Research Article

Published: 2024-07-30
https://doi.org/10.20935/AcadBiol7287

Effect of probiotics on the growth, blood profile, and

nutritional-metabolic profile of feedlot cattle
Flavia I. Mansilla1, María C. Aristimuño Ficoseco1, María H. Miranda1, Marcela D’Urso Villar1, Graciela M. Vignolo1,*, María E. F.
Nader-Macías1,*

Academic Editor(s): Olajide Sogunle and Andre J. van Wijnen

Abstract
The blood profile, nutritional-metabolic status, and growth performance of cattle receiving probiotic lactobacilli for 105 days from
entry to a feedlot system were evaluated. The trial involved 60 Brangus/Braford castrated steers. They were randomly allocated in pens
(n = 15/treatment) and in-feed supplemented with different probiotic suspensions (107–108 CFU/mL/day). The suspensions consisted
of (A) Lactobacillus acidophilus CRL2074, (B) Limosilactobacillus fermentum CRL2085, or (C) multistrain CRL2074 + CRL2085 +
Limosilactobacillus mucosae CRL2069 formulations, against the control group. Individual samples were taken from each animal thrice
throughout the assay (0, 45, and 105 days). Analysis of clinical parameters showed optimal animal body condition and sensorium state.
Isolated nasal discharges and the absence of diarrhea were observed at 105 days in the group administered with multistrain and Lim.
fermentum CRL2085 probiotics. An increasing trend was observed in cattle growth throughout the trial, which was calculated based
on the height at the withers and the thoracic diameter. Weight increase and daily weight gain (1.31 ± 0.12 kg and 1.21 ± 0.21 kg/day,
respectively) were maximum for cattle supplied with CRL2085 and multistrain probiotics. Blood and serum parameters were within
referential ranges for the control and probiotics-supplemented groups; however, mean values of hematocrit were higher, while the
serum glucose, lipid profile, and C-reactive protein values were lower in all the groups. In addition, the multistrain probiotic
formulation exhibited higher numbers of cultivable lactic acid bacteria and a slight decrease in the number of enterobacteria in feces
at the end of the trial. Therefore, there is great potential for multistrain probiotic formulation to improve the overall performance of
feedlot beef cattle.

Keywords: body conditions, feedlot cattle, growth performance, nutritional parameters, probiotic lactobacilli

Citation: Mansilla FI, Ficoseco MCA, Miranda MH, Villar MD, Vignolo GM, Nader-Macías MEF. Effect of probiotics on the growth,
blood profile, and nutritional-metabolic profile of feedlot cattle. Academia Biology 2024;2. https://doi.org/10.20935/AcadBiol7287

1. Introduction
Livestock production systems are part of a circular bioeconomy As a result, it is necessary to explore alternative methods to im-
from which food is derived, with both environmental impacts and prove cattle performance. Probiotics (bacteria and yeasts) and
benefits [1, 2]. Supplementation of feed additives as alternatives phytobiotics as feed additives have been reported as desirable
to in-feed antimicrobials helps maintain a balance in gut mi- alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters, supporting cattle
crobes and thus benefits microbial ecosystem in the gut, thereby health and growth promotion [9, 10]. There is a particular
improving nutrient absorption, productivity, health, and general research interest in the application and benefits of probiotics in
well-being of animals [3, 4]. High-energy diets containing grains the production of meat animals. The natural mechanism of
improve growth parameters and potentially shorten the feeding probiotics is modulation of rumen metabolism and host gene
period, thus increasing animal productivity in intensive systems expression, while reducing the disease burden [9, 11–13]. When
[5]. However, to counteract the negative effects of feeding administered as probiotics, lactic acid bacteria (LAB) have im-
concentrated diets to cattle, ionophore antibiotics are still used proved the metabolic-nutritional status, overall productive perfor-
as growth promoters in some countries to maximize rumen mance, feeding efficiency, and well-being of cattle [14–16], by
fermentation. Although these additives were proven to increase enhancing the balance of the gastrointestinal microbiota [17–19].
feed efficiency, the understanding of how they influence the Impacts of LAB strains from lactobacilli, enterococci, pediococci,
ruminal microbial dynamics is still incomplete [6, 7]. In addition, bifidobacteria, and some specific yeast on the growth and produc-
the development and spread of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria, tive performance have been widely reported. Alterations of the
which may threaten the health of animals and consumers of gastrointestinal microbiota have been reported to influence stress-
animal products, led to the ban of antibiotics used as growth related behaviors by activating neural pathways and signaling
promoters in animal production since 2006 in Europe [8]. systems of the central nervous system [20]. The scientific appraisal

1Centro de Referencia para Lactobacilos (CERELA), CONICET, Tucumán, San Miguel de Tucumán, Tucumán T4000, Argentina.
*email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

ACADEMIA BIOLOGY 2024, 2 1 of 14

https://www.academia.edu/journals/academia-biology/about https://doi.org/10.20935/AcadBiol7287

of cattle disease and behavior by semiological and ethological wheat bran (8–10%). After the adaptation period, animals with
descriptions has been used to determine the impact of intensivism an initial average body weight between 200 and 250 kg were
on animals subjected to intensive animal agriculture [21, 22]. As a randomly allocated in four separate pens, containing 15 animals
reservoir of Escherichia coli O157:H7, cattle can cause infections to each (three for probiotics administration and one as control). All
humans. Therefore, its reduction in the fecal shedding of farms can the animals received ionophore (monensin, 1400 ppm) treat-
lessen its entry into the food chain [23]. The use of probiotic LAB ment, and feed rations were supplied twice a day (one-half of the
and yeasts to reduce the amount of pathogenic bacteria in fecal allowed daily rations at each feeding) and ad-libitum access to
shedding has been widely reported as an intervention strategy to water was provided. Pens (30 × 30 m2) were designed with
mitigate their transmission to humans [24]. In previous studies, individual feeding trays, and watering holes were automatically
LAB from feedlot cattle feces were identified and characterized as refilled. The administration of probiotics was carried out twice
probiotics, and their effects on fecal microbiome modulation were three days per week. The steers (n = 15) in each pen received the
studied [17, 25, 26] for different administration days and life peri- probiotics through the feed and were distributed linearly in the
ods. Based on these findings, the impacts of probiotic lactobacilli feeder. In total, 100 g of frozen concentrated cells of each
(individual or combined strains) administration on clinical, