Next Article in Journal
Copy Number Variation Regions Differing in Segregation Patterns Span Different Sets of Genes
Next Article in Special Issue
N-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids as a Nutritional Support of the Reproductive and Immune System of Cattle—A Review
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis of Genetic Diversity and Population Structure of Tarim and Junggar Bactrian Camels Based on Simplified GBS Genome Sequencing
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of Amount and Profile of Amino Acids Supply on Lactation Performance, Mammary Gland Metabolism, and Nitrogen Efficiency in Holstein Dairy Cows
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 13
Issue 14
10.3390/ani13142350
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Stability of Bacillus and Enterococcus faecium 669 Probiotic Strains When Added to Different Feed Matrices Used in Dairy Production

by
Bruno I. Cappellozza
*,
Audrey Segura
,
Nina Milora
,
Christel Galschioet
,
Mette Schjelde
and
Giuseppe Copani
*
Chr. Hansen Animal and Plant Health & Nutrition, Bøge Allé 10-12, 2970 Hørsholm, Denmark
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2023, 13(14), 2350; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13142350
Submission received: 31 May 2023 / Revised: 26 June 2023 / Accepted: 17 July 2023 / Published: 19 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Research Advances in Dairy Cow Nutrition)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Direct-fed microbials (DFM), or probiotics, are live bacteria that confer health benefits to dairy animals and to bring such benefits, the bacteria must survive the feed preparation process. Hence, our objective was to evaluate the stability of Bacillus spp. and Enterococcus faecium 669 when included in different feed matrices. Three Exp. evaluated the recovery of a Bacillus-based (BOVACILLUSTM) on pelleted feed, mineral premix, and milk replacer. Another three Exp. evaluated the recovery of a DFM containing E. faecium 669 (LACTIFERM®) following its inclusion in a mineral premix and milk replacer prepared under different conditions. Overall, the recoveries of both Bacillus spores and E. faecium were stable and not impacted by the temperature used during the pelleting process, inclusion into a mineral–vitamin premix over 12 months, as well as when included into different milk replacer preparations. Altogether, the results from the present Exp. demonstrate, for the first time, the stability of a Bacillus-based and E. faecium-based DFM when included in different feed matrices often fed to the dairy cattle herd. These data provide novel information to the dairy industry in how to evaluate one of the features of a DFM (stability), as different results may be seen depending on the strains used.

Abstract

Few data are available evaluating the stability of direct-fed microbials (DFM) following their inclusion in different feed matrices. Therefore, six Exp. evaluated the recovery of bacilli spores (BOVACILLUSTM; Exp. 1 to 3) and an Enterococcus faecium DFM (LACTIFERM®; Exp. 4 to 6) when included in different feed preparations. The Bacillus-based DFM was included into pelleted feed prepared in different temperatures (75 to 95 °C), whereas both DFM were assessed in premix and milk replacer preparations. Bacillus spores and E. faecium recovery was evaluated through standard methodologies and data were reported as log10 colony forming units/gram of feed. The recovery of Bacillus spores was within the expected range and was not impacted by the temperature of pellet preparation (Exp. 1). Bacilli recovery was also stable up to 12 months in the premix and was not impacted by the temperature of milk replacer preparation. Regarding the Exp. with E. faecium (Exp. 4 to 6), its recoveries in the mineral premix and milk powder did not differ from T0 and were not impacted by the conditions of milk replacer preparation. These data are novel and demonstrate the stability of a Bacillus-based and an E. faecium-based DFM when included in different feed matrices often used in dairy production.

1. Introduction

In recent years, direct-fed microbials (DFM) have been gaining more space into ruminant production settings, as these confer health benefits to the dairy animal [1,2,3,4], regardless of its age or category, while also improving nutrient utilization [5,6], overall performance of the herd [7,8], and the profitability of the dairy operations. Moreover, DFMs have been recognized as a potential alternative to antibiotic feeding in livestock production. Direct-fed microbials are often split into bacteria- or live yeast-based microorganisms and among the bacterial strains commonly used as DFMs for cattle, special consideration has been given to Lactobacillus spp., Propionibacterium freudenreichii, Enterococcus faecium, Bifidobacterium spp., and Bacillus spp. However, it is important to highlight that not all the aforementioned bacterial strains are able to survive and thrive in the same environments, which include different feed types, moisture, and high temperatures during feed preparation. Therefore, if the strains used in a commercial DFM are not able to survive the process of feed preparation, the health benefits expected may not be achieved and the success of the DFM might be questioned. Nonetheless, to date and to the best of our knowledge, no studies have evaluated the stability of lactic acid-producing bacteria, such as E. faecium, when added to different feed matrices often included in dairy production systems (i.e., milk replacer and mineral–vitamin premix).
On the other hand, Bacillus spp. are spore-forming bacteria that can survive the most challenging conditions, such as extreme temperatures, presence/absence of oxygen, wide pH ranges, the presence of radiation and toxic compounds, presence of other feed molecules and/or additives, as well as nutrient depletion in the environment [9,10,11], as bacterial spores maintain their viability, but do not have metabolic activity. This last statement is important and key, as it shows that the Bacillus spp. are not being lost during the feed manufacturing process [10,11], becoming active only when consumed by the animal (calf, developing heifer, or cow). However, limited information is available regarding the stability and recovery of Bacillus spores following its mixture in different feed matrices often included in dairy production settings that employ different conditions during its preparation, such as temperature, salinity, and moisture.
Based on this rationale, we hypothesized that the recovery of E. faecium 669 and Bacillus spores following different feed preparations (pelletization, mineral–vitamin premix, and milk replacer) would be comparable and stable after inclusion in the different feed matrices. Hence, our objective was to evaluate the recovery of Bacillus spores following its mixture in pellets prepared under different temperatures (75 to 95 °C; Experiment 1), mineral–vitamin premix (Experiment 2), and milk replacer (Experiment 3), but also of E. faecium 669 following its inclusion into a mineral–vitamin premix (Experiment 4), as well as a milk replacer powder (Experiment 5) or milk replacer preparation (Experiment 6).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experiments

