Erratum to “Numbers and strains of lactobacilli in some probiotic products” [Int. J. Food Microbiol. 97 (2004) 147–156]

Coeuret, Valérie; Guéguen, M.; Vernoux, Jean-Paul

doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2005.08.001

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This positive effect on the gastrointestinal flora results not only in an improved health status, especially in young animals, but also in improved animal performance, including growth rate and/or feed conversion efficiency. There are different categories of probiotic feed preparations: Additives containing about 10 10 CFU g −1 , premixes containing 10 8 CFU g −1 , and feeds, meals or pellets containing about 10 6 CFU g −1 [13]. Microorganisms that are used in animal feeds in the EU are mainly Gram–positive bacteria belonging to the families Bacillus ( B. cereus var toyoi , B. licheniformis ; B. subtilis ), Enterocococcus ( E. faecium ), Lactobacillus ( L. acidophilus , L. casei , L. farciminis , L. plantarum , L. rhamnosus ), Pediococcus ( P. acidilactici ), Streptococcus ( S. infantarius ).…”

Section: Probioticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

WS14 The EU ban of antibiotics as feed additives (2006): alternatives and consumer safety

Anadón

2006

Vet Pharm & Therapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This Workshop offers a forum to colleagues from academia and industry. It will present a critical re‐appraisal on the rational of the EU ban, and the overall economic impact of this measure as well as regulatory attempts to stimulate licensing of new products. Additional contributions are devoted to current RD activities within the industry, and new targets and strategies in product development will be presented and discussed.

show abstract

Section: Probioticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

WS14 The EU ban of antibiotics as feed additives (2006): alternatives and consumer safety

Anadón

2006

Vet Pharm & Therapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thirty-four in 45 probiotic products were unsatisfactory qualitatively or quantitatively as claimed on the label. As many previous studies, the amount of ingested viable bacteria and the specific species could affect the effectiveness of probiotics (Temmerman et al, 2003;Coeuret et al, 2004). Therefore, it is important that each product must be guaranteed in number of viable cells and identification of the specific species.…”

Section: Number and Strains Of Probiotic Products Sold For Food Anima...mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The basic properties of probiotic products for animals were defined (FAO, 2016b). The number of probiotic bacteria used in feed additives is usually about 10 10 CFU/g, while pre-mixtures contain 10 8 CFU/g (Coeuret et al, 2004). For the safety purposes, microorganisms used as probiotics in animal feed should be examined to ensure accurate identification of species/strains, not being a cause of infection, no toxin production, and lack of transferable AMR genes (EFSA, 2007).…”

Section: Chapter I Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microbiological quality of and antimicrobial resistance in commercial probiotic products for food animals in Thailand

Tran¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A total of 45 commercial probiotic products for food animals were investigated for the number of viable cells, bacterial species and the presence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes. All products were enumerated for viable bacterial cells of Lactobacillus, Bacillus and Enterococcus. Confirmation of species was carried out by multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) for Lactobacillus (n=20), Enterococcus (n=20), and Amplified Ribosomal DNA Restriction Analysis (ARDRA) for Bacillus (n=190). The presence of Clostridium species was examined by PCR. The contamination of E. coli and Salmonella was also determined. Minimal Inhibitory Concentrations (MICs) for 14 antimicrobials was examined in the bacterial isolates obtained (n=64). The presence of 111 genes encoding resistance to clinically important antibiotics was tested in probiotic products (n=45). Possible resistance gene transferability was investigated in the isolates with resistance phenotype. The results showed that 34 of 45 products (75.5%) were incorrectly labeled in either numbers of viable cells or bacterial species or both. None of the products tested were contaminated with E. coli and Salmonella. Thirty-three out of 64 isolates (51.6%) exhibited resistance to at least one antimicrobial agent. Resistance to chloramphenicol (21%) was highest among probiotic bacteria, followed by trimethoprim (17%), clindamycin (16%) sulfamethoxazole (15%), ampicillin (10%), erythromycin (9%), vancomycin (9%), tetracycline (8%), ciprofloxacin (6%), streptomycin (5%) and kanamycin (5%). Sixteen in 45 products (35.5%) were positive to at least one AMR genes, including genes encoding resistance to β-lactamase (blaOXA-1-like and blaSHV), ciprofloxacin [oqxAB, qnrD, aac(6’)-Ib-cr, qrnB, and qnrS), streptomycin (aadA1, aadA2, aadE and strA-strB), gentamicin [aac(3)-II and aac(6’)-aph(2’’)], kanamycin [ant(4’)-Ia and aph(3’)-IIIa], tetracycline (tetA, tetB, tetL and tetM), chloramphenicol (catA and cmlA), macrolide (mefA), trimethoprim (dfrA12 and dfrA14), sulfonamide (sul1) and vancomycin (vanC). Almost AMR genes detected in probiotic products were not correlated to AMR phenotype of probiotic bacteria found in these products. Three streptomycin- resistant Lactobacillus isolates could horizontally transfer their resistance determinants. The findings demonstrated that the probiotic products could serve as reservoirs for spread of AMR genes and may not yield benefits to animals as claimed. The observations highlight the need for the adequate quality control of probiotic products.

show abstract

Exposure, health information and flavour-masking strategies for improving the sensory quality of probiotic juice

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Erratum to “Numbers and strains of lactobacilli in some probiotic products” [Int. J. Food Microbiol. 97 (2004) 147–156]

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

WS14 The EU ban of antibiotics as feed additives (2006): alternatives and consumer safety

WS14 The EU ban of antibiotics as feed additives (2006): alternatives and consumer safety

Microbiological quality of and antimicrobial resistance in commercial probiotic products for food animals in Thailand

Exposure, health information and flavour-masking strategies for improving the sensory quality of probiotic juice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Erratum to “Numbers and strains of lactobacilli in some probiotic products” [Int. J. Food Microbiol. 97 (2004) 147–156]

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

WS14 The EU ban of antibiotics as feed additives (2006): alternatives and consumer safety

WS14 The EU ban of antibiotics as feed additives (2006): alternatives and consumer safety

Microbiological quality of and antimicrobial resistance in commercial probiotic products for food animals in Thailand

Exposure, health information and flavour-masking strategies for improving the sensory quality of probiotic juice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

WS14 The EU ban of antibiotics as feed additives (2006): alternatives and consumer safety

WS14 The EU ban of antibiotics as feed additives (2006): alternatives and consumer safety