protractive colonization of the intestines of newborn animals with pathogenic microorganisms, which significantly slows down and even prevents the formation of normal intestinal microflora. Therefore, over the past two decades in the world, interest in biological preparations that has been implicated in stabilized cultures of symbiotic living microorganisms or products of their fermentation – probiotics has increased.
The goal of the work was to conduct a study of safety and efficiency of the preparation "Sporo-leks" in the production environment.
Probiotic "Sporo-leks" is a mixture of probiotic cultures of Bacillus licheniformis VK-25 and Bacillus subtilis MK-3 on a natural standardized sorbent (montmorillonite rock of the Volodymyretske field).
Field researches of the efficiency of the veterinary preparation "Sporo-leks" were conducted in Ukrainian farms in Chernivtsi, Khmelnytsky, Kyiv and Cherkasy regions. In this case, the test preparation was tested for harmlessness and efficacy. Efficiency for bovine animals was studied on cows weighing 400-500 kg and calves weighing 60-70 kg.
The determination of the concentration of bacteria in the E. coli group (BGKP) in faeces of animals was carried out in accordance with the standards harmonized with ISO 4831: 2006 "Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs – The most probable number technique." Biochemical and hematological studies of peripheral blood of animals were investigated according to commonly accepted methods.
According to the obtained results, it was found that in cows receiving the probiotic "Sporoz-leks" there was a decrease in the concentration of BGKP in feces in the two weeks of application of the preparation.
As a result of the conducted research it was established that the systematic use of the study preparation contributes to a significant increase in the number of red blood cells in the blood of cows and increase the bactericidal activity of serum in the experimental group.
As a result of the conducted researches, it was found that the use of "Sporo-leks" contributes to reducing the amount of BGKP in feces calves from the 14th day of its application. But the systematic use of the above mentioned product contributes to a significant increase in the number of erythrocytes in the blood from the first weeks of use, as well as a significant increase in BASK from the 28 days of application.
Animals receiving probiotic "Sporo-leks" during the observation period gained an average of 6.4 kg over the control group.
Conclusions. 1. The preparation of "Sporo-leks" is safe for the cattle, significantly increases the level of BASK, it is expedient to use as a feed biological additive directed adaptogenic and immune-regulating effect on fattening young animals of farm animals.
2. The influence of "Sporo-leks" on the microflora of the gastrointestinal tract of animals was established. At the same time the preparation "Sporo-leks" has a pronounced effect, which is manifested in suppression of the bacteria of the intestinal stem, due to the antagonistic action of strains Bacillus licheniformis VK-25 and Bacillus subtilis MK-3, which are the part of the product.
Key words: «Sporo-leks», probiotic, safety, non-specific, efficiency, E. coli group bacteria.
1. Tyurin M.V., Shenderov B. A., Rakhimova N.G. (1989). K mekhanizmu antagonisticheskoy aktivnosti laktobatsill [To the mechanism of antagonistic activity of lactobacilli]. Zhurn. mikrobiol., epidemiologiya. i immunobiol. Vol. 2. pp. 3-8.
2. Golovach T.N. Golovach T.N. Opyt sovmestnoy kul'tivirovaniya laktobakteriy. Mikrobiologicheskiy zhurnal [The experience of co-cultivation of lactobacilli. Microbiological Journal]. Vol. 6, pp. 23-25.
3. Quadri L.E. (2002). Regulation of antimicrobial peptide production by autoinducer-mediated quorum sensing in lactic acid bacteria. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. Vol. 82(1–4), pp. 133–145.
4. Ahmad I. (2006). Effect of probiotics on broilers performance. I. Ahmad. J. Poult. Sci. Vol. 5 (6), pp. 593–597.
5. Antipov V.A. (1999). Ispol'zovaniye probiotikov v zhivotnovodstve. Veterinarnaya meditsina. [The experience of co-cultivation of lactobacilli. Microbiological Journal]. Vol. 4, pp. 55-58.
6. Yaghobfar A. (2006). The effect of hull-less barley dietary on the activity of gut microflora and morphology small intestinal of layer hens. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. Vol. 9 (4), pp. 659–666.
7. Gvarner F. (2008). Probiotiki i prebiotiki: prakticheskiye rekomendatsii. Vsemirnaya gastroenterologicheskaya organizatsiya [Probiotics and prebiotics: practical recommendations / F. Guarner – World Gastroenterological Organization], 24 p.
8. Salmanov A. (2017). Ustoychivost' k antibiotikam i biotsidam. Mezhdunarodnyy zhurnal antibiotikov i probiotikov [Salmanov A. Resistance to antibiotics and biocides. International Journal of Antibiotics and Probiotics], Vol. 1 (2), pp. 92-125. https://doi.org/10.31405/ijap.1-2.17.07
9. Dash S. K. Selection Criteria for Probiotics [Electronic resource]. – Mode of access : http://newhope360.com/sitefiles/ newhope360.com/files/archive/www.functionalingredientsmag.com/pdfs/SelectionCriteriaforProbiotics.pdf. – Title from the screen.