2.1.1. Exp. 1—Pellet Trial with Bacillus spp.

This experiment was conducted to evaluate the recovery of Bacillus spp. when included in pelleted feeds prepared under different temperatures (75, 85, and 95 °C). A supplement containing (as-fed) 29.0% wheat, 20.0% barley, 15.0% corn, 10.0% beet pulp, 10.0% rapeseed cake, 9.5% high-protein soybean, 3.8% soybean oil, 1.0% limestone, and 1.7% mineral–vitamin premix was prepared.
The Bacillus-based DFM contained a mixture of B. licheniformis and B. subtilis (BOVACILLUSTM; Chr. Hansen A/S, Hørsholm, Denmark) was added into the above supplement to simulate a dosage of 3 g/head per day (representative of 9.6 × 109 colony forming units (CFU)/head per day) in a dairy cow consuming 20 kg of dry matter (DM) per day. Based on these calculations, the expected recovery of the Bacillus spores was 3.8 × 105 CFU/gram of pellet, regardless of the temperature used during the pellet manufacturing.
In the pellet production facility, a mill and mixer were used for producing meal mixtures and are part of a semi-industrial feed plant with a nominal pelleting capacity of 5 ton/h. The mill is a Champion hammer mill equipped with a 37 kW motor and a 340° screen with an area of 0.43 m2. The tip speed of the hammer is 11 m/s, whereas the mill is equipped with 3.0 mm diameter holes. From the hammer mill, the ground raw material was pneumatically led to a 2500 L horizontal mixer. The diameter of the mixing rotor was 1000 mm and the speed of 27 rpm. The milled raw material was forcibly mixed for 10 min. Then, from the horizontal mixer, the finished meal mixture was carried via a bucket elevator to a container from which the meal material is used for pelleting trials in a small-scale milling plant, which comprised of a horizontal mixer, dosing screw, cascade mixer, a high-pressure boiler that provided the steam for 30 s, and a digital thermometer to measure the reached temperature of 75, 85, and 95 °C. The pellet press could hold 300 kg/h, whereas the batches produced for this Exp. were of 230 kg. Following the pellet press, samples were cooled at room temperature for 9–11 min prior to sampling.
For each temperature, samples were taken from the horizontal mixer and post-pelleted by manually sampling at least 10 different locations in the mixer or pellet storage bucket to ensure an adequate composited sample. Moreover, samples were analyzed in triplicates before and after the pellet preparation and reported as log10 CFU/gram of pellet. As aforementioned, 3.8 × 105 CFU of Bacillus spores/gram of pellet was the expected recovery value based on the pre-pellet sample counts.

2.1.2. Exp. 2—Mineral–Vitamin Premix Trial with Bacillus spp.

This experiment was conducted to evaluate the recovery of Bacillus spp. over a 12-month period when included in a commercial mineral–vitamin premix. The commercial mineral–vitamin premix (Vilomix, Mørke, Denmark) contained 88.0% DM, 16.5% calcium, 4.0% phosphorus, 9.0% sodium, 5.0% magnesium, 1.7% sulfur, 900,000 IU/kg of vitamin A, 90,000 IU/kg of vitamin D3, 4000 IU/kg of vitamin E, 1000 ppm of copper, 4000 ppm of manganese, 5000 ppm of zinc, 225 ppm of iodine, 50 ppm of selenium, and 25 ppm of cobalt.
The Bacillus-based DFM used herein was the same as reported in Exp. 1 (BOVACILLUSTM; Chr. Hansen A/S), which was included in the mineral–vitamin premix to simulate a dosage of 2 g/head per day (representative of 6.4 × 109 CFU/head per day). Based on these calculations, the expected recovery of the Bacillus spores was 3.95 × 107 CFU/gram of premix. The Exp. was conducted twice and samples were analyzed in duplicates immediately following the inclusion of the DFM (T0) and after 1 (T1), 3 (T3), 6 (T6), and 12 (T12) months at 25 °C post-DFM inclusion into the mineral–vitamin premix. The results were reported as log10 CFU/gram of premix.

2.1.3. Exp. 3—Milk Replacer Trial with Bacillus spp.

This experiment was conducted to evaluate the recovery of Bacillus spp. over a 60 min period when mixed during the preparation of a milk replacer under different temperatures.
For this Exp., the milk replacer was dissolved in water at two different temperatures (37 or 50 °C) and then the Bacillus-based DFM (BOVACILLUSTM; Chr. Hansen A/S) was included at a rate 1.0 × 106 CFU/mL of the milk replacer. Following this step, the milk replacer was incubated for 60 min at room temperature (25 °C). The Exp. Was conducted twice and samples were analyzed in duplicates immediately following the inclusion of the DFM (time 0) and then at 30 and 60 min post-DFM inclusion into the milk replacer and the results were reported as log10 CFU/gram of the milk replacer.

2.1.4. Exp. 4—Mineral–Vitamin Premix Trial with E. faecium 669

The same commercial mineral–vitamin premix used in Exp. 2 was also evaluated here (Vilomix, Mørke, Denmark), but in a different timing and batch. The E. faecium 669 DFM used herein (LACTIFERM®; Chr. Hansen A/S) has been approved for the feeding of calves and veal calves up to 6 months of age in the EU [12]. The DFM was added to the premix at a dosage to be representative of 3.0 × 109 CFU of E. faecium 669/head per day. Based on these calculations, the expected recovery of the E. faecium 669 was 4.2 × 107 CFU/gram of premix.
The Exp. was conducted twice, samples were stored in plastic bags and analyzed in duplicates immediately following the inclusion of the DFM (T0) and after 1 (T1), 3 (T3), 6 (T6), and 12 (T12) months at 25 °C post-DFM inclusion into the mineral–vitamin premix. The results were reported as log10 CFU/gram of the premix.

2.1.5. Exp. 5—Milk Powder Trial with E. faecium 669

This experiment was conducted to evaluate the recovery of E. faecium 669 over a 60 min period when mixed in milk powder under different temperatures of preparation and storage. For this Exp., the milk powder contained (per 100 g) 509 kcal of energy, 27 g of fat, 56 g of carbohydrate, and 10 g of protein. The milk powder was dissolved in water that was heated to 37 °C (condition 1) or 50 °C (conditions 2 and 3) and then E. faecium 669 was added at 2.50 × 106 CFU/g of the milk powder. Following this step, the preparation containing the milk powder and E. faecium 669 was stored for up to 60 min at 37 °C (condition 1), kept at 50°C (condition 2), or kept at 25 °C (room temperature; condition 3). The Exp. was conducted twice and samples were analyzed in duplicates immediately following the inclusion of the DFM (time 0) and then at 15, 30, 45, and 60 min post-DFM inclusion into the preparation, and the results were reported as log10 CFU/gram of the milk replacer.

2.1.6. Exp. 6—Milk Replacer Trial with E. faecium 669

This experiment was conducted to evaluate the recovery of E. faecium 669 in a commercial milk replacer (Vilomilk-50, Mørke, Denmark) containing 50.0% skimmed milk powder, 20.0% whey powder, 18.0% vegetable fat, 4.0% wheat gluten, 3.0% aromas, 2.5% wheat starch, 1.0% wheat flour, 1.0% minerals, and 0.5% vitamins. The composition of the milk replacer was 22.0% crude protein, 18.0% fat, 6.9% ash, 0.98% calcium, 0.70% phosphorus, and 0.37% sodium.
The DFM was included in the milk replacer at a dosage to be representative of 2.5 × 109 CFU/head per day. Based on these calculations, the expected recovery of E. faecium 669 was 8.65 × 106 CFU/gram of the premix. The Exp. was conducted twice and samples were analyzed in duplicates immediately following the inclusion of the DFM (T0) and after 1 (T1), 3 (T3), 6 (T6), and 12 (T12) months at 25 °C post-DFM inclusion into the milk replacer. The results were reported as log10 CFU/gram of the milk replacer.

2.2. Counts Methodologies

2.2.1. Bacillus Spore

Following the preparation of the feed matrices, the recovery of Bacillus licheniformis and Bacillus subtilis was performed according to the methodology based on EN-15784:2021 [13]. Briefly, the present method is a quantitative one, where the result was reported as CFU/g and then converted into log10 CFU/g. A known amount of sample was homogenized by stomaching with 0.2% sodium hydroxide (for Exp. 1) and Pepsal (for Exp. 2 and 3). Samples were heated at 80 °C for 10 min, cooled, and then serially diluted in the diluent. Appropriate dilutions were then spread on the surface of tryptone soy agar (TSA) plates. Lastly, after aerobic incubation for 16–24 h at 37 °C, colonies were counted.

2.2.2. Enterococcus faecium 669

Following the preparation of the feed matrices, the recovery of E. faecium was performed according to the methodology based on EN-15788:2021 [14]. Briefly, the present method is a quantitative one, where the result was reported as CFU/g and then converted into log10 CFU/g. A known amount of E. faecium 669 sample was homogenized by stomaching with a diluent. Samples were heated at 80 °C for 10 min, cooled, and then serially diluted in the diluent. Appropriate dilutions were then spread on the surface of bile aesculin-azide (BAA) plates. Lastly, after aerobic incubation for 24 h at 37 °C, colonies were counted.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

In the present manuscript, data from all Exp. were analyzed with the SAS statistical software (version 9.4; SAS Inc., Cary, NC, USA) and, specifically, the MIXED procedure of SAS. For Exp. 1, samples were analyzed in triplicates, and temperature was considered a fixed effect. For Exp. 2, 4, and 6, results from T1 through T12 were compared against T0 to evaluate potential deviations in the counts of Bacillus spores (Exp. 2) or E. faecium 669 (Exp. 4 and 6) from the initial counts (T0). Lastly, in Exp. 3 and 5, the temperature or conditions used for the preparation (37 or 50 °C), storage of the milk replacer (25, 37, or 50 °C), and the hour were used to compare any differences against the data obtained on T0, if any. Additionally, a condition × hour interaction was also analyzed in Exp. 6.
Regardless of the Exp., all data were reported as least square means and significance was set at p ≤ 0.05, and tendencies were denoted if 0.05 < p ≤ 0.10.

3. Results

3.1. Exp. 1

Following the pellet manufacturing, the recovery of Bacillus spores was not impacted by the temperature used during pellet preparation (p = 0.25; Table 1). An additional analysis was performed to evaluate the deviation from the expected Bacillus spore counts and no differences were observed herein (p = 0.21; 100.1, 100.3, and 101.1% for 75 °C, 85 °C, and 95 °C, respectively; SEM = 5.5).

3.2. Exp. 2

No differences were observed when the data post-DFM inclusion in the premix were compared to T0 (p ≥ 0.17; Table 2). Moreover, when comparisons were performed among the other time points (T1 through T12), no differences were observed (p ≥ 0.06).

3.3. Exp. 3

Following the preparation of the milk replacer, no differences in Bacillus spore recovery were observed due to the temperature used for the dilution of the milk replacer (p = 0.62) or the time post-milk replacer preparation and Bacillus spp. inclusion (p = 0.68; Table 3).

3.4. Exp. 4

Following the inclusion of E. faecium 669 in the commercial mineral–vitamin premix, no differences were observed in its recovery due to the storage time (p = 0.25; Table 4).

3.5. Exp. 5

When the data post-DFM inclusion in the different conditions of milk powder preparation and storage were analyzed, no differences were observed regarding the mean recovery (log10 CFU; p = 0.17; Table 5) or the condition × hour interaction (p = 0.36). Moreover, Figure 1A–C report the counts of E. faecium 669 in the different conditions evaluated herein.

3.6. Exp. 6

Following the preparation of the milk replacer, no differences in E. faecium 669 recovery were observed (p = 0.22; Table 6).

4. Discussion

Direct-fed microbials, also known as probiotics, are beneficial bacteria that support the health of the host, modulating the microbiome of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT), inhibiting the damaging effects of potentially harmful bacteria [3,4,15,16], and supporting the immune reactions of the host [17]. However, in order to provide such benefits on health and ultimately on the performance of livestock animals, the bacterial strains used in commercially available DFM products must survive and drive the processes of feed preparation, which may include but are not limited to, low and high temperatures, presence of macro and trace minerals and high moisture, as well as long-term storage. Besides surviving the feed preparations, bacterial strains must also maintain their viability during the transit through the GIT of the ruminant animals, meaning that it will encounter changes in the type, quantity, and availability of substrates/nutrients, different pH values, competition from other bacteria (commensal or not) for nutrients and space, presence of bile salts, oxygen, and so on [18]. It is also noteworthy that it was not the goal of the present experiment to compare the recovery of different strains when included in the same feed matrix, so isolated and single analyses were performed across the different Exp. conducted here.
Most of the bacterial strains, such as lactic acid-producing bacteria (LAPB), require an additional coating/protective process to maintain their viability before their introduction into different supplements [19,20,21]. However, it is important to note that most of the studies performed with these bacteria have been performed under the conditions for human foods, which may not be representative of ruminant, and more specifically, dairy production settings. Hence, we evaluated the stability and recovery of E. faecium (LACTIFERM®), a well-known and heavily used bacterial strain for livestock [22] when mixed using different feed matrices and different conditions. Based on the results reported herein, E. faecium 669 was stable over time (Exp. 4 and 6) even when exposed to different temperature conditions during milk replacer preparation and storage (Exp. 5), ensuring the benefits often observed in previous in vivo Exp. from our research group [8,23]. Experiments such as those reported here provide the foundation of understanding the features of different bacterial strains included in commercial products, demonstrating its stability and guidance of utilization in commercial settings. For example, the fact that E. faecium 669 was stable over a long period of time following milk replacer preparation under different conditions is important and noteworthy, as it has been approved for use in pre-weaning and veal calves in the European Union [13].
Conversely to LAPB, other bacterial strains, such as Bacillus spp., present a natural resistance to several of the challenging factors, given its spore-forming feature [10,24]. More specifically, the spore-forming ability of Bacillus spp. ensures its full viability following long-term storage [24]. Moreover, bacilli spores can survive the challenging, low pH of the abomasum, reaching the small intestine at full viability to exert its beneficial effects on the host [25]. Given all these features and its enzyme-producing ability [26], Bacillus spp. have been used as DFM for livestock species, supporting the health and improving nutrient utilization [6,27] and performance of ruminants, including beef animals [7,28], dairy calves [29,30,31], and dairy cows [32,33,34]. However, to the best of our knowledge, minimal data from previous research have been published evaluating the stability and recovery of Bacillus spores in different feed matrices often used in dairy production systems, such as pelleted feed, mineral–vitamin premix, and a milk replacer. Therefore, these Exp. evaluated the recovery of spores included into a Bacillus-based DFM (BOVACILLUSTM) containing a mixture of B. licheniformis and B. subtilis when included in a pelleted feed (high-temperature; Exp. 1), commercial mineral–vitamin premix (presence of macro and trace minerals; Exp. 2), and a commercial milk replacer (high-temperature and moisture; Exp. 3).
Bacilli endospores are known to be highly resistant to physicochemical stress during feed production and storage, such as high pellet temperature, pressure, and shear forces [24]. Previous research has demonstrated that Bacillus spores are resistant to a pelleting temperature of up to 90 °C with over 90% of spores remaining viable in feed samples from poultry [35]. In Exp. 1, using temperatures that ranged from 75 to 95 °C yielded the projected recovery of Bacillus spores in pelleted feed for dairy cows. These data support the thermostability of Bacillus spores, adding an important feature to these strains to be used as a reliable source of DFM for ruminants.
In Exp. 2., timepoints were taken over a 12-month period to assess the recovery of Bacillus spores in a commercial mineral–vitamin premix when maintained in a room temperature environment (25 °C). Over time, no differences were observed among T1–T12 vs. T0, demonstrating the viability and resilience of this commercial DFM (BOVACILLUSTM) when added to a commercial mineral–vitamin premix containing different macro and trace minerals. Lastly, in Exp. 3, the recovery of Bacillus spores was assessed up to 60 min post-DFM (BOVACILLUSTM) mixture and milk replacer preparation under two different temperatures (37 and 50 °C) often used in the industry and previously reported by others [36]. The recovery of the Bacillus spores was not impacted by the temperature of milk replacer preparation nor by the time points assessed herein, demonstrating, once again, its stability in an important feed matrix to the dairy industry.
Nonetheless and lastly, it is important for the personnel involved in the dairy production chain (industry, farmers, nutritionists, and veterinarians) to recognize the differences among the genera, species, and strains of bacteria being used in different research efforts, as differences in these features impact the observed results, or lack of such. For other feed additives, such as yeast, ionophores, and non-ionophores, the differences between strains have been demonstrated, impacting the overall performance of ruminants [37,38,39].

