Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Microencapsulated and Lyophilized Lactobacillus acidophilus Improved Gut Health and Immune Status of Preruminant Calves

  • Published:
Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study was conducted to study the effect of microencapsulated, lyophilized, or fermented milk using Lactobacillus acidophilus NCDC15 as a probiotic to improve gut health, growth, nutrient utilization, and immunity status of young crossbred calves. The viable culture of L. acidophilus was used for preparation of different probiotic forms/products. To compare the efficacy of probiotic products, twenty crossbred calves (3-day old) were divided into four groups (n = 5), control (C), fed only milk and basal diet, and treatment groups, supplemented with microencapsulated, fermented, and lyophilized probiotic at 108 colony-forming units, respectively. Probiotic-supplemented groups showed reduction in faecal score, faecal pH, and ammonia concentration as compared to control indicating decreased diarrheal incidence. There was an increase (P < 0.05) in the concentration of faecal lactate and butyrate in the probiotic-supplemented groups. The faecal count (log10 (CFU)/g of fresh faeces) of lactobacilli and bifidobacteria was higher (P < 0.05), whereas faecal coliforms and clostridia count were reduced (P < 0.001) in all the probiotic fed groups as compared to control. The cell-mediated immunity was improved (P < 0.05) in the microencapsulated and fermented probiotic groups. However, there was no effect on the nutrient utilization, average daily gain, and blood biochemical profile. Therefore, it is concluded that the fermented, microencapsulated and lyophilized probiotic products were superior in improving the gut health in terms of its microbiota and metabolites and cell-mediated immunity response in calves, irrespective of form of probiotic. The increased population of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium decreased the colonization of the gut by pathogens such as Escherichia coli and Clostridium by exclusion and production of organic acids in the intestine. This decreased the diarrhoeal incidence (1.3 vs 1.8) and days in diarrhoea (3.9 vs 5.8) in calves in probiotic fed groups as compared to control.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of Data and Material

All the relevant data is provided with the manuscript.

References

  1. Torsein M, Lindber A, Sandgren CH, Waller KP, Tornquist M, Svensson C (2011) Risk factors for calf mortality in large Swedish dairy herds. Preven Vet Med 99:136–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Xu H, Huang W, Qiangchuan H, Kwok L, Sun Z, Ma H, Zhao F, Lee Y, Zhang H (2017) The effects of probiotics administration on the milk production, milk components and fecal bacteria microbiota of dairy cows. Sci Bul 62:767–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2017.04.019

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ngov S, Sukboonyasatit D, Paseephol T (2014) Enhancement of probiotic survival in low pH and bile salt condition using alginate-hi-maize starch encapsulation. KKU Res J 19:141–147

    Google Scholar 

  4. Goh CH, Heng PWS, Chan LW (2012) Alginates as a useful natural polymer for microencapsulation and therapeutic applications. Carboh Polym 88:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2011.11.012

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Manojlovic V, Nedovic VA, Kailasapathy K, Zuidam NJ (2010) Encapsulation of probiotics for use in food products. Encapsulation technologies for active food ingredients and food processing. Springer, New York, NY, pp 269–302

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Sultana K, Godward G, Reynolds N, Arumugaswamy R, Peiris P, Kailasapathy K (2000) Encapsulation of probiotic bacteria with alginate–starch and evaluation of survival in simulated gastrointestinal conditions and in yoghurt. Int J Food Microbiol 62:47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1605(00)00380-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wang Y, Zhenglin D, Dan S, Hang Z, Weiwei W, Haijiang M, Li W, Aike L (2018) Effects of microencapsulated probiotics and prebiotics on growth performance, antioxidative abilities, immune functions, and caecal microflora in broiler chickens. Food Agr Immunol 29:859–869. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540105.2018.1463972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Madreseh S, Ghaisari HR, Hosseinzadeh S (2019) Encapsulated Lactobacillus fermentum and lactulose feeding on growth performance, heavy metals, and trace element residues in Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) tissues. Probiotic Antimicrob Proteins 11:1257–1263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-018-9487-7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kumar M (2019) Evaluation of probiotic products on health and production performance of crossbred cattle calves. Dissertation, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, India

  10. Sadguruprasad LT, Basavaraj M (2018) Statistical modelling for optimized lyophilization of Lactobacillus acidophilus strains for improved viability and stability using response surface methodology. AMB Express 8:129. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13568-018-0659-3

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Alapati A, Sarjan RK, Suresh J, Srinivasa MPR, Kotilinga RY (2010) Development of the body condition score system in Murrah buffaloes: validation through ultrasonic assessment of body fat reserves. J Vet Sci 11:1–8. https://doi.org/10.4142/jvs.2010.11.1.1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, nuteral ditergent fiber and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 74:3583–3597. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Larson LL, Owen FG, Albright JL, Appleman RD, Lamb RC, Muller LD (1977) Guidelines toward more uniformity in measuring and reporting calf experimental data. J Dairy Sci 60:989–991. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(77)83975-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chaney AL, Marbach EP (1962) Modified reagents for determination of urea and ammonia. Clin Chem 8:130–132. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/8.2.130

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Baker SB, Summerson WH (1941) The colorimetric determination of lactic acid in biological material. J Biol Chem 138:535–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9258(18)51379-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cottyn BG, Boucque CV (1968) Rapid method for the gas chromatographic determination of volatile fatty acids in rumen fluid. J Agri Food Chem 16:105–107. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf60155a002

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kala A, Kumar GRM, Chaudhary LC, Agarwal N (2020) Development of microencapsulated and lyophilized probiotic, and its comparative evaluation. In: proceedings of National seminar on ‘Feed additives for improving the efficiency and sustainability of milk production in dairy animals’, Gujrat, India, pp 19 (Abstr.)

  18. Timmerman HM, Mulder L, Everts H, Van Espan DC, Van Der Wal E, Klaassen G, Rouwers SMG, Hartemink R, Rombouts FM, Beynen AC (2005) Health and growth of veal calves fed milk replacers with or without probiotics. J Dairy Sci 88:2154–2165. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72891-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bayatkouhsar J, Tahmaseb AA, Naserianb AA, Mokarram RR (2013) Effects of supplementation of lactic acid bacteria on growth performance, blood metabolites and fecal coliform and lactobacilli of young dairy calves. Anim Feed Sci Technol 186:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2013.04.015

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Jatkauskas J, Vilma V (2014) Effects of encapsulated probiotic enterococcus faecium strain on diarrhoea patterns and performance of early weaned calves. Vet med Zoot 67:47–52

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sharma AN, Kumar S, Tyagi AK (2018) Effects of mannan oligosaccharides and Lactobacillus acidophilus supplementation on growth performance, nutrient utilization and faecal characteristics in Murrah buffalo calves. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 102:679–689. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.12878

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Sahu J, Rai S, Behera R, Mandal D, Ghosh M, Mondal M (2019) Effect of feeding synbiotic on growth and health performance of jersey crossbred calves. Int J Livest Res 9:274–281. https://doi.org/10.5455/ijlr.20180628074112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Qadis AQ, Goya S, Ikuta K, Yatsu M, Kimura A, Nakanishi S, Sato S (2014) Effects of a bacteria-based probiotic on ruminal pH, volatile fatty acids, and bacterial flora of Holstein calves. J Vet Med Sci 12:14–28. https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.14-0028

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Van Coillie E, Goris J, Cleenwerck I, Grijspeerdt K, Botteldoorn N, Van Immerseel F, DeBuck J, Vancanneyt M, Swings J, Herman L, Heyndrickx M (2007) Identification of lactobacilli isolated from the cloaca and vagina of laying hens and characterization for potential use as probiotics to control Salmonella enteritidis. J Appl Microbiol 102:1095–1106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2006.03164.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Signorini ML, Soto LP, Zbrun MV, Sequeira GJ, Rosmini MR, Frizzo LS (2012) Impact of probiotic administration on the health and fecal microbiota of young calves: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of lactic acid bacteria. Res Vet Sci 93:250–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2011.05.001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ohya T, Marubashi T, Ito H (2000) Significance of fecal volatile fatty acids in shedding of Escherichia coli O157 from calves: experimental infection and preliminary use of a probiotic product. J Vet Medical Sci 62:1151–1155. https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.62.1151

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Roodposhti PM, Dabiri N (2012) Effects of probiotic and prebiotic on average daily gain, fecal shedding of Escherichia coli, and immune system status in newborn female calves. Asian Austral J Anim Sci 25:1255 -1261. https://doi.org/10.5713/2Fajas.2011.11312

  28. Al-Saiady MY (2010) Effect of probiotic bacteria on immunoglobulin G concentration and other blood components of newborn calves. J Anim Vet Adv 9:604–609. https://doi.org/10.3923/javaa.2010.604.609

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Raabis S, Li W, Cersosimo L (2019) Effects and immune responses of probiotic treatment in ruminants. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 208:58–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetimm.2018.12.006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Dar AH, Singh SK, Mondal BC, Palod J, Kumar A, Singh V, Sharma RK, Khadda B (2019) Effect of probiotic, prebiotic and synbiotic on faecal microbial count and cell-mediated immunity in crossbred calves. Indian J Anim Res 53:232–235. https://doi.org/10.18805/ijar.B-3383

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to ICAR-IVRI for all the infrastructure and financial support.

Funding

Funding for conducting the research was provided by ICAR-IVRI, Izatnagar, India.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Animal Nutrition Division, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly, 243122, UP, India

    M. Kumar, A. Kala, L. C. Chaudhary & N. Agarwal

  2. Livestock Production and Management Section, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, 243122, UP, India

    S. A. Kochewad

Authors
  1. M. Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Kala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. C. Chaudhary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. N. Agarwal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. A. Kochewad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed equally to the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Kala.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

For all animal handling procedures, due ethical approval was taken from CPCSEA, DAHD, New Delhi, via letter no. 25/17/2019-CPCSEA dated 25/9/2019.

Consent to Participate

All authors give their consent to participate in the publication of this manuscript.

Consent for Publication

All authors give their consent for publication of this manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 22 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kumar, M., Kala, A., Chaudhary, L.C. et al. Microencapsulated and Lyophilized Lactobacillus acidophilus Improved Gut Health and Immune Status of Preruminant Calves. Probiotics & Antimicro. Prot. 14, 523–534 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-021-09821-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-021-09821-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation