Advertisement

Enterocin M and Sage Supplementation in Post-weaning Rabbits: Effects on Growth Performance, Caecal Microbiota, Fermentation and Enzymatic Activity

  • M. Pogány SimonováEmail author
  • Ľ. Chrastinová
  • A. Kandričáková
  • I. Kubašová
  • Z. Formelová
  • M. Chrenková
  • R. Miltko
  • G. Belzecki
  • V. Strompfová
  • A. Lauková
Article

Abstract

The effects of enterocin (Ent) M and sage extract applied separately and in combination were investigated. EntM (E 50 μL/animal/day in water) and sage extract (S 10 μL/animal/day in water) were applied individually and in combination (E+S) to rabbits during 21 days of treatment. The rabbits’ growth was not significantly influenced by the additives. Lower feed conversion (FC) was noted in the experimental groups compared with controls, with the lowest data detected in E. The antimicrobial activity of EntM was noted (in E+S: lactic acid bacteria—P < 0.01; in E, E+S: enterococci, enterobacteria—P > 0.05; in E: clostridia—P > 0.05). The most significant changes in fermentation between weaned and older rabbits were noted in amylolytic activity at day 21 (E P < 0.05; E + S P < 0.05); prolonged reduction effect of sage extract on amylolytic activity was observed. The activity of cellulase, pectinase and xylanase was higher in older than in younger animals. Decrease in lactic acid and volatile fatty acids was noted during EntM administration, with significant effect on propionic acid concentration (E P < 0.05; E+S P < 0.001). The sage extract reduced propionic acid (S P < 0.001) and butyric acid levels (S P < 0.05) and increased the concentrations of butyric, iso-valeric, valeric, caproic acids and lactic acid (P < 0.001). It seems to be that EntM and sage supplementation may improve the economy of rabbit farms (increased FC) and the health status of rabbits (reduction of spoilage microbiota, enhanced enzymatic activities in caecum).

