Experimental results reported for selected probiotics for use in control of pathogenic bacteria in livestock species.
Abstract
Human health is a broad category that encompasses the entirety of the food production system. Livestock production practices have important effects on human health because livestock not only are a primary food source but also can be the source of pathogenic bacteria that may enter the food chain indirectly. As government regulation and public scrutiny restrict the prophylactic use of antibiotic and antimicrobial interventions, other techniques must be used to reduce the burden of animal‐borne pathogenic bacteria entering the food system. Prebiotics (isolated compounds that enhance natural microflora and thereby decrease pathogens) and probiotics (live microbes that are administered to livestock to enhance microbial diversity and crowd out pathogens) represent two unique opportunities for alternative measures in pathogen reduction. This review addresses the link between animal production and human health, the agricultural sources of pathogenic organisms, and the probiotic and prebiotic approaches that have been evaluated in an effort to reduce carriage of foodborne pathogenic bacteria by livestock.
Keywords
- food safety
- livestock
- prebiotic
- preharvest intervention
- probiotic
1. Introduction: why is farm‐based intervention of interest to human health?
This book is dedicated to the understanding and dissemination of knowledge surrounding prebiotic use in human health. Thus, it begs the following questions: When a reader finds this particular manuscript, what is the point? What is the objective of a farm‐based perspective when the focus is on human health? While these may be valid questions to the casual observer, a full understanding of potential pathogens and intervention in the subject of human health must by rights include a discussion of the foodstuff at its source. Like all mammals, livestock harbor a diverse collection of bacteria [1]. In fact, the gastrointestinal tract of these animals can harbor in excess of 2000 bacterial species at concentrations of 1010 cells/g of digesta [2]. While the majority of these organisms are beneficial to the host and part of the stable native microflora of the gut [3], certain instances or conditions allow pathogenic bacteria to colonize within the animal. Some of these bacteria can make their way from the gut or the hide during processing [4], introducing pathogens into the abattoir (slaughter plant) at harvest that must then be dealt with in final food products. As noted in Reference [1], a great number of these pathogenic bacteria in the realm of human health are also of interest in that of livestock animal health and can commonly be traced back to those very animals. Since these pathogens are a threat to the well‐being of both humans and livestock, one must then investigate intervention strategies by which the microbial burden may be reduced at the source so that these pathogenic organisms would never enter the human food chain.
Traditionally, farm‐level or feeder/finisher‐level control of pathogens has been achieved through prophylactic antibiotic and antimicrobial addition to feeds. The main source of prevention of pathogenic bacterial entry into the food system is through Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) plans at the abattoir [5]. It should be noted that HACCP control measures are only effective to a certain point (i.e., they are not perfect), but any reduction of pathogen shedding prior to entry into the abattoir will reduce the burden and assist in the efficacy of in‐plant HACCP‐based controls [6]. In fact, with the subtherapeutic antibiotic use ban in the European Union [7,8] and increased public scrutiny of antibiotic use in livestock in the United States [9], alternative preharvest control strategies must be devised and implemented, especially given the direct correlation between live animals shedding foodborne pathogenic bacteria, such as
So how then do preharvest interventions in animals work? Much of the efficacy of products that will be described in the present review can be loosely grouped under an umbrella concept known as a “competitive enhancement” approach to pathogen reduction [1,10–13]. The first facet is based upon the introduction of naturally-occurring microflora isolates from the gastrointestinal tract of an animal of the same species [1], occupying all available ecological niches in the gastrointestinal tract and thereby excluding pathogens [1,14]. When used in neonatal (or newly hatched) animals, this technique is known as “competitive exclusion” (CE), which reduces pathogen penetration of the naive and essentially sterile neonatal gastrointestinal tract [1,14]. Use of probiotics (also known in the animal industry as direct‐fed microbials [DFMs]) is a slightly different approach in which existing gastrointestinal microbial populations can be diversified or modified/attenuated by daily inclusion of a bacterial or fungal population or end‐product, and this may have an inhibitory effect on pathogenic bacteria, including foodborne pathogens [1,15]. A further competitive enhancement strategy is the addition of prebiotics, which are limiting nutrients or isolated compounds that are indigestible by the host but give specific innate microbes a competitive advantage that can have a deleterious effect on pathogenic bacteria, to the diet [1]. Furthermore, several of these approaches can be synergistically combined and are termed “synbiotics”; for example, a DFM dependent on the inclusion of prebiotics can be maintained in the gut and given a further competitive advantage to remain in the population to benefit host animal health and production or to improve food safety.
2. Pathogens: what are the sources?
As previously noted, the body , and especially the gut, of most food animals contains many microorganisms [2]. While the vast majority of these are beneficial (commensal) to the host, there are select species and serovars (e.g.,
2.1. Campylobacter
2.2. Enterohemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC)
Enterohemorrhagic
2.3. Salmonella
2.4. Others of interest
While
3. Probiotics/direct‐fed microbials (DFMs)
A list of probiotics that have been used in food animals to reduce pathogenic bacteria is presented in Table 1. Probiotics used in animals are known as DFMs and defined as live, biologically active microbes (bacterial or fungal), or dead cultures that include the end‐products of their fermentation, that are administered to an animal in hopes of enhancing the natural gastrointestinal ecosystem and occupying any niches in which pathogenic organisms may thrive [10,42]. Again, this concept is broadly categorized as competitive enhancement in which live, naturally occurring microbes are added to the host animal to enhance the innate population in the gut [10,15]. As noted in Reference [43], the concept of CE specifically originated with the application of mature broiler gastrointestinal contents for the reduction of
In addition to the benefits to livestock and human health in terms of a reduction in colonization and shedding of pathogenic microbes, probiotics have also found a niche in the livestock market because of their added benefit of enhanced production performance. Because there are currently no economic incentives to implement food safety interventions in live animals, interventions should be able to “pay for themselves” by improving animal growth or production efficiency. Many studies report the beneficial effects of DFMs on production efficiency in cattle [9,46,47], swine [48], and poultry. The supplementation of feedlot cattle with a combination of
Product | Species | Effective against | Reported results | Source |
---|---|---|---|---|
Broilers | 1 to 3 log reduction intracloacally Percentage reduction in the crop and ceca |
[17] [55] |
||
Swine | Increased litter survival, weaning weights and |
[50] | ||
BiofeedTM ( |
Swine | ‐ ‐ ‐ |
Reduced pathogen load and incidence of diarrhea | [1] |
BovamineTM ( and |
Beef cattle | Reduces populations of O157:H7 | [1] | |
Swine | Swine influenza A | Up to 4 log reduction in virus titers Enhancement in nitric oxide production |
[59] | |
Lactic acid bacteria | Cattle | Escherichia coli |
High efficacy in reduction by two isolates Moderate efficacy by 12 isolates |
[49] |
Cattle | 49% reduction in fecal shedding | [45] | ||
Cattle ( |
Reduction on agar spot plates, no antibiotic resistance, and survival in manure and rumen fluid | [46] | ||
LiveBacTM | Dairy cattle | Pathogenic protection agent | [1] | |
Cattle ( |
Effective inhibition on agar spots | [46] | ||
Spiromac‐CTM ( |
Cattle | ‐ ‐ ‐ |
Reduced disease incidence | [1] |
3.1. Cattle
In an evaluation of multiple potential candidates as probiotics for use in beef cattle, Brashears et al. [49] found several viable isolates from small and large intestinal and fecal samples
The dietary addition of the DFM
Brashears et al. [51] conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of studies in which DFMs were used in the suppression of verotoxin‐producing or Shiga toxin‐producing
In an effort to isolate and identify LAB for
3.2. Poultry
Competitive exclusion has its origins in poultry production. Following a severe
The efficacy of probiotics is impacted by the ability of bacteria or isolates to pass through the harsh conditions of the gastric stomach (or proventriculus) to make it to the lower intestine, where conditions are favorable for microbial growth. In an investigation of the administration of
3.3. Swine
While most research studies are directed toward establishing an innate microbial population in neonatal livestock, other work has shown positive results with administration of DFMs to mature animals.
The link between livestock production and human health exists not only in their direct relationship through the food chain but also in the coexistence of the species in close proximity to human housing. Puphan et al. [48] reported a reduction in fecal ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, both highly noxious gases, from swine that were supplemented orally with a combination of
4. Prebiotics
Prebiotic treatment involves the inclusion of non‐host‐digestible compounds (often oligosaccharides) in diets to provide a competitive advantage to a segment of the microbial population. Unfortunately, prebiotics have previously not been a common adjunct in livestock production settings, largely due to their cost and the narrow profit margins associated with agricultural production. The use of prebiotics is most often seen coupled with a complementary probiotic (often described as “synbiotics”), and recent research has demonstrated the benefits that may exist with the coordinated use of such a complementary intervention. A list of the prebiotics identified for pathogen reduction in the literature is presented in Table 2.
Product | Species | Effective against | Reported results | Source |
---|---|---|---|---|
AvigaurdTM (freeze‐dried extract from healthy poultry) |
poultry | ‐ ‐ ‐ |
[1] | |
Chitosan | broilers | 1 log reduction with 0.5% |
[16] | |
FOS | broilers | B cell reduction; increased IgM and IgG titers >Reduced population Reduced population |
[7] [8] |
|
Mannan-oligosaccharides (MOS) |
broilers | Reduced population Reduced population |
[8] | |
Tasco‐14/EX® (brown seaweed; |
cattle | 79% reduction in fecal O157:H7 Reduction in shedding |
[58] [53] |
As previously discussed,
Fructooligosaccharides (FOSs) and mannan‐oligosaccharides (MOSs) have been evaluated for oral administration in broiler chickens in hopes of reducing the colonization of
Essential oils and polyphenolics have also been tested in relation to the reduction of pathogen spread from livestock [61]. Noted essential oil components that have been tested include carvacrol (from savory), curcumin (from turmeric), eugenol (from allspice, betel pepper, and cloves), piperin (from black pepper), and thymol (from thyme) [35,62]. Fecal shedding of
Brown seaweed (
5. Conclusions
The gastrointestinal tracts of humans and animals are living ecosystems teeming with diversity, and harnessing that ecology is a vital step toward a full understanding and appreciation of both livestock and human health. As was stated in the beginning, an understanding of the human‐animal interface is crucial to the homogeny of food safety protocols and health concerns. While most prebiotic and probiotic innovations in livestock production have sought to increase performance characteristics for maximization of potential, these ventures have often led to the discovery of novel avenues in the improvement of food safety. These new approaches to health and safety come at a crucial time when governmental regulation and public scrutiny necessitate an alteration in current practices in animal health and management. It is through the use of novel and innovative techniques that we will enhance our knowledge of the ecosystem in which we live and will forge new paths in scientific discovery and healthy living.
References
- 1.
Callaway T.R., Edrington T.S., Anderson R.C., Harvey R.B., Genovese K.J., Kennedy C.N., et al. Probiotics, prebiotics and competitive exclusion for prophylaxis against bacterial disease. Animal Health Research and Reviews. 2008; 9 :217-225. - 2.
Hungate R.E. The Rumen and Its Microbes. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1966. 533 pp. - 3.
Lu J., Idris U., Harmon B., Hofacre C., Maurer J.J., Lee M.D. Diversity and succession of the intestinal bacterial community of the maturing broiler chicken. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2003; 69 :6816-6824. - 4.
Arthur T.M., Bosilevac J.M., Nou X., Shackelford S.D., Wheeler T.L., Koohmaraie M. Comparison of the molecular genotypes of Escherichia coli O157:H7 for the hides of beef cattle in different regions of North America. Journal of Food Protection. 2007;70 (7):1622-1626. - 5.
Elder R.O., Keen J.E., Siragusa G.R., Barkocy‐Gallagher G.A., Koohmarie M., Lagreid W.W. Correlation of enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157:H7 prevalence in feces, hides, and carcasses of beef cattle during processing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (USA). 2000;97 (7):2999-3003. - 6.
Sargeant J.M., Amezcua M.R., Rajic A., Waddell L. Pre‐harvest interventions to reduce the shedding of E. coli O157 in the faeces of weaned domestic ruminants: A systematic review. Zoonoses and Public Health. 2007;54 :260-277. - 7.
Janardhana V., Broadway M.M., Bruce M.P., Lowenthal J.W., Geier M.S., Hughes R.J., et al. Prebiotics modulate immune responses in the gut‐associated lymphoid tissue of chickens. Journal of Nutrition. 2009; 139 :1404-1409. - 8.
Kim G.‐B., Seo Y.M., Kim C.H., Paik I.K. Effect of dietary prebiotic supplementation on the performance, intestinal microflora, and immune response of broilers. Poultry Science. 2011; 90 :75-82. - 9.
Elam N.A., Gleghorn J.F., Rivera J.D., Galyean M.L., Defoor P.J., Brashears M.M., et al. Effects of live cultures of Lactobacillus acidophilus (strains NP45 and NP51) andPropionibacterium freudenreichii on performance, carcass, and intestinal characteristics, andEscherichia coli strain O157 shedding of finishing beef steers. Journal of Animal Science. 2003;81 :2686-2698. - 10.
Callaway T.R., Edrington T.S., Anderson R.C., Byrd J.A., Kogut M.H., Harvey R.B., et al. Using antimicrobial cultures, bacteriocins and bacteriophages to reduce carriage of foodborne pathogens in cattle and swine. In: LaCroix C., editor. Protective Cultures, Antimicrobial Metabolites and Bacteriophages for Food and Beverage Biopreservation. Oxford, UK: Woodhead Publishing; 2011. pp. 204-224. - 11.
Callaway T.R., Edrington T.S., Loneragan G.H., Carr M.A., Nisbet D.J. Current and near‐market intervention strategies for reducing Shiga‐toxin producing Escherichia coli (STEC) shedding in cattle. Agriculture, Food and Analytical Bacteriology. 2013;3 :103-120. - 12.
Callaway T.R., Anderson R.C., Edrington T.S., Genovese K.J., Harvey R.B., Poole T.L., et al. Novel methods for pathogen control in livestock preharvest: An update. In: Sofos J.N., editor. Advances in Microbial Food Safety. Oxford, UK: Woodhead Publishing; 2013. pp. 275-304. - 13.
Callaway, T.R., Edrington T.S., Nisbet D.J. Ecological and dietary impactors of foodborne pathogen prevalence and methods to reduce colonization in cattle. Journal of Animal Science. 2014; 92 :7308-7342. - 14.
Steer T., Carpenter H., Tuohy K., Gibson G.R. Perspective on the role of the human gut microbiota and its modulation by pro‐ and prebiotics. Nutrition Research Reviews. 2000; 13 (2):229-254. DOI: 10.1079/095442200108729089 - 15.
Collins D.M., Gibson G.R. Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics: Approaches for modulating the microbial ecology of the gut. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1999; 69 :1052S-1057S. - 16.
Arambel H.R., Donoghue A.M., Arsi K., Upadhyay A., Woo‐Ming A., Blore P.J., et al. Chitosan supplementation reduces enteric colonization of Campylobacter jejuni in broiler chickens and down‐regulates expression of colonization genes. Advances in Food Technology and Nutritional Sciences Open Journal. 2015;1 (5):104-111. - 17.
Arsi K., Donoghue A.M., Woo‐Ming A., Blore P.J., Donoghue D.J. Intercloacal inoculation, an effective screening method for determining the efficacy of probiotic bacterial isolates against Campylobacter colonization in broiler chickens. Journal of Food Protection. 2015;78 (1):209-213. DOI: 10.4315/0362‐028X.JFP‐14‐326 - 18.
Arsi K., Donoghue A.M., Woo‐Ming A., Blore P.J., Donoghue D.J. The efficacy of selected probiotic and prebiotic combinations in reducing Campylobacter colonization in broiler chickens. Journal of Applied Poultry Science. 2005;pfv032. DOI: 10.3382/japr/pfv032 - 19.
Doyle M.P., Erickson M.C. Reducing the carriage of foodborne pathogens in livestock and poultry. Poultry Science. 2006; 85 :960-973. - 20.
Kemp R., Leatherbarrow A.J.H., Williams N.J., Hart C.A., Clough H.E., Turner J., et al. Prevalence and genetic diversity of Campylobacter spp. in environmental water samples from a 100‐square‐kilometer predominately dairy farming area. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2005;71 (4):1876-1882. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.71.4.1876‐1882.2005 - 21.
Riley L.W., Remis R.S., Helgerson S.D., McGee H.B., Wells J.G., Davis B.R. Hemorrhagic colitis associated with a rare Escherichia coli serotype. The New England Journal of Medicine. 1983;308 (12):681-685. - 22.
Bell B.P., Goldoft M., Griffin P.M., Davis M.A., Gordon D.C., Tarr P.I., et al. A multistate outbreak of Escherichia coli O157:H7 — Associated bloody diarrhea and hemolytic uremic syndrome from hamburgers: The Washington experience. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1994;272(17):1349-1353. - 23.
Tuttle J., Gomez T., Doyle M.P., Wells J.G., Zhao T., Tauxe R.V., et al. Lessons from a large outbreak of Escherichia coli O157:H7 infections: Insights into the infectious dose and method of widespread contamination of hamburger patties. Epidemiology and Infection. 1999;122 :185-192. - 24.
LeJeune J.T., Besser T.E., Hancock D.D. Cattle water troughs as reservoirs of Escherichia coli O157. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2001;67 (7):3053-3057. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.67.7.3053‐3057.2001 - 25.
Nou, X., Rivera‐Betancourt M., Bosilevac J.M., Wheeler T.L., Shackelford S.D., Gwartney B.L., et al. Effect of chemical dehairing on the prevalence of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and the levels of aerobic bacteria and Enterobacteriaceae on carcasses in a commercial beef processing plant. Journal of Food Protection. 2003;66 (11):2005-2009. - 26.
FSIS. FSIS Policy on Non-intact Raw Beef Products Contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 [Internet]. January 1999 [Updated: 17 February 1999]. Available from: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Oa/background/O157policy.htm [Accessed: 28 April 2016] - 27.
USDA/FSIS. Shiga toxin‐producing Escherichia coli in certain raw beef products. In: FSIS, editor. Federal Register. 2012. - 28.
Genovese K.J., Anderson R.C., Harvey R.B., Callaway T.R., Poole D.H., Edrington T.S., et al. Competitive exclusion of Salmonella from the gut of neonatal and weaned pigs. Journal of Food Protection. 2003;66 (8):1353-1359. - 29.
Popoff M.Y., Bockemuhl J., Gheesling L.L. Supplement 2002 (no. 46) to the Kauffman‐White scheme. Research in Microbiology. 2004; 155 :568-570. - 30.
Olsen S.J., MacKinon L.C., Goulding J.S., Bean N.H., Slutsker L. Surveillance for foodborne disease outbreak — United States, 1993-1997. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2000; 49 (SS01):1-51. - 31.
Gould, L.H., Walsh K.A., Vieira A.R., Herman K., Williams I.T., Hall A.J., et al. Surveillance for foodborne disease outbreaks — United States, 1998-2008. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2013; 62 (SS02):1-34. - 32.
Antunes P., Reu C., Sousa J.C., Peixe L., Pestana N. Incidence of Salmonella from poultry products and their susceptibility to antimicrobial agents. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2003;82 (2):97-103. DOI: 10.1016/S0168‐1605(02)00251‐9 - 33.
CDC. Severe Clostridium difficile ‐associated disease in populations previously at low risk — Four states, 2005. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2005;54 (47):1201-1205. - 34.
Weese J.S., Avery B.P., Rousseau J., Reid‐Smith R. Detection and enumeration of Clostridium difficile spores in retail beef and pork. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2009;75 (15):5009-5011. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00480‐09 - 35.
Mitsch P., Zitterl‐Eglseer K., Kohler B., Gabler C., Losa R., Zimpernik I. The effect of two different blends of essential oil components on the proliferation of Clostridium perfringens in the intestines of broiler chickens. Poultry Science. 2004;8 3(4):669-675. DOI: 10.1093/pa/83.4.669 - 36.
CDC. Multistate outbreak of listeriosis linked to Blue Bell Creameries products (final update) [Internet]. [Updated: 10 June 2015]. Available from http://www.cdc.gov/listeria/outbreaks/ice‐cream‐03‐15/ [Accessed: 31 January 2016] - 37.
Farber J. M., Peterkin P.I. Listeria monocytogenes , a food‐borne pathogen. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Review. 1991;55 (3):476-511. - 38.
Skovgaard N., Morgen C.‐A. Detection of Listeria spp. in faeces from animals, in feeds, and in raw foods of animal origin. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 1988;6 (3):229-242. DOI: 10.1046/0168‐1605(88)90015‐3 - 39.
Deiters C., Gunnewig V., Friedrich A.W., Mellmann A., Kock R. Are cases of methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus clonal complex (CC) 398 among humans still livestock‐associated? International Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2015;305 :110-113. - 40.
Hasman H., Moodley A., Guardabassi L., Stegger M., Skov R.L., Aarestrup F.M. spa type distribution inStaphylococcus aureus originating from pigs, cattle and poultry. Veterinary Microbiology. 2010;141 (3-4):326-331. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2009.09.025 - 41.
Barkema H.W., Schukken Y.H., Zadoks R.N. Invited review: The role of cow, pathogen, and treatment regimen in the therapeutic success of bovine Staphylococcus aureus mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science. 2006;89 (6):1877-1895. DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022‐0302(06)72256‐1 - 42.
Fuller R. Probiotics in man and animals. Journal of Applied Bacteriology. 1989; 66 :365-378. - 43.
Bielke L.R., Elwood A.L., Donoghue A.M., Newberry L.A., Neighbor N.K., Hargis B.M. Approach for selection of individual enteric bacteria for competitive exclusion in turkey poults. Poultry Science. 2003; 82 :1378-1382. - 44.
Nurmi E., Rantala M. New aspects of Salmonella infection in broiler production. Nature. 1973;241 :210-211. - 45.
Baker A.A., Davis E., Rehberger T., Rosener D. Prevalence and diversity of toxigenic Clostridium perfringens andClostridium difficile among swine herds in the Midwest. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2010;76 :2961-2967. - 46.
Beauchemin K.A., Yang W.Z., Morgavi D.P., Ghorbani G.R., Kautz W., Leedle J.A.Z. Effects of bacterial direct‐fed microbials and yeast on site and extent of digestion, blood chemistry, and subclinical ruminal acidosis in feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science. 2003; 81 :1628-1640. - 47.
Lehloenya K.V., Stein D.R., Allen D.T., Selk G.E., Jones D.A., Aleman M.M., et al. Effects of feeding yeast and propionibacteria to dairy cows on milk yield and components, and reproduction. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition. 2007; 92 :190-202. DOI: 10.1111/j.1439‐0396.2007.00726.x - 48.
Cai L., Indrakumar S., Kiarie E., Kim I.H. Effects of a multi‐strain Bacillus species‐based direct‐fed microbial on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, blood profile, and gut health in nursery pigs fed corn‐soybean meal‐based diets. Journal of Animal Science. 2015;93 :4336-4342. DOI: 10.2527/jas2015‐9056 - 49.
Puphan K., Sornplang P., Uriyapongson S., Navanukraw C. Screening of lactic acid bacteria as potential probiotics in beef cattle. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition. 2015; 14 (8):474-479. - 50.
Brashears M.M., Galyean M.L., Loneragan G.H., Mann J.E., Killinger‐Mann K. Prevalence of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and performance by beef feedlot cattle givenLactobacillus direct‐fed microbials. Journal of Food Protection. 2003;66 :748-754. - 51.
Wisener L.V., Sargeant J.M., O'Connor A.M., Faires M.C., Glass‐Kaastra S.K. The use of direct‐fed microbials to reduce shedding of Escherichia coli O157 in beef cattle: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Zoonoses and Public Health. 2014;62 :75-89. DOI: 10.1111/zph.12112 - 52.
Brashears M.M., Jaroni D., Trimble J. Isolation, selection, and characterization of lactic acid bacteria for a competitive exclusion product to reduce shedding of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in cattle. Journal of Food Protection. 2003;66 (3):355-363. - 53.
Nurmi E., Nuotio L., Schneitz C. The competitive exclusion concept: Development and future. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 1992; 15 (3-4):237-240. DOI: 10.1016/0168‐1605(92)90054‐7 - 54.
Nava G.M., Bielke L.R., Callaway T.R., Castaneda M.P. Probiotic alternatives to reduce gastrointestinal infections: The poultry experience. Animal Health Research Reviews. 2005; 6 (1):105-118. DOI: 10.1079/AHR2005103 - 55.
