Probiotics/Direct-Fed-Microbials

Comment

Comment by Robert Grant on June 9, 2010 at 10:19am

Ron good question. I actually have done extensive research on this. Plastic in general is a lousy container for freese dried bacteria as it has been shown that plastic cannot form a air and moisture proof seal. Thats why my company only uses amber glass and steel lids for the small consumer products.
However, what you cannot use that for live stock. Due to weight and expense. That type of plastic that you wont to use is called "Non-Regrind" plastic. This is virgin plastic. In the U.S. Virtually all white plastic containers are regrind (recycled) plastic and contain drug and chemical residues. We only use non-regrind black plastic in our bulk containers and the product is actually bagged in very thick and clear FDA food grade plastic bags and are heat sealed. Our out plastic containers are glued with hinged lits that have expoxy resealers.

When you see our product next to a probiotic in a paper bag. Well, you can guess who will have greater potency.

Foil bags are great. I am looking into using those too.

Comment by Ron Martin on June 9, 2010 at 9:46am

Robert, do you have any thoughts on the type of plastic used for lining in these bags? Some types of plastics are thought to be carcinogens.

Comment by Ron Martin on June 9, 2010 at 9:27am

The key to keeping live bacteria or yeast alive in plastic or foil-lined paper bags is how they are sealed. We use a machine that heat-seals the bags, which will keep the bacteria live and viable for an extended time. If bags are stitched shut, you lose this benefit and the bacteria will not survive nearly as well. Many of our products are also packaged in foil bags with ziploc closures that greatly enhance the bacteria longevity. It's also important for the customer to keep the bag top rolled down or resealed between uses, and keep it in a fairly cool, dry place.

Comment by Robert Grant on June 8, 2010 at 3:46pm

I also should ad that Enterococcus Faecium NCIB 10415 or SF67 has been used in several swine studies and has shown good results as well. It is also heat tolerant.
However, it seems that from what ive read over the years that combining a lactobacillus acidophilus species which attaches to the intestinal walls with a heat tolerant species of benificial bacteria like E. Faecium that does not attach to the intestinal wall but flows with the food bolus. Sinergistically work even better than singularly.

Comment by Robert Grant on May 17, 2010 at 10:19am

Yuttana, It really depends on the type of bacteria you are ysing. While Lactobacillus species would be ideal for feed. It needs to be refrigerated and only should be mixed into feed virtually at time of feeding. Depending on what animals you are feeding. Bacillus subtilus usage in swine and cattle have shown very good outcomes. It is very heat tolerant. There are several comericial products on the market.

Comment by Yuttana CHOISAENG on May 15, 2010 at 2:33am

I live in Thailand.I am interest to use probiotic in animal feed. I have problem use it after mix in feed it die before the animal to eat. I want to comment from someone about problem of use probiotic in animal feed. I shall look forward.

Comment by Robert Grant on February 2, 2010 at 1:20pm

Current Probiotic/DFM packaging. How do you all feel about the use of thin plastic lined paper bags being used to contain probiotics? When I see products kept and sold this way. I just dont understand how it can stay viable long enough to be of any meaningful use to the customer. Anyone agree or disagree?

Comment by Robert Grant on November 10, 2009 at 4:50pm

The use of FOS. Does anyone ever get feed back from customers that use FOS containing DFMs that have had bad or unexpected outcomes with this ingredient? I'm just wondering how prevalent it is and how it could actually start a bloom of resistant pathogenic bacteria in the G.I. Tract of production animals.

Comment by Robert Grant on September 8, 2009 at 12:38pm

Comment by Dr. YE HTUT AUNG 1 day ago Delete Comment The findings on effect of dietary probiotics on growth performance and immune responses of chickens are inconsistent. Why?


I think there are many reasons. But, I feel that one must always look at the research methods. Lookl at the most basic things first.
What kills benefical bacteria? Light, Heat, Moisture. How was the probiotic manufactured, transported and stored prior to use? Was it shipped in a truck that reached a mean temperature over 90f for any duration of time? Was the probiotic stored at or above 80F for an extended amount of time prior to being used? Was the the proboitic stored in direct sunlight or bright full spectrum indoor lighting for an extended period of time? How was the probiotic packaged? Was it packaged in a dark glass or aluminum container to block moisture and light or was it just placed in a paper bag or a white plastic tub?
Finally, was it premixed with feed and allowed to sit for over a week before prior use? I feel that if you can determine that an investigator failed to adhere to the basic light heat and moisture rules of probiotics you might have discovered why his project failed. Violating any one of those will surely kill off any Lactobacillus bacteria and render any project a failure.

Comment by Lance Minear on September 7, 2009 at 11:31pm

I believe the model used is not always correct to find a response.
For example, mash vs pelleted feed. With batteries, little difference is found. In research floor pens the advantage of pelleted feed can be measured. In commercial houses the differences increase another magnitude.
Challenges of chicks where mortality is present, indicates a significant DFM response with at least one of those currently in the market.
Another interesting observation at this years Poultry Science meeting, was the negative affect of a coccidial on the GI, when there was no cocci challenge. Perhaps, the first week of feeding can be a time of a DFM and no coccidial?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page