The genus Salmonella is closely associated with foodborne outbreaks and animal diseases, and reports of antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella species are frequent. Several alternatives have been developed to control this pathogen, such as cell-free supernatants (CFS). Our objective here was to evaluate the use of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) CFS against Salmonella in vitro. Seventeen strains of LAB were used to produce CFS, and their antimicrobial activity was screened towards six strains of Salmonella . In addition, CFS were also pH-neutralized and/or boiled. Those with the best results were lyophilized. MICs of lyophilized CFS were 11.25–22.5 g l–1. Freeze-dried CFS were also used to supplement swine and poultry feed (11.25 g kg–1) and in vitro simulated digestion of both species was performed, with Salmonella contamination of 5×106 and 2×105 c.f.u. g−1 of swine and poultry feed, respectively. In the antimicrobial screening, all acidic CFS were able to inhibit the growth of Salmonella . After pH neutralization, Lactobacillus acidophilus Llorente, Limosilactobacillus fermentum CCT 1629, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum PUCPR44, Limosilactobacillus reuteri BioGaia, Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus ATCC 7469 and Pediococcus pentosaceus UM116 CFS were the only strains that partially maintained their antimicrobial activity and, therefore, were chosen for lyophilization. In the simulated swine digestion, Salmonella counts were reduced ≥1.78 log c.f.u. g–1 in the digesta containing either of the CFS. In the chicken simulation, a significant reduction was obtained with all CFS used (average reduction of 0.59±0.01 log c.f.u. ml–1). In general, the lyophilized CFS of L. fermentum CCT 1629, L. rhamnosus ATCC 7469 and L. acidophilus Llorente presented better antimicrobial activity. In conclusion, CFS show potential as feed additives to control Salmonella in animal production and may be an alternative to the use of antibiotics, minimizing problems related to antimicrobial resistance.

Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are an important option for Salmonella control in animal production, resulting in lower use of therapeutic and zootechnical antibiotics. The objective of this research was to isolate LAB for in vitro veri cation of their bioprotective potential. 11 bacteria were identi ed as Pediococcus acidilactici, two as Lacticaseibacillus (Lactobacillus) rhamnosus, one as Lacticaseibacillus (Lactobacillus) paracasei paracasei, one as Limosilactobacillus fermentum, and one as a consortium of Lactobacillus delbrueckii bulgaricus and L. fermentum. All bacteria showed effectiveness against Salmonella, with emphasis on the inhibition halos of P. acidilactici PUCPR 011 against Salmonella Enteritidis 33SUSUP, S. Enteritidis 9SUSP, S.

Several countries have shown an increased prevalence of drug resistance in animal production due to the indiscriminate use of antibiotics and antiparasitics in human and veterinary medicine. This article aims to review existing methods using naturally occurring essential oils (EOs) and their isolated compounds (EOCs) as alternatives to antimicrobials and antiparasitic compounds in animal production and, consequently, to avoid resistance. The most-reported mechanism of action of EOs and EOCs was cell membrane damage, which leads to the leakage of cytoplasmic content, increased membrane permeability, inhibition of metabolic and genetic pathways, morphologic changes, antibiofilm effects, and damage to the genetic material of infections. In parasites, anticoccidial effects, reduced motility, growth inhibition, and morphologic changes have been reported. Although these compounds regularly show a similar effect to those promoted by traditional drugs, the elucidation of their mechanisms of action is still scarce. The use of EOs and EOCs can also positively influence crucial parameters in animal production, such as body weight gain, feed conversion rate, and cholesterol reduction, which also positively impact meat quality. The application of EOs and EOCs is enhanced by their association with other natural compounds or even by the association with synthetic chemicals, which has been found to cause synergism in their antimicrobial effect. By reducing the effective therapeutical/prophylactic dose, the chances of off-flavors – the most common issue in EO and EOC application – is greatly mitigated. However, there is very little work on the combination of EOs and EOCs in large in vivo studies. In addition, research must apply the correct methodology to properly understand the observed effects; for example, the use of only high concentrations may mask potential results obtained at lower dosages. Such corrections will also allow the elucidation of finer mechanisms and promote better biotechnologic use of EOs and EOCs. This manuscript presents several information gaps to be filled before the use of EOs and EOCs are fully applicable in animal production.

No abstract

Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are an important option for Salmonella control in animal production, resulting in lower use of therapeutic and zootechnical antibiotics. The objective of this research was to isolate LAB for in vitro verification of their bioprotective potential. 11 bacteria were identified as Pediococcus acidilactici, two as Lacticaseibacillus (Lactobacillus) rhamnosus, one as Lacticaseibacillus (Lactobacillus) paracasei paracasei, one as Limosilactobacillus fermentum, and one as a consortium of Lactobacillus delbrueckii bulgaricus and L. fermentum. All bacteria showed effectiveness against Salmonella, with emphasis on the inhibition halos of P. acidilactici PUCPR 011 against Salmonella Enteritidis 33SUSUP, S. Enteritidis 9SUSP, S. Enteritidis 56301, S. Enteritidis CRIFS 1016, Salmonella Typhimurium ATCC™ 14028®, and Salmonella Gallinarum AL 1138, with inhibition of 7.3 ± 0.5 mm, 7.7 ± 1.0 mm, 9.0 ± 1.8 mm, 7.3 ± 0.5 mm, 7.7 ± 1.0 mm, and 7.3 ± 0.5, respectively. The isolates P. acidilactici PUCPR 011, P. acidilactici PUCPR 012, P. acidilactici PUCPR 014, L. fermentum PUCPR 005, L. paracasei paracasei PUCPR 013, and L. rhamnosus PUCPR 010 showed inhibition greater than 2 mm against at least 3 Salmonella strains, and were used for encapsulation and in vitro digestion. The encapsulation efficiency ranged from 76.89 ± 1.54 to 116.48 ± 2.23%, and the population after 12 months of storage was from 5.31 ± 0.17 to 9.46 ± 0.09 log CFU/g. When simulating swine and chicken digestion, there was a large reduction in bacterial viability, stabilizing at concentrations close to 2.5 log CFU/mL after the analyses. The analyzed bacteria showed great potential in vitro for application as bioprotectors, and further analyses are required to determine their in vivo effectiveness.