Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T02:57:51.602Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Calsporin® (Bacillus subtilis C-3102) addition to the diet on faecal quality and nutrient digestibility in healthy adult dogs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2019

S. Schauf ,
N. Nakamura  and
C. Castrillo
S. Schauf*
Affiliation:
Dept. of Animal Nutrition and Food Science, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain
N. Nakamura
Affiliation:
Asahi Calpis Wellness Co., Ltd.Tokyo, Japan
C. Castrillo
Affiliation:
Dept. of Animal Nutrition and Food Science, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain
*
Corresponding author: sofipaca@unizar.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

This study evaluated the effect of Bacillus subtilis C-3102 (Calsporin®) addition to the diet on faecal characteristics and nutrient digestibility in healthy adult dogs. Sixteen Beagles received either a low-energy control diet (CON; 3.35 Mcal metabolisable energy (ME)/kg with 21.8, 27.9, and 50.3% ME as protein, fat, and nitrogen-free extractives (NFE), respectively) or the same diet supplemented with Bacillus subtilis at 1 × 109 CFU/kg diet as probiotic (PRO) for four weeks in a parallel design (eight dogs per diet). In the prior two weeks, all dogs received a high-energy diet (Advance Medium Adult, Affinity Petcare®, 3.81 Mcal ME/kg ME with 24.8, 41.2, and 34% ME protein, fat, and NFE, respectively). Faecal consistency, dry matter (DM), pH, and NH3 were analysed on fresh samples collected at the start and weekly throughout the study. Additional samples were collected for the determination of lactate and short-chain fatty acids (SCFA) on days 0 and 21. In week four, a five–day total faecal collection was conducted in six dogs from each diet for the determination of nutrient apparent digestibility. Dogs fed the PRO diet had more firm faeces (P = 0.011) than control dogs and a higher faecal DM content in the first two weeks (P < 0.05). Feeding the PRO diet resulted in a decline in NH3 over four weeks (P = 0.05) and in faecal pH in the first two weeks (P < 0.05) alongside an increase in SCFA content (P = 0.044), mainly acetate (P = 0.024). Faecal lactate did not differ between diets (P > 0.10). Dogs fed the PRO diet showed a higher apparent digestibility of fat (P = 0.031) and NFE (P = 0.038) compared to control dogs. Dog food supplementation with Calsporin® at 1 × 109 CFU/kg improved faecal quality, enhanced fat and carbohydrate digestibility, and contributed to the gut health of dogs by reducing gut ammonia and increasing SCFA content.

