Impact of inulin and a multispecies probiotic formulation on performance, microbial ecology and concomitant fermentation patterns in newly weaned piglets.

The effect of inulin and a multispecies probiotic formulation on performance and microbial parameters in a 28 days feeding trial with newly weaned piglets was assessed. Forty-eight piglets were allocated to a 2 × 2 factorial experiment involving two levels of inulin supplementation (0% or 0.4%) and two levels of probiotics (0 or 1 × 10(9) CFU/kg as fed, comprising enterococci, lactobacilli and bifidobacteria). In digesta samples obtained at slaughter (stomach, jejunum, ileum and colon), selected bacterial groups were enumerated and lactic acid, short chain fatty acids and ammonia concentrations analysed. The overall performance of piglets was unaffected by treatment. Inulin increased total aerobes in stomach and jejunum (p < 0.05), whereas enterococci declined in colon of the inulin group (p < 0.05). Furthermore decreasing colonic acetic acid (p < 0.01) and increasing lactic acid (p < 0.05) was observed for inulin. Probiotics increased total aerobes (p < 0.05) and enterococci (p < 0.01) in ileum and lactobacilli (p < 0.05), enterococci and gram-negative anaerobes (p < 0.01) in colon. Moreover, dry matter content in stomach and colon was lower and acetic acid in colon increased (p < 0.05). A decrease in ileal pH value was noted symbiotically for both additives. However, several parameters showed no synbiotic, but distinct individual effects of inulin and probiotics. Effects occurred along the entire gastrointestinal tract without restriction to the colon.

Effects of inulin and lactulose on the intestinal morphology of calves.

For some time now prebiotics have been proposed to improve health by stimulation of beneficial bacteria in the intestine of humans and animals. The current study is aiming to show effects of feeding of either 2% inulin or 2% lactulose in milk replacer on performance and intestinal morphology of male Holstein-Friesian calves. After 20 weeks of feeding inulin led to significantly higher daily weight gains than lactulose while control animals ranged between the experimental feedings. Ingestion of milk replacer was reduced in lactulose treated animals. Additionally differences of villus height in jejunum (P = 0.07) and ileum (P = 0.03) could be found with an increase for lactulose treated animals and a decrease for inulin treated animals. In ileum the density of proliferative epithelial cells tended to be lower in inulin treated and higher in lactulose treated animals (P = 0.08). Both inulin and lactulose tended to decrease the quantity of goblet cells in the tips of ileal villi (P = 0.07). Both prebiotics can affect performance and intestinal morphology of calves and may as such affect animal health. But effects differ between substances.

Use of phytogenic products as feed additives for swine and poultry.

This article summarizes the experimental knowledge on efficacy, possible modes of action, and aspects of application of phytogenic products as feed additives for swine and poultry. Phytogenic feed additives comprise a wide variety of herbs, spices, and products derived thereof, and are mainly essential oils. The assumption that phytogenic compounds might improve the palatability of feed has not yet been confirmed by choice-feeding studies. Although numerous studies have demonstrated antioxidative and antimicrobial efficacy in vitro, respective experimental in vivo evidence is still quite limited. The same applies to the supposition that phytogenic compounds may specifically enhance activities of digestive enzymes and nutrient absorption. Nevertheless, a limited number of experimental comparisons of phytogenic feed additives with antibiotics and organic acids have suggested similar effects on the gut, such as reduced bacterial colony counts, fewer fermentation products (including ammonia and biogenic amines), less activity of the gut-associated lymphatic system, and a greater prececal nutrient digestion, probably reflecting an overall improved gut equilibrium. In addition, some phytogenic compounds seem to promote intestinal mucus production. Such effects may explain a considerable number of practical studies with swine and poultry reporting improved production performance after providing phytogenic feed additives. In total, available evidence indicates that phytogenic feed additives may add to the set of nonantibiotic growth promoters for use in livestock, such as organic acids and probiotics. However, a systematic approach toward the efficacy and safety of phytogenic compounds used as feed additives for swine and poultry is still missing.