5. Conclusions

In summary, our data demonstrate the stability of two different probiotic strains and products (Bacillus-based containing Bacillus licheniformis and B. subtilis (BOVACILLUSTM) and an Enterococcus faecium 669 (LACTIIFERM®)) when included in feed supplements prepared under different conditions. In fact, Bacillus spore recovery was stable in pelleted feed prepared using temperatures up to 95 °C, in a commercial mineral–vitamin premix containing different macro and trace minerals up to 12 months post-DFM inclusion, and in a milk replacer that was prepared under two different temperatures (37 and 50 °C). Lastly, E. faecium recovery was also stable when included in a commercial mineral–vitamin premix, commercial milk replacer, and when included into a mixture of milk powder under different conditions and storage. These data provide novel information that could help and improve the understanding of bacterial strains used as DFMs in dairy production.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.S. and G.C.; methodology, A.S., N.M., C.G., M.S. and G.C.; software, B.I.C.; validation, B.I.C., A.S. and G.C.; formal analysis, B.I.C. and G.C.; investigation, A.S., N.M., C.G., M.S. and G.C.; resources, G.C.; data curation, A.S. and B.I.C.; writing—original draft preparation, B.I.C. and G.C.; writing—review and editing, B.I.C., A.S. and G.C.; visualization, G.C.; supervision, A.S. and G.C.; project administration, A.S. and G.C.; funding acquisition, G.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization. Probiotics in Food: Health and Nutritional Properties of Probiotics in Food Including Powder Milk with Live Lactic acid Bacteria. 2001. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/a0512e/a0512e.pdf (accessed on 4 April 2023).
  2. Markowiak, P.; Śliżewska, K. The role of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics in animal nutrition. Gut Pathog. 2018, 10, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Cull, C.; Singu, V.K.; Cull, B.J.; Lechtenberg, K.F.; Amachawadi, R.G.; Schutz, J.S.; Bryan, K.A. Efficacy of Lactobacillus animalis and Propionibacterium freudenreichii-based feed additives in reducing Salmonella-associated health and performance effects in commercial beef calves. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 1328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Cull, C.; Singu, V.K.; Cull, B.J.; Lechtenberg, K.F.; Amachawadi, R.G.; Schutz, J.S.; Bryan, K.A. Efficacy of two probiotic products fed daily to reduce Clostridium perfringens-based adverse health and performance effects in dairy calves. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 1513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. McAllister, T.A.; Beauchemin, K.A.; Alazzeh, A.Y.; Baah, J.; Teather, R.M.; Stanford, K. Review: The use of direct fed microbials to mitigate pathogens and enhance production in cattle. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2011, 91, 193–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Pan, L.; Harper, K.; Queiroz, O.; Copani, G.; Cappellozza, B.I. Effects of a Bacillus-based direct-fed microbial on in vitro nutrient digestibility of forage and high-starch concentrate substrates. Transl. Anim. Sci. 2022, 6, txac067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dias, B.G.C.; Santos, F.A.P.; Meschiatti, M.; Brixner, B.M.; Almeida, A.A.; Queiroz, O.; Cappellozza, B.I. Effects of feeding different probiotic types on metabolic, performance, and carcass responses of Bos indicus feedlot cattle offered a high-concentrate diet. J. Anim. Sci. 2022, 100, skac289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cappellozza, B.I.; Copani, G.; Boll, E.J.; Queiroz, O. Supplementation of the direct-fed microbial Enterococcus faecium 669 impacts performance of pre-weaning dairy calves. JDS Commun. 2023, 4, 284–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hong, H.A.; Le, H.D.; Cutting, S.M. The use of bacterial spore formers as probiotics. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2005, 29, 813–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Bernardeau, M.; Lehtinen, M.J.; Forssten, S.D.; Nurminen, P. Importance of the gastrointestinal life cycle of Bacillus for probiotic functionality. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 54, 2570–2584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Luise, D.; Bosi, P.; Raff, L.; Amatucci, L.; Virdis, S.; Trevisi, P. Bacillus spp. probiotic strains as a potential tool for limiting the use of antibiotics and improving the growth and health of pigs and chickens. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 801827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. EFSA. Scientific opinion on Lactiferm® (Enterococcus faecium) as a feed additive for weaned piglets and calves. EFSA J. 2012, 10, 2574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. CSN EN-15784; Animal Feeding Stuffs: Methods of Sampling and Analysis—Detection and Enumeration of Bacillus spp. Used as Feed Additive. European Standards s.r.o.: Pilsen, Czech Republic, 2021.