Menconi A., Morgan M.J., Pumford N.R., Hargis B.M., Tellez G. Physiological properties and Salmonella growth inhibition of probioticBacillus strains isolated from environmental and poultry sources. International Journal of Bacteriology. 2013;958408:1-8. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/958408 - 56.
Hong H.A., Duc L.H., Cutting S.M. The use of bacterial spore formers as probiotics. FEMS Microbiology Review. 2005; 29 :813-835. - 57.
Baker A.A., Davis E., Spencer J.D., Moser R., Rehberger T. The effect of a Bacillus ‐based direct‐fed microbial supplemented to sows on the gastrointestinal microbiota of their neonatal piglets. Journal of Animal Science. 2013;91 :3390-3399. DOI: 10.2527/jas2012‐5821 - 58.
Anderson R.C., Stanker L.H., Young C.R., Buckley S.A., Genovese K.J., Harvey R.B., et al. Effect of competitive exclusion treatment on colonization of early‐weaned pigs by Salmonella serovar Choleraesuis. Swine Health and Production. 1999;7 (4):155-160. - 59.
Wang Z., Chai W., Burwinkel M., Twardziok S., Wrede P., Palissa C., et al. Inhibitory influence of Enterococcus faecium on the propagation of Swine Influenza A virusin vitro . PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e54043. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053043 - 60.
Davis M.E., Parrott T., Brown D.C., de Rodas B.Z., Johnson Z.B., Maxwell C.V., et al. Effect of a Bacillus ‐based direct‐fed microbial feed supplement on growth performance and pen cleaning characteristics of growing‐finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science. 2008;86 :1459-1467. DOI: 10.2527/jas.2007‐0603 - 61.
Crossland W.L., Callaway T.R., Tedeschi L.O. Shiga toxin‐producing E. coli and ruminant diets: A match made in heaven? In: Ricke S.C., Donaldson J.R., Phillips C.A, editors. Food safety: Emerging issues, technologies and systems. London, UK: Elsevier; 2015. pp. 185-213. - 62.
Cowan M.M. Plant products as antimicrobial agents. Clinical Microbiological Reviews. 1999; 12 (4):564-582. DOI: 0893‐8512/99/$04.00+0 - 63.
Berard N.C., Holley R.A., McAllister T.A., Ominski K.H., Wittenberg K.M., Bouchard K.S., et al. Potential to reduce Escherichia coli shedding in cattle feces by using sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia ) forage, tested in vitro and in vivo. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2009;75 (4):1074-1079. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00983‐08 - 64.
Tedeschi L.O., Callaway T.R., Muir J.P., Anderson R.C. Potential environmental benefits of feed additives and other strategies for ruminant production. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia. 2011; 40 :291-309. - 65.
Callaway T.R., Carroll J.A., Arthington J.D., Edrington T.S., Rossman M.L., Carr M.A., et al. Escherichia coli O157:H7 populations in ruminants can be reduced by orange peel product feeding. Journal of Food Protection. 2011;74 (11):1917-1921. - 66.
Callaway T.R., Carroll J.A., Arthington J.D., Edrington T.S., Anderson R.C., Rossman M.L., et al. Orange peel products can reduce Salmonella populations in ruminants. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. 2011;8 (10):1071-1075. - 67.
Anderson M.J., Blanton Jr. J.R., Gleghorn J., Kim S.W., Johnson J.W. Ascophyllum nodosum supplementation strategies that improve overall carcass merit of implanted English crossbred cattle. Asian‐Australasian Journal of Animal Science. 2006;19 (10):1514-1518. DOI: 10.5713/ajas.2006.1514 - 68.
Braden K.W., Blanton Jr. J.R., Allen V.G., Pond K.R., Miller M.F. Ascophyllum nodosum supplementation: A preharvest intervention for reducingEscherichia coli O157:H7 andSalmonella spp. in feedlot steers. Journal of Food Protection. 2004;67 (9):1824-1828.
Notes
- Proprietary brand names are necessary to report factually on available data; however, the USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of the product, and the use of the name by the USDA implies no approval of the product and/or exclusion of others that may be suitable.