ISAPP, London UK June 26-28, 28, Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana. Introduction

Transcription

1 Prebiotics in Companion Animals ISAPP, London UK June 2628, 28, 2007 Dr. David C. Hernot and Dr. George C. Fahey, Jr. Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana 1 In dogs and cats Introduction Complex colonic bacteria population Commensal relationship with the host Beneficial to health Increasing interest in the use of prebiotics in companion animals Vanhoutte et al., 2005; Gruffydd et al., 1998; Swanson and Fahey, 2006

2 Introduction Nondigestible oligosaccharides in general, and fructans in particular, are prebiotics. Studies in companion animals Chicory OF Inulin Lactosucrose Lactulose GOS scfos TGOS XOS IMO Most often studied Prebiotic Impacts on Companion Animals Review of 23 canine and 4 feline studies Kelly S. Swanson, and George C. Fahey, Jr. (2006)

3 Prebiotics studies dogs/cats Primary outcomes Nutrient digestibility Fecal quality Microbial concentrations Dogs: Swanson et al., 2002a,b,c; Zentek et al., 2002, 2003; Flickinger et al., 2003; Hesta et al., 2003; Propst et al., 2003; Twomey et al., 2003; KarrLilienthal et al., 2004; Grieshop et al., 2004 Cats: Terada et al., 1993; Sparkes et al., 1998; Groeneveld et al., 2001; Hesta et al., 2001 Effect on nutrient digestibility Ileal CP digestibility not affected in canine experiments Prebiotic consumption decreases total tract macronutrient digestibility Organic matter Crude protein Increases fecal N excretion Both in dog and cat Global beneficial effect on CP digestibility

4 Effects on fecal quality Stool consistency and volume are important criteria used by pet owners when selecting a pet food. Food intake and fecal characteristics are important outcomes of prebiotic supplementation in dog and cat experiments. Effects on fecal quality Supplemented at low concentrations in the diet: No effect on food intake fecal DM % and fecal ph fecal moisture frequency of defecation fecal scores (harder( feces with very low supplementation) Both in dog and cat No major effect on feces (12%) Detrimental effect (> 2%)

5 Effects on microbial populations By definition, a nondigestible carbohydrate is a prebiotic only if it stimulates the activity or number of one or a selected number of microorganisms. Intestinal microbial populations have been among the most common outcome variles measured in canine and feline experiments. Effects on microbial populations Prebiotics beneficially manipulate intestinal microbial populations fecal bifidobacteria fecal lactobacilli fecal clostridia E. coli Both in dog and cat The response of other microbial species to prebiotic supplementation has been inconsistent.

6 Effects on fermentation products Both canine and feline experiments suggest a common trend for increased fecal total SCFA and lactate concentrations. Prebiotics have been shown to lower fecal protein catolites in cats, but this effect remains unclear in dog experiments. Global beneficial effect on GI health Effects on immune indices In humans, the intestine has been described as an important immune organ (GALT). 4 canine experiments: White blood cell concentrations Serum, ileal,, or fecal IgA Significant but inconsistent effects of prebiotic supplementation

7 Prebiotics in pet foods Several studies on the use of prebiotics in dogs and cats. beneficial effects on GI tract and host health Verlinden et al., 2006 (inulin; dogs); Hesta et al., 2005 (oligofructose; cats) Relatively little information out prebiotic inclusion in companion animal diets. >1% supplementation not applicle to canine nutrition Inulin/oligofructose content of selected feeds, pet foods, and food ingredients H.S. Hussein, et al. (1998) J. van Loo, et al. (1995)

8 Materials and methods Hussein, H.S., et al., 1998: 25 common feed ingredients 3 majors subcomponents of oligofructose (1 kestotriose, 1,1kestotetraose, 1,1,1kestopentaose) Anion exchange HPLC van Loo,, J., et al., 1995: In common foodstuffs in the western diet Oligofructose and inulin (2<DP<60) Anion exchange HPLC Item Results Oligofructose content* mg/g DMB Inulin and oligofructose content mg/g (as is basis) Alfalfa meal 2.24 Barley Beet pulp 0.05 Canola meal 0.04 Corn gluten feed 0.09 Corn gluten meal 0.34 Garlic Oats 0.36 Oat groats 0.12 Onion, dried Peanut hulls 2.40 Rice bran 0.14 Rye flour Soybean hulls 0.12 Wheat Wheat bran 4.00 Wheat germ 4.68 Wheat middlings 5.07 *Hussein et al. (1998) as sum of 1kestotriose + 1,1kestotetraose + 1,1,1kestopentaose. van Loo et al. (1995) as sum of inulin and oligofructose with DP of 2 to 60.

9 Conclusion Inulin and oligofructose in low quantities in common pet food ingredients. Fructan contribution to the dietary fiber fraction not taken into account in any nutritional recommendations. Prebiotics in pet foods NRC, Dogs and Cats,, 2006 TABLE 48 Characteristics of Selected Carbohydrates and Their Effects on Gastrointestinal Health Characteristics of Dogs and/or Cats Fiber Properties Animal Effects Fiber Type Fermentility Viscosity Structure a Function b Prebiotic Cellulose N N N Beet pulp Y N NI NI Pectin and gum aric Y Y NI NI Beet pulp and FOS Y N NI FOS Y N Y a Structure denotes changes in intestinal mucosa thickness, villus height, or crypt depth. b Function denotes changes in intestinal nutrient transporters or nutrient sorption NI = No information availle

10 Evaluation of fermentle oligosaccharides in diets fed to dogs in comparison to fiber standards I. Middelbos,, N. Fastinger,, and G. Fahey Jr. Journal of Animal Sciences, In Press Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana 19 Background In pet foods, several sources are commonly used to provide dietary fiber Cellulose (nonfermentle) Peanut hulls (poorly fermentle) Beet pulp (moderately fermentle) For optimal gut health Fermentle Nonfermentle

11 Background Beet pulp is a common fiber source in dog food Stool consistency High in fiber ~60 80% total dietary fiber (TDF) Typically, 80% of TDF is insoluble Fermentle fraction is used by intestinal microbiota to produce shortchain fatty acids Background Possible use of fermentle oligosaccharides as dietary fiber? Prebiotic OS stimulate beneficial bacteria Easily fermented Efficacious at low inclusion rates Blend with a nonfermentle fiber? Cellulose How do blends compare to beet pulp?

12 Objective To evaluate fermentle carbohydrates as replacements for traditional dietary fiber sources in highprotein, lowfiber dog diets. Materials and methods Animals and design 6 adult dogs in 6 x 6 Latin square 14d d periods, 6 treatments Diets 30% crude protein 20% fat Poultry byproduct meal Brewer s s rice

13 Materials and methods Dietary treatments in % supplementation, asis basis Abbreviation Control CO Cellulose CL Beet pulp BP FOS CF FOS + YCW1 CFY1 FOS + YCW2 CFY2 Cellulose Beet pulp 2.5 FOS YCW FOS = Fructooligosaccharide (NutraFlora( NutraFlora P95, GTC Nutrtition,, Golden, CO) YCW = Yeast cell wall (Safmannan, LeSaffre Yeast Corp., Milwaukee, WI) Materials and methods Outcome variles Nutrient digestibility (ileal and total tract) Immune indices Fecal microbial populations Fecal fermentation metolites Shortchain fatty acids Phenols and Indoles

14 Total tract dry matter digestibility Control Cellulose Beet pulp CF CFY1 CFY2 a a b % Columns not sharing common superscript letters are different (P < 0.05) Trends: CF vs. Control (p = 0.06) and Cellulose vs. CFY2 (p = 0.10). Total tract crude protein digestibility 90 Control Cellulose Beet pulp CF CFY1 CFY a a a % b b b Crude protein digestibility Columns not sharing common superscript letters are different (P < 0.05)

15 Fecal bifidobacteria log(10) cfu/g DM Control Cellulose Beet pulp CF CFY1 CFY2 a a a a b b Bifidobacteria Columns not sharing common superscript letters are different (P < 0.05) Fecal lactobacilli log(10) cfu/g DM Control Cellulose Beet pulp CF CFY1 CFY2 a a a b Lactobacilli Columns not sharing common superscript letters are different (P < 0.05)

16 Fecal lactobacilli The difference in lactobacilli noted between beet pulp and cellulose was a trend (P=0.07). Other bacterial populations were not significantly affected. Fecal butyrate concentration Control Cellulose Beet pulp CF CFY1 CFY2 a a a a 40 µmol/g DM b b Butyrate Columns not sharing common superscript letters are different (P < 0.05)

17 Total fecal shortchain fatty acids 450 Control Cellulose Beet pulp CF CFY1 CFY2 a 400 µmol/g DM b b Total SCFA Columns not sharing common superscript letters are different (P < 0.05) Other outcome variles Outcome variles not affected by dietary treatment include: Ileal nutrient digestibility Immune indices Fecal E. coli concentrations Fecal C. perfringens concentrations Fecal consistency Fecal ph Fecal ammonia concentration Phenols and indoles

18 Summary Blends containing fermentle oligosaccharide behaved similarly to beet pulp. Beet pulp increased beneficial bacteria similar to the fermentle oligosaccharides. Conclusion Increasing number of published canine and feline prebiotic experiments. Prebiotic supplementation has several beneficial effects in the gastrointestinal tract of dogs and cats.

19 Conclusion Some commonly used dietary fiber sources appear to contain low amounts of prebiotics (inulin/oligofructose). Prebiotic potential of natural fibers would add to their list of potential benefits to the host. Future directions Estlishment of mechanisms by which prebiotics function. Accurate identification of microbial species and determination of their interactions in the gut of companion animals.

20 Future directions Optimal dose identification? Test of prebiotic supplementation on animals of different lifestages (e.g. weanlings, gestation/lactation, geriatric animals) and suffering various disease states. Grieshop et al., 2004 (chicory & MOS; senior dogs) Adogony et al., 2005 (scfos; bitches) Questions?