ISRAEL JOURNAL OF
VETERINARY MEDICINE
PROBACTRIX PROBIOTIC IN THE
PREVENTION OF INFECTIOUS BACTERIAL
DIARRHOEA OF PIGLETS
Vol. 57 (4) 2002
A. Hadani1, D. Ratner2 and O. Doron2
1. Consultant, Aisenberg St., 9, 76291 Rehovot, Israel.
2. Institute of Animal Research, Kibutz Lahav, Israel
Abstract
The sales of probiotics (Bio Balance Corp., Delaware, U. S. A.) have greatly increased
following the banning of antibiotic growth promoters by the European Union and consumer awareness
of “functional safe foods”.
Probactrix, a liquid food additive probiotic, containing saprophytic Escherichia coli strain
(ATCC 202226) was tested in the prevention of bacterial diarrhoea of piglets. The product was given
daily per os at a dose of 3 ml per piglet on days I and III post-delivery. Cases of diarrhoea in the control
group were treated with advocin and gentamycin. The parameters recorded were: incidence of
diarrhoea, rate of mortality, average piglet weight at weaning and average daily weight gain.
The results obtained showed a 6.6% decrease in the incidence of diarrhoea in the Probactrix
treated group as compared to the control group. Similarly, the mortality rates due to diarrhoea in the
Probactrix and control groups were 4.32% and 10.91% respectively, i.e. a decrease of 6.59% in the
Probactrix group, (chi-square test; p<0.01). The average piglet weight at weaning and the average daily
weight gain were consistently higher in the Probactrix group 3.966 g. and 219 g Than in the control
group 3.555 g. and 198 g.
Probactrix liquid probiotic is assumed to act immediately throughout the gastro-intestinal
tract, as compared to solid probiotics which become active only after becoming soluble.
Introduction
The widespread use of antibiotics in animals to control disease and promote growth has
caused great concern among consumers due to bacterial resistance and allergenic effects in humans. As
a result, the use of antibiotics in poultry has been banned in some countries while antibiotic growth
promoters are being systematically withdrawn from the market.
The gastro intestinal tract exposes a huge absorbing surface interacting with the environment
with an inherent dilemma for defensive exclusion of infectious, toxic and allergenic products from the
gut. Sterile at birth, the animal rapidly acquires a commensal enteric microflora, that creates a complex
ecosystem in the digestive tract. This interacts with the complexe lymphatic immune system an
additional defensive capability by means of competitive exclusion (1) as defined by Nurmi (2).
Probiotic bacteria, mainly the lactic acid bacteria (LAB), usually in a solid form, are used to
re-establish the balance of the commensal flora and prevent intestinal colonization of diarrhoeagenic E.
coli and salmonellae.
There are numerous probiotic products on the market and there is much scepticism as to their
beneficial effect due to poor scientific support. However, some beneficial effect has been shown by
using intestinal E. coli and P. mirabilis isolates to reduce E. coli 0157:H7 and salmonella counts in gut
content and feces (3).
Probactrix probiotic is a liquid food additive consisting of plant extracts mixed with a
saprophytic (ATCC 202226) E. coli strain. The product has been studied prophylactically in the control
of bacterial diarrhoea in piglets.
Materials and Methods
Probactrix probiotic was studied in piglets under farm conditions.
Piglets: The trial was carried out on the pig farm of the Institute of Animal Research, Kibutz
Lahav, which has 430 sows. Litters are kept with the mothers until weaning at 21 day old. After
weaning all litters in the same farrowing room of 10 sows were moved to a single large unit. The pigs
are slaughtered at 6 months old weighing 95-100 kg. Veterinary records show diarrhoea to be the main
problem in the first 2 weeks after birth. The principal isolates were E. coli, salmonellae, C. perfringens
and more rarely rotavirus. Treatment consisted mainly of Gentamycin and Advocin. Repeated
applications of antibiotics were generally needed and the piglets often remained weak and retarded.
The mortality rate of 20% initially decreased to 15% following withdrawal of milk and milk replacers.
The average litter size was 11 piglets. Piglets were given Probactrix per os on days I and III
post delivery. Some litters were left as untreated controls. Cases of diarrhoea were treated with
antibiotics or with Probactrix if unsuccessful.