Keywords

Enterocin Sage Microflora Enzymes Organic acids 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Mrs. M. Bodnárová and Mr. P. Jerga for their skillful technical assistance and also to Dr. V. Párkányi, Dr. R. Jurčík and Dr. Ľ. Ondruška from the National Agricultural and Food Centre in Nitra for caecal sampling and Mr. J. Pecho for slaughtering. We would like to thank Mr. A. Billingham for the English correction of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the projects VEGA 2/0006/17 and ITMS 26220220204 of the Research and Development Operational Programme funded by the ERDF.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All applicable international, national and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Gidenne T (1994) Estimation of volattile fatty acids and of their energetic supply in the rabbit caecum: effect of the dietary fibre level. Vleme Journees de la Recherche Cunicole, Paris, pp 293–299Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Combes S, Fortune-Lamothe L, Cauqui L, Gidenne T (2013) Engineering the rabbit digestive ecosystem to improve digestive health and efficacy. Animal 7(9):1429–1439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Padilha MTS, Licois D, Gidenne T, Carre B, Fonty G (1995) Relationships between microflora and caecal fermenation in rabbits before and after weaning. Repr Nutr Dev 35:375–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gidenne T, Fortun-Lamothe L (2002) Feeding strategy for young rabbits around weaning. A review of digestive capacity and nutritional needs. Anim Sci 75:169–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pogány Simonová M, Lauková A, Chrastinová Ľ, Strompfová V, Faix Š, Vasilková Z, Ondruška Ľ, Jurčík R, Rafay J (2009) Enterococcus faecium CCM7420, bacteriocin PPB CCM7420 and their effect in the digestive tract of rabbits. Czech J Anim Sci 54:376–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Papatsiros VG, Christodoulopoulos G (2011) The use of organic acids in rabbit farming. Online J Anim Feed Res 1:434–438Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Szabóová R, Lauková A, Chrastinová Ľ, Strompfová V, Pogány Simonová M, Vasilková Z, Čobanová K, Plachá I, Chrenková M (2011) Effect of combined administration of enterocin 4231 and sage in rabbits. Pol J Vet Sci 14:359–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lauková A, Chrastinová Ľ, Pogány Simonová M, Strompfová V, Plachá I, Čobanová K, Formelová Z, Chrenková M, Ondruška Ľ (2012) Enterococcus faecium AL 41:its enterocin M and their beneficial use in rabbits husbandry. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 4:243–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dalle Zotte A, Celia C, Zs S (2016) Herbs and spices inclusion as feedstuff or additive in growing rabbit diet and as additive in rabbit meat: a review. Livest Sci 189:82–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kalma RP, Patel VK, Joshi A, Umatiya RV, Parmar KN, Damor SV, Chauchan HD, Srivastava AK, Sharma HA (2016) Probiotic supplementation in rabbit:a review. Int J Agricult Sci 8:2811–2815Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lauková A, Pogány Simonová M, Chrastinová Ľ, Gancarčíková S, Kandričáková A, Plachá I, Chrenková M, Formelová Z, Ondruška Ľ, Ščerbová J, Strompfová V (2018) Assessment of Lantibiotic type bacteriocin - Gallidermin application in model experiment with broiler rabbits. Int J Anim Sci 2(4):1028Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pogány Simonová M, Lauková A, Plachá I, Čobanová K, Strompfová V, Szabóová R, Chrastinová Ľ (2013) Can enterocins affect phagocytosis and glutathione-peroxidase in rabbits? Centr Eur J Biol 8(8):730–734Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mareková M, Lauková A, Skaugen M, Nes FI (2007) Isolation and characterization of a new bacteriocins produced by enviromental isolate Enterococcus faecium AL41. J Indust Microbiol Biotechnol 34:533–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Vuyst L, Callewaert R, Pot B (1996) Characterization of the antagonistic activity of Lactobacillus amylovorus DCE471 and large scale isolation of its bacteriocin amylovorin L471. Syst Appl Microbiol 9:9–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Szabóová R, Lauková A, Chrastinová Ľ, Simonová M, Strompfová V, Haviarová M, Plachá I, Faix Š, Vasilková Z, Chrenková M, Rafay J (2008) Experimental application of sage in rabbit husbandry. Acta Vet Brno 7:581–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miltko R, Bełżecki G, Kowalik B, Skomiał J (2016) Presence of carbohydrate-digesting enzymes throughout the digestive tract of sheep. Turkish J Vet Anim Sci 40:271–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lauková A, Chrastinová Ľ, Plachá I, Kandričáková A, Szabóová R, Strompfová V, Chrenková M, Čobanová K, Žitňan R (2014) Beneficial effect of lantibiotic nisin in rabbit husbandry. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 6:41–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sirotek K, Marounek M, Suchorská O (2006) Activity and cellular localization of amylases of rabbit caecal bacteria. Folia Microbiol 51(4):309–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sirotek K, Marounek M, Rada V, Benda V (2001) Isolation and characterization of rabbit caecal pectinolytic bacteria. Folia Microbiol 46:79–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gupta P, Samant K, Sahu A (2012) Isolation of cellulose-degrading bacteria and determination of their cellulolytic potential. Int J Microbiol:Article ID 578925 5 pagesGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marcin A, Levkut M, Revajová V, Šoltysová B, Naď P (2016) Influence of Salvia officinalis essential oil on digestion parameters and intestinal microflora of broiler chickens. Folia Vet 60(1):5–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nickavar B, Abolhasani L (2013) Bioactivity-guided separation of an α-amylase inhibitor flavonoid from Salvia virgata. Iran J Pharm Res 12(1):57–61Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lavrenčič A (2007) The effect of rabbit age on vitro caecal fermentation of starch, pectin, xylan, cellulose, compound feed and its fibre. Animal 1:241–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marounek M, Vovk SJ, Skřivanová V (1995) Distribution of activity of hydrolytic enzymes in the digestive tract of rabbits. Br J Nutr 73:463–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Phuoc TL, Jamikorn U (2017) Effects of probiotic supplement (Bacillus subtilis and Lactobacillus acidophilus) on feed efficiency, growth performance, and microbial population of weaning rabbits. Asian-Austral J Anim Sci 30(2):198–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bovera F, Iannaccone F, Mastellone V, Nizza S, Lestingi A, De Martino L, Lombard P, Mallardo K, Ferrara M, Nizza A (2012) Effect of spray application of Lactobacillus plantarum on in vivo performance, caecal fermentations and haematological traits of suckling rabbits. Ital J Anim Sci 11:145–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Van Soest PJ (1993) Cell wall matrix interactions and degradation – session synopsis. In: Jung HD, Buxton DR, Hatfield RD, Ralph J (eds) Forage cell wall structuree and digestibility. ASA-CSSA-SSSA Publ, Madison, WI, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Pogány Simonová
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ľ. Chrastinová
    • 2
  • A. Kandričáková
    • 1
  • I. Kubašová
    • 1
  • Z. Formelová
    • 2
  • M. Chrenková
    • 2
  • R. Miltko
    • 3
  • G. Belzecki
    • 3
  • V. Strompfová
    • 1
  • A. Lauková
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of the Animal Physiology, Centre of Biosciences Slovak Academy of Sciences KošiceSlovakia
  2. 2.Department of Animal NutritionNational Agricultural and Food CentreNitra-LužiankySlovakia
  3. 3.The Kielanowski Institute of Animal Physiology and NutritionPolish Academy of SciencesJabłonnaPoland

Personalised recommendations