Keywords

Bacillus subtilisdogfaecal consistencyfaecal pHammoniaSCFAdigestibilitygut health
Type
Original Research
Information
Journal of Applied Animal Nutrition , Volume 7 , 2019 , e3
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Journal of Applied Animal Nutrition Ltd. 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AAFCO, Association of American Feed Control Officials (2011) AAFCO Official Publication (Oxford, AAFCO).Google Scholar
AOAC, Association of Official Analytical Chemists (2005) Official Methods of Analysis, 18th Ed (Gaithersburg, Md, AOAC International).Google Scholar
Barker, S. B. and Summerson, W. H. (1941) The colorimetric determination of lactic acid in biological material. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 138: 535–554.Google Scholar
Benjamin, S., Smitha, R., Jisha, V., Pradeep, S., Sajith, S., Sreedevi, S., Priji, P., Unni, K. and Josh, M. (2013) A monograph on amylases from Bacillus spp. Advances in Bioscience and Biotechnology, 4, 227–241.Google Scholar
Biourge, V., Vallet, C., Levesque, A., Sergheraert, R., Chevalier, S. and Roberton, J. L. (1998) The use of probiotics in the diet of dogs. Journal of Nutrition, 128: 2730S–2732S.Google Scholar
Blake, M. R., Raker, J. M. and Whelan, K. (2016) Validity and reliability of the Bristol Stool Form Scale in healthy adults and patients with diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 44: 693–703.Google Scholar
Bleiberg, B., Beers, T.R., Persson, M. and Miles, J.M. (1992) Systemic and regional acetate kinetics in dogs. The American Journal of Physiology, 262: E197–202.Google Scholar
Bosch, G., Verbrugghe, A., Hesta, M., Holst, J. J., van der Poel, A. F., Janssens, G. P. and Hendriks, W. H. (2009) The effects of dietary fibre type on satiety-related hormones and voluntary food intake in dogs. British Journal of Nutrition, 102: 318–325.Google Scholar
British Standards Institute (2009) Animal Feeding Stuffs. Isolation and Enumeration of Presumptive Bacillus spp. BS EN 15784 (London, British Standards Institution).Google Scholar
Chaney, A. L., and Marbach, E. P. (1962) Modified reagents for determination of urea and ammonia. Clinical Chemistry, 8: 130–132.Google Scholar
De Vuyst, L. and Vandamme, E.J. (1994) Antimicrobial potential of lactic acid bacteria, in: De Vuyst, L. and Vandamme, E.J. (Eds) Bacteriocins of lactic acid bacteria, pp. 91–142 (London, Blackie Academic and Professional).Google Scholar
European Commission (2018) European Union Register of Feed Additives pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 1831/2003. Health and Food Safety Directorate-General, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
Félix, A. P., Netto, M. V. T., Murakami, F. Y., Brito, C. B. M., Oliveira, S. G. and Maiorka, A. (2010) Digestibility and fecal characteristics of dogs fed with Bacillus subtilis in diet. Ciência Rural, 40: 2169–2173.Google Scholar
Fritts, C., Kersey, J.H., Motl, M.A., Kroger, E.C., Yan, F., Si, J., Jiang, Q., Campos, M.M., Waldroup, A.L. and Waldroup, P.W. (2000) Bacillus subtilis C-3102 (Calsporin) improves live performance and microbiological status of broiler chickens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 9: 149–155.Google Scholar
German, A. J., Holden, S. L., Bissot, T., Morris, P. J. and Biourge, V. (2009) Use of starting condition score to estimate changes in body weight and composition during weight loss in obese dogs. Research in Veterinay Science, 87: 249–254.Google Scholar
González-Ortiz, G., Castillejos, L., Mallo, J. J., Calvo-Torras, M.A. and Baucells, M.D. (2013) Effects of dietary supplementation of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens CECT 5940 and Enterococcus faecium CECT 4515 in adult healthy dogs. Archives of Animal Nutrition, 67: 406–415.Google Scholar
Guyard-Nicodème, M., Keita, A., Quesne, S., Amelot, M., Poezevara, T., Le Berre, B., Sánchez, J., Vesseur, P., Martín, Á., Medel, P. and Chemaly, M. (2016) Efficacy of feed additives against Campylobacter in live broilers during the entire rearing period. Poultry Science, 95: 298–305.Google Scholar
Hatanaka, M., Nakamura, Y., Maathuis, A. J.,Venema, K., Murota, I. and Yamamoto, N. (2012) Influence of Bacillus subtilis C-3102 on microbiota in a dynamic in vitro model of the gastrointestinal tract simulating human conditions. Beneficial microbes, 3: 229–236Google Scholar
Hijova, E., and Chmelarova, A. (2007). Short chain fatty acids and colonic health. Bratislavské lekárske listy, 108 (8): 354–358.Google Scholar