Dosage: Prophylaxy - Probactrix was given orally at the dose of 3 ml per piglet on days I and
III post delivery.
Therapy - Antibiotics used were advocin and gentamycin.
Observations
All the litters were checked for general behaviour, debility and retardation. Cases of diarrhoea
and mortality were recorded. The piglets were weighed at birth and 21 days at weaning. The following
parameters were measured during the first 3 weeks post-delivery in the treated and control groups:
mortality rates, incidence of diarrhoea, average piglet weight at weaning and average piglet daily
weight gain.
Statistical analysis: Rates of mortality with and without diarrhoea were analyzed by the Chisquare test.
Results
The results are presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3.
Table 1 shows a 6.6% decrease in the incidence of diarrhoea and 6.59% decrease in the death
rate in the Probactrix group when compared to the control group given standard antibiotic treatment.
This difference was found highly significant by the Chi-square test (P<0.01).
The average daily weight gains and average piglet weights at weaning were consistently
higher in the Probactrix group compared with the control one (3.966 g. and 219 g. as compared to
3.577 g. and 198 g. respectively). No untoward signs were observed in the Probactrix treated group.
Table 1: Mortality rates and incidence of diarrhoea in piglets given Probactrix
prophylactically as compared to control piglets treated with antibiotics during a 3 week period post
delivery.
No. of
litters
Results
No. of piglets
Mortality (%)
Diarrhoea (%)
Probactrix- 60
764
84 (11)
33 (4.3)
Control- 22
275
45 (16.4)
30 (10.9)
Statistical analysis (Chi square) of rates of accidental and diarrhoea related mortality in the
Probactrix and control groups is given in table 2.
Table 2: Chi-square analysis of mortality rates of in Probactrix and control groups
Chi-square - 15.62 P<0.01
The average piglet weight in the Probactrix and control groups at weaning and average daily
weight gains in both groups are given in Table 3.
Group
Probactrix
Results
Value
Observed
Expected
%
33
46.33
4.32
3.83
51
48.53
6.68
0.13
680
669.14
89.01
0.18
30
16.67
10.91
10.65
15
17.47
5.45
10.35
Died of
diarrhoea
Accidenta
l death
Survival
Control
(Antibiotics)
Died of
diarrhoea
Accidenta
l death
Survival
230
240.89
83.64
0.49
Table 3: Average piglet weights at weaning and average daily weight gains in the Probactrix
and control groups
No. of
No of
litters
piglets
Probactrix
Results
Average
Average piglet
Average daily
piglet
weight as
wwight gain ± SD
weight±SD
compared with
(g.)
(g.)
the control (%)
680
3.966 ± 758
110.9
219 ± 35
230
3.577 ± 674
100
198 ± 31
60
Control 22
Discussion
Probiotics used in animal nutrition are composed mostly of viable microorganisms. In some
cases fermentation products, enzymes, fibers and mixtures are used. Significant improvements in
weight gain and feed conversion following probiotic administration are statistically difficult to show
consistently due to variations in the individual reactions of animals. By the year 2000, 19 probiotic
preparations have been approved by the European Union, however, their mode of action is not fully
known. The interaction of probiotics with pathogenic and non-pathogenic bacteria is very important. In
addition modifications of microstructures and barrier functions of intestinal tissues as well as the
extensive intestinal immune system could be involved (4).
The use of probiotics has given a great importance to the banning of antibiotic growth
promoters by the EU. This trend is further strengthened by consumers awareness of “functional foods”
and the link between health, nutrition and diet (5).
Various species of bacteria were proposed to be included, singly or as a mixture, in the food.
The use of LAB (Lactobacillus Acidophilus Bacteria) is widespread, while L. casei, L. rhamnosus,
Bacillus subtilis, B. cereus, Enterococcus faecium, Bacillus toyoi spores and Bifidobacterium are used
frequently. There are numerous publications reporting the beneficial effect of probiotics on growth,
food conversion, digestive activities, intestinal bacterial flora and some pathological conditions such as
diarrhoea, oedema disease, mastitis and endometritis (6-13).
Most of the probiotics, based on LAB bacteria, are presented in a solid form. More recently
strains of E. coli are being included. Probactrix probiotic, used in the present study, contains a strain of
E. coli (ATCC 202226) with plant extracts which were shown to stabilise and lengthen the shelf life of
the bacterium in the liquid medium up to at least a year at 40C. It is postulated that Probactrix
presented in liquid form is immediately available to the animal upon ingestion.
The probiotics presented in powder must first dissolve in the gut before starting
multiplication. Consequently whereas Probactrix colonizes along the intestinal tract, solid probiotics
exert their main effect in the large intestine.
In the present field study Probactrix improved all tested parameterss; incidence of diarrhoea
and death rates, average piglet weight at weaning and average daily weight gain of piglets.
LINKS TO OTHER ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE
References
1. Collins, J.F., Thornton, G. and Sullivan, G.O.: Selection of probiotic strains for human
application. Inter. Dairy J., 8: 487-490, 1998.
2. Pivnick, H. and Nurmi, E.: The Nurmi concept and its role in the control of salmonellae in
poultry. In: Developments In Food Microbiology, pp. 41-70. Applied Sciences Publishers, London,
1982.
3. Zhao, T., Doyle, M.P., Harmon, B.G., Brown, C.A., Mueller, P.O.E. and Parks, A.H.:
Reduction of carriage of enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli 0157:H7 by inoculation with probiotic
bacteria. J. Clin. Microbiol., 36: 641-647, 1998.
4. Simon, O., Jadamus, A. and Vahjen, W.: Probiotic feed additives - effectiveness and
expected modes of action. In: New Trends In Animal Nutrition. 28-29 June, 2000, Jachranka, Poland.
J. Anim. & Food Sci., 10: Supp. 1, 51-67, 2001.
5. Stanton, C., Gardiner, G., Meehan, H., Collins, K., Fitzgerald, G., Lynch, P.B. and Ross,
R.P.; Market potential for probiotics. Inter. Symp. On Probiotics and Prebiotics, Kiel, Germany, 11-12
June, 1998. Amer. J. Clin. Nutrition, 73: Supp. 2, 4765 - 4835, 1998.
6. Sakata, T., Kojima, T., Fujeida, M., Migakzava, M., Takahashi, M. and Ushida, K.:
Probiotic preparations dose dependently increase net production of organic acids and decrease that of
ammonia by pig caecal bacteria in batch cultures. Digest. Dis. Sci., 44: 1485-1493, 1999.
7. Siuta, A.: The influence of Polish probiotics on rearing performance of piglets. “Safe Food
as a Challenge to Animal Sciences”, Balice 24 May, 2000 (in Polish). Rocznik: Naukowe Zootechniki,
Suppl. Z 6: 213 - 217, 2000.
8. Zimmerman, B., Bauer, E. and Mosenthin, R.: Pro and prebiotics in pig nutrition-potential
modulators of gut health. J. Anim. & Food Sci., 10: 47-56, 2001.
9. Zani, J.L., Weykamp da Cruz, F., Freitas, dos Santos and Gil Turnes, C.: Effect of probiotic
Cenbiot on the control of diarrhea and feed efficiency in pigs. J. Appl. Microbiol. 84: 68-71, 1998.
10. Inglaninum, P.: Probiotic treatment of sows before farrowing for the prevention of MMA
in the sow and diarrhea in the pigs. Proc. 13 th Inter. Pig Vet. Soc. Cong., Bangkok, Thailand, 26-30
June, 1994, No 295, Jensen, S.A. and Poomvises, p. eds.
11. Pirfeulescu, M., Panta, L., Buscur, E., Lonita, C., Tetu-Oporanu, M., Gruia, M., Caraivan,
I. And Ionescu, C.: Probiotic microorganisms for young pigs: Testing and characterization under
gnotobiotic conditions. Studies Res. Vet. Med. 4: 98-108, 1996.
12. Avila, F.A., Schocken - Iturrino, R.P., Quntana, J.L., Basso, A. and Ambrosim, J.A.: Use
of vaccine and probiotic in the control of swine diarrhea caused by enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (in
Portuguese). Arguivo Brasilero de Medicina Veterinaria e Zootecnia, 50: 505-511, 1998.
13. Johansen, M., Jorsal, S.E., Andersen, L.O., Thomsen, L.K. and Baekbo, P.: Prevention and
treatment of oedema disease in Denmark, 1994 - 1998. A review of the results of Danish experiments
(in Danish). Dansk Veterinaer. 83, 6-9, 2000.
1.