10. Kudryavtsev A. A. (1974). Klinicheskaya gematologiya zhivotnykh [Clinical hematology of animals]. M.: Kolos, pp. 134.
11. Vlizlo V. V., Vlizla V. V. (2012). Laboratorni metody doslidzhenʹ u biolohiyi, tvarynnytstvi ta veterynarniy medytsyn [Laboratory methods of dosage in biology, medicine and veterinary medicine]. Lʹviv : SPOLOM, pp. 284–285.
12. Prozorovskiy, V. B. (2007). Statisticheskaya obrabotka rezul'tatov farmakologicheskikh issledovaniy. Psikhofarmakologiya i biol. Narkologiya [Statistical processing of the results of pharmacological studies. Psychopharmacology and Biol. Narcology]. Vol. 7, No. 3–4, pp. 2090–2120.
13. Kotsyumbas I. YA., Bisyuk I. YU., Horzheyev V. M., Malyk O. H. (2013). Klinichni doslidzhennya veterynarnykh preparativ ta kormovykh dobavok [Clinical studies of veterinary drugs and feed additives]. L.: TOV Vydavnychyy dim «SAM», 252 p.
14. Kompleksna otsinka vplyvu veterynarnykh preparativ na morfofunktsionalʹnyy stan imunnoyi systemy [Comprehensive evaluation of the influence of veterinary drugs on the morphofunctional state of the immune system]: Metodychni rekomendatsiyi / Kotsyumbas I. YA., Kotsyumbas H. I., Holubiy YE. M. ta in. – Lʹviv, 2009. – 63 s.
15. Laboratorni metody doslidzhennya u biolohiyi, tvarynnytstvi ta veterynarniy medytsyni [Laboratory research methods in biology, livestock and veterinary medicine]: dovidnyk / V. V. Vlizlo, R. S. Fedoruk, I. B. Ratych ta in.; za red.
V. V. Vlizla. – Lʹviv: Spolom, 2012. – 764 s.
16. Palfiy F. YU., Andrushkiv M. I. (1987). Immunologicheskiye metody issledovaniya v zhivotnovodstve (Metodicheskiye rekomendatsii). L'vov, 230 p.
17. GOST 31747-2012 (2012). Mezhgosudarstvennyy standart «Produkty pishchevyye. Metody vyyavleniya i opredeleniya kolichestva bakteriy gruppy kishechnykh palochek (kolimorfnykh bakteriy)» [Interstate standard "Food products. Methods for the detection and determination of the number of bacteria of the group of E. coli (coliform bacteria)].
18. Ushkalov V., Danchuk V., Voloshchuk N. (2017). Agroekologicheskiye aspekty monitoringa ustoychivosti antibiotikov mikroorganizmov. Mezhdunarodnyy zhurnal po antibiotikam i probiotikam [Agroecological aspects of monitoring the resistance of antibiotic microorganisms International Journal of Antibiotics and Probiotics], Vol. 1 (1), pp. 117-123. https://doi.org/10.31405/ijap.1-1.17.09
19. lair J.M., Webber M.A., Baylay A.J. (2015). Molekulyarnyye mekhanizmy ustoychivosti k antibiotikam [Molecular mechanisms of resistance to antibiotics]. Obzory prirody. Microbiol. Vol. 13, No 1, pp. 42.
20. Salmanov A., Muzyka V. (2017). Bor'ba s rezistentnost'yu k antibiotikam na osnove podkhoda «Odin Zdorov'ye». Mezhdunarodnyy zhurnal antibiotikov i probiotikov [Combating resistance to antibiotics based on the One Health approach. International Journal of Antibiotics and Probiotics],Vol. 1 (2), pp. 8-29. https://doi.org/10.31405/ijap.1-2.17.01
21. Zabrovskaya A.V. (2012). Chuvstvitel'nost' k antimikrob-nym preparatam mikroorganizmov, vydelennykh ot sel'skokhozyaystvennykh zhivotnykh i iz produktsii zhivotnovodstva [Sensitivity to antimicrobial preparations of microorganisms isolated from farm animals and livestock products]. VetPharma. No 5, pp. 20–24.11.
22. Harkavenko T.O., Nevolʹko O.M., Kozytsʹka T.H. (2014). Metodychni vkazivky shchodo vyznachennya chutlyvosti mikroorhanizmiv do antybakterialʹnykh preparative [Methodical vkazivki schodo viznachennya chutlivostі mіkorganganizmov before antibacterial preparations]. K., DNDILDVSE, pp. 19‒24.