  14. CSN EN-15788; Animal Feeding Stuffs: Methods of Sampling and Analysis—Detection and Enumeration of Enterococcus (E. faecium) spp. Used as Feed Additive. European Standards s.r.o.: Pilsen, Czech Republic, 2021.
  15. Copani, G.C.; Queiroz, O.C.M.; Boll, E.J. Lactobacillus animalis LA51 and Bacillus sp. probiotics confer protection from the damaging effects of pathogenic Clostridium perfringens and Escherichia coli on the intestinal barrier. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103 (Suppl. S1), 103. [Google Scholar]
  16. Guimarães, O.; Cappellozza, B.I.; Capern, L.C.; Schutz, J.; Cull, C.A.; Queiroz, O.; Copani, G. A novel direct-fed microbial mixture for beef cattle has a supportive effect against Clostridium perfringens in vitro and in vivo. Ruminants 2023. submitted. [Google Scholar]
  17. La Fata, G.; Weber, P.; Mohajeri, M. Probiotics and the gut immune system: Indirect regulation. Probiotics Antimicro. Proteins 2018, 10, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. NASEM. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle Model, 8th ed.; National Academic Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  19. Fritzen-Freire, C.B.; Prudêncio, E.S.; Amboni, R.D.M.C.; Pinto, S.S.; Negrão-Murakami, A.N.; Murakami, F.S. Microencapsulation of bifidobacteria by spray drying in the presence of prebiotics. Food Res. Int. 2012, 45, 306–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mathews, S. Microencapsulation of probiotics by calcium alginate and gelatin and evaluation of its survival in simulated human gastro-intestinal condition. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 2017, 6, 2080–2087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Singh, M.; Sharma, D.; Chauhan, R.; Goel, G. Skimmed milk-based encapsulation for enhanced stability and viability of Lactobacillus gastricus BTM 7 under simulated gastrointestinal conditions. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2019, 11, 850–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Shridhar, P.B.; Amachawadi, R.G.; Tokach, M.; Patel, I.; Gangiredla, J.; Mammnel, M.; Nagaraja, T.G. Whole genome sequence analyses-based assessment of virulence potential and antimicrobial susceptibilities and resistance of Enterococcus faecium strains isolated from commercial swine and cattle probiotic products. J. Anim. Sci. 2022, 100, skac030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Biricik, H.; Brav, F.C.; Çetin, E.; Aydin, L.; Fantinati, P.; Cappellozza, B.I. Effects of supplementing a direct-fed microbial containing Enterococcus faecium 669 on performance, health, and metabolic responses of pre-weaning Holstein dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 2023; in press. [Google Scholar]
  24. Mingmongkolchai, S.; Panbangred, W. Bacillus probiotics: An alternative to antibiotics for livestock production. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2018, 124, 1334–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Cutting, S.M. Bacillus probiotics. Food Microbiol. 2011, 28, 214–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Schallmey, M.; Sigh, A.; Ward, O.P. Developments in the use of Bacillus species for industrial production. Can. J. Microbiol. 2004, 50, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Cappellozza, B.I.; Joergensen, J.N.; Copani, G.; Bryan, K.A.; Fantinati, P.; Bodin, J.-C.; Malek Khahi, M.; NinoDeGuzman, C.; Arriola, K.G.; Lima, L.O.; et al. Evaluation of a Bacillus-based direct-fed microbial probiotic on in vitro rumen gas production and nutrient digestibility of different feedstuffs and total mixed rations. Transl. Anim. Sci. 2023, 7, txad044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Colombo, E.A.; Cooke, R.F.; Brandão, A.P.; Wiegand, J.B.; Schubach, K.M.; Sowers, C.A.; Duff, G.C.; Block, E.; Gouvêa, V. Performance, health, and physiological responses of newly received feedlot cattle supplemented with pre- and probiotic ingredients. Animal 2021, 15, 100214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Kowalski, Z.M.; Górka, P.; Schlagheck, A.; Jagusiak, W.; Micek, P.; Strzetelski, J. Performance of Holstein calves fed milk-replacer and starter mixture supplemented with probiotic feed additive. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 2009, 18, 399–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sun, P.; Wang, J.Q.; Zhang, H.T. Effects of supplementation of Bacillus subtilis natto Na and N1 strains on rumen development in dairy calves. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2011, 164, 154–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lucey, P.M.; Lean, I.J.; Aly, S.S.; Golder, H.M.; Block, E.; Thompson, J.S.; Rossow, H.A. Effects of mannan-oligosaccharide and Bacillus subtilis supplementation to preweaning Holstein dairy heifers on body weight gain, diarrhea, and shedding of fecal pathogens. J. Dairy Sci. 2021, 104, 4290–4302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sun, P.; Wang, J.Q.; Deng, L.F. Effects of Bacillus subtilis natto on milk production, rumen fermentation and ruminal microbiome of dairy cows. Animal 2013, 7, 216–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Souza, V.L.; Lopes, N.M.; Zacaroni, O.F.; Silveira, V.A.; Pereira, R.A.N.; Freitas, J.A.; Almeida, R.; Salvati, G.G.S.; Pereira, M.N. Lactation performance and diet digestibility of dairy cows in response to the supplementation of Bacillus subtilis spores. Livest. Sci. 2017, 200, 35–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Oyebade, A.; Lee, S.; Arriola, K.; Sultana, H.; Duvalsaint, E.; Amaro, F.; Marenchino, I.F.; Nino De Guzman, C.; Pacheco, L.M.; Mu, L.; et al. Effects of probiotics supplementation on production performance of early-lactation dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2021, 104 (Suppl. S1), 99. [Google Scholar]
  35. Amerah, A.; Quiles, A.; Medel, P.; Sanchez, J.; Lehtinen, M.; Gracia, M. Effect of pelleting temperature and probiotic supplementation on growth performance and immune function of broilers fed maize/soy-based diets. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2013, 180, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Welboren, A.C.; Van Baal, J.; Ghaffari, M.H.; Sauerwein, H.; Renaud, J.B.; Martín-Tereso, J.; Steele, M.A.; Leal, L.N. Gastrointestinal permeability and inflammatory status of preweaning dairy calves in response to decreasing the ratio of n-6 to n-3 fatty acid in milk replacer. J. Dairy Sci. 2023, 106, 22568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Cobos, M.A.; Valencia, L.H.; Pinos-Rodríguez, J.M.; González-Muñoz, S.S.; Ramírez, J.; Hernández, D. Influence of yeast products in rumen microorganisms, in vitro degradation and fermentation of a diet for steers. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2010, 37, 129–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Teixeira, D.A.A.; Cappellozza, B.I.; Fernandes, J.R.; Nascimento, K.S.; Bonfim, L.E.L.M.; Lopes, C.N.; Ehrhardt, J.A.C.; Peres, J.R.; Harris, S.A.; Simas, J.M.C.; et al. Effects of monensin on in vitro rumen fermentation characteristics and performance of Bos indicus beef bulls offered a high-concentrate diet. Transl. Anim. Sci. 2020, 4, 84–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Sitta, C. Additives (Ionophore and No Ionophore), Corn Grain Processing and Level of Neutral Detergent Fiber from Corn Silage on Finishing Cattle Diets. Ph.D. Thesis, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil, 2016; p. 121. [Google Scholar]
Animals 13 02350 g001 550
Figure 1. Recovery (mean ± SEM) of E. faecium 669 following its mixture with the milk powder under conditions 1 (A), 2 (B), and 3 (C). Within each condition, no overall mean differences were observed on counts (p > 0.10) or versus T0 (p > 0.12).
Figure 1. Recovery (mean ± SEM) of E. faecium 669 following its mixture with the milk powder under conditions 1 (A), 2 (B), and 3 (C). Within each condition, no overall mean differences were observed on counts (p > 0.10) or versus T0 (p > 0.12).
Animals 13 02350 g001
Table
Table 1. Recovery (mean ± SEM) of Bacillus spores following pellet manufacturing under three different temperatures (75, 85, and 95 °C). No temperature effect was observed in the observed recovery of Bacillus spp. (p = 0.25) 1,2.
Table 1. Recovery (mean ± SEM) of Bacillus spores following pellet manufacturing under three different temperatures (75, 85, and 95 °C). No temperature effect was observed in the observed recovery of Bacillus spp. (p = 0.25) 1,2.
Temperature, °CExpected, log10 CFU/gram of PelletObserved, log10 CFU/gram of Pellet
755.585.58 ± 0.025
855.585.58 ± 0.025
955.585.64 ± 0.025
1 Samples were analyzed in triplicates; 2 Bacillus-based direct-fed microbials (DFM) consisted of a mixture of B. licheniformis and B. subtilis (BOVACILLUSTM; Chr. Hansen A/S, Hørsholm, Denmark).
Table
Table 2. Recovery (mean ± SEM) of Bacillus spores following its inclusion in the mineral–vitamin premix over a 12-month period. No overall differences were observed due to the month of Bacillus spp. assessment (p = 0.21) 1,2.
Table 2. Recovery (mean ± SEM) of Bacillus spores following its inclusion in the mineral–vitamin premix over a 12-month period. No overall differences were observed due to the month of Bacillus spp. assessment (p = 0.21) 1,2.
Time, MonthsObserved, log10 CFU/gram of Premixp = (Versus T0)
T07.60 ± 0.029--
T17.56 ± 0.0290.44
T37.66 ± 0.0290.22