Hosoi, T., Ametani, A., Kiuchi, K. and Kaminogawa, S. (2000) Improved growth and viability of lactobacilli in the presence of Bacillus subtilis (natto), catalase, or subtilisin. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 46: 892–897.Google Scholar
Jeong, J. S. and Kim, I. H. (2014) Effect of Bacillus subtilis C-3102 spores as a probiotic feed supplement on growth performance, noxious gas emission, and intestinal microflora in broilers. Poultry Science, 93: 3097–3103.Google Scholar
Kampf, D. (2012) Mode of action of Bacillus subtilis and efficiency in piglet feeding. Feed Compounder, 36–37.Google Scholar
Kritas, S., Marubashi, T., Filioussis, G., Petridou, E., Christodoulopoulos, G., Burriel, A.R., Tzivara, A., Theodoridis, A. and Pískoriková, M. (2015) Reproductive performance of sows was improved by administration of a sporing bacillary probiotic (C-3102). Journal of Animal Science, 93: 405–413.Google Scholar
Laflamme, D. (1997) Development and validation of a body condition score system for dogs. Canine Practice, 22: 10–15.Google Scholar
Lin, H. and Visek, W. J. (1991) Colon mucosal cell damage by ammonia in rats. The Journal of nutrition, 121: 887–893.Google Scholar
Markowiak, P. and Slizewska, K. (2018). The role of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics in animal nutrition. Gut Pathogens, 10: 21.Google Scholar
Marubashi, T., Gracia, M. I., Vilà, B., Bontempo, V., Kritas, S. K. and Piskoríková, M. (2012) The efficacy of the probiotic feed additive Calsporin® (Bacillus subtilis C-3102) in weaned piglets: combined analysis of four different studies. Journal of Applied Animal Nutrition, 1 (e2): 1–5.Google Scholar
Maruta, K., Miyazaki, H., Masuda, S., Takahashi, M., Marubashi, T., Tadano, Y. and Takahashi, H. (1996) Exclusion of intestinal pathogens by continuous feeding with Bacillus subtilis C-3102 and its influence on the intestinal microflora in broilers. Animal Science and Technology (Japan), 67: 273–280.Google Scholar
Morrison, D. J. and Preston, T. (2016) Formation of short chain fatty acids by the gut microbiota and their impact on human metabolism. Gut microbes, 7: 189–200.Google Scholar
Mountzouris, K. C., Tsitrsikos, P., Palamidi, I., Arvaniti, A., Mohnl, M., Schatzmayr, G. and Fegeros, K. (2010) Effects of probiotic inclusion levels in broiler nutrition on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, plasma immunoglobulins, and cecal microflora composition. Poultry Science, 89: 58–67.Google Scholar
NRC, National Research Council (2006) Nutrient Requirements of Dogs and Cats (Washington, D.C., The National Academies Press).Google Scholar
Paap, P., van der Laak, J., Smit, J., Nakamura, N. and Beynen, A. (2016) Administration of Bacillus subtilis C-3102 (Calsporin®) may improve feces consistency in dogs with chronic diarrhoea. Research Opinions in Animal and Veterinary Sciences, 6: 256–260.Google Scholar
Sauter, S. N., Benyacoub, J., Allenspach, K., Gaschen, F., Ontsouka, E., Reuteler, G., Cavadini, C., Knorr, R. and Blum, J. W. (2006) Effects of probiotic bacteria in dogs with food responsive diarrhoea treated with an elimination diet. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 90: 269–277.Google Scholar
Scheppach, W. (1994) Effects of short chain fatty acids on gut morphology and function. Gut, 35: S35–38.Google Scholar
Semova, I., Carten, J.D., Stombaugh, J., Mackey, L.C., Knight, R., Farber, S.A. and Rawls, J. F. (2012) Microbiota regulate intestinal absorption and metabolism of fatty acids in the zebrafish. Cell host and microbe, 12: 277–288.Google Scholar
Swanson, K. S., Grieshop, C. M., Flickinger, E. A., Bauer, L. L., Chow, J., Wolf, B. W., Garleb, K. A. and Fahey, G. C. Jr. (2002) Fructooligosaccharides and Lactobacillus acidophilus modify gut microbial populations, total tract nutrient digestibilities and fecal protein catabolite concentrations in healthy adult dogs. Journal of Nutrition, 132: 3721–3731.Google Scholar
Williams, B. A., Verstegen, M.W. and Tamminga, S. (2001) Fermentation in the large intestine of single-stomached animals and its relationship to animal health. Nutrition research reviews, 14: 207–228.Google Scholar
Yang, F., Hou, C., Zeng, X. and Qiao, S. (2015) The use of lactic acid bacteria as a probiotic in swine diets. Pathogens, 4: 34–45.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Schauf et al. supplementary material

Schauf et al. supplementary material 1

Download Schauf et al. supplementary material(File)
File 17.4 KB