T67.60 ± 0.0290.98
T127.51 ± 0.0410.17
1 Samples were analyzed in duplicates; 2 Bacillus-based direct-fed microbials (DFM) consisted of a mixture of B. licheniformis and B. subtilis (BOVACILLUSTM; Chr. Hansen A/S, Hørsholm, Denmark).
Table
Table 3. Recovery (mean ± SEM) of Bacillus spores following its inclusion in the milk replacer prepared at either 37 or 50 °C and evaluated for up to 60 min. No overall differences were observed due to the temperature of preparation (p = 0.62) or timing of Bacillus spp. recovery (in minutes; p = 0.68) 1,2.
Table 3. Recovery (mean ± SEM) of Bacillus spores following its inclusion in the milk replacer prepared at either 37 or 50 °C and evaluated for up to 60 min. No overall differences were observed due to the temperature of preparation (p = 0.62) or timing of Bacillus spp. recovery (in minutes; p = 0.68) 1,2.
ItemObserved, log10 CFU/gram of Milk Replacer
Temperature, °C
376.01 ± 0.021
506.00 ± 0.021
Time, minutes
T06.02 ± 0.025
T306.02 ± 0.025
T605.99 ± 0.025
1 Samples were analyzed in duplicates; 2 Bacillus-based direct-fed microbials (DFM) consisted of a mixture of B. licheniformis and B. subtilis (BOVACILLUSTM; Chr. Hansen A/S, Hørsholm, Denmark).
Table
Table 4. Recovery (mean ± SEM) of E. faecium 669 following its inclusion in the mineral–vitamin premix over a 12-month period. No overall differences were observed due to the month of E. faecium 669 assessment (p = 0.25) 1.
Table 4. Recovery (mean ± SEM) of E. faecium 669 following its inclusion in the mineral–vitamin premix over a 12-month period. No overall differences were observed due to the month of E. faecium 669 assessment (p = 0.25) 1.
Time, MonthsObserved, log10 CFU/gram of Premixp = (Versus T0)
T07.61 ± 0.054--
T17.64 ± 0.0540.64
T37.75 ± 0.0540.13
T67.63 ± 0.0540.74
T127.54 ± 0.0540.42
1 Samples were analyzed in duplicates.
Table
Table 5. Recovery (mean ± SEM) of E. faecium 669 following its mixture with the milk powder under different conditions. No overall differences were observed due to the condition of the preparation containing E. faecium 669 (p = 0.17) 1.
Table 5. Recovery (mean ± SEM) of E. faecium 669 following its mixture with the milk powder under different conditions. No overall differences were observed due to the condition of the preparation containing E. faecium 669 (p = 0.17) 1.
ItemObserved, log10 CFU/gram of Milk Replacer Preparation
Condition 2
16.46 ± 0.018
26.47 ± 0.018
36.44 ± 0.018
1 Samples were analyzed in duplicates; 2 Condition 1 = milk powder dissolved at 37 °C with the milk powder and DFM mixture stored at 37 °C; Condition 2 = milk powder dissolved at 50 °C with the milk powder and DFM mixture stored at 50 °C; Condition 3 = milk powder dissolved at 50 °C with the milk powder and DFM mixture stored at 25 °C.
Table
Table 6. Recovery (mean ± SEM) of E. faecium 669 following its inclusion in the milk replacer stored over a 12-month period. No overall differences were observed due to the month of E. faecium 669 assessment (p = 0.22) 1.
Table 6. Recovery (mean ± SEM) of E. faecium 669 following its inclusion in the milk replacer stored over a 12-month period. No overall differences were observed due to the month of E. faecium 669 assessment (p = 0.22) 1.
Time, MonthsObserved, log10 CFU/gram of Milk Replacerp = (Versus T0)
T06.95 ± 0.027--
T17.00 ± 0.0270.27
T37.00 ± 0.0270.27
T66.95 ± 0.0271.00
T126.90 ± 0.0270.27
1 Samples were analyzed in duplicates.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cappellozza, B.I.; Segura, A.; Milora, N.; Galschioet, C.; Schjelde, M.; Copani, G. Stability of Bacillus and Enterococcus faecium 669 Probiotic Strains When Added to Different Feed Matrices Used in Dairy Production. Animals 2023, 13, 2350. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13142350

AMA Style

Cappellozza BI, Segura A, Milora N, Galschioet C, Schjelde M, Copani G. Stability of Bacillus and Enterococcus faecium 669 Probiotic Strains When Added to Different Feed Matrices Used in Dairy Production. Animals. 2023; 13(14):2350. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13142350

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cappellozza, Bruno I., Audrey Segura, Nina Milora, Christel Galschioet, Mette Schjelde, and Giuseppe Copani. 2023. "Stability of Bacillus and Enterococcus faecium 669 Probiotic Strains When Added to Different Feed Matrices Used in Dairy Production" Animals 13, no. 14: 2350. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13142350

APA Style

Cappellozza, B. I., Segura, A., Milora, N., Galschioet, C., Schjelde, M., & Copani, G. (2023). Stability of Bacillus and Enterococcus faecium 669 Probiotic Strains When Added to Different Feed Matrices Used in Dairy Production. Animals, 13(14), 2350. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13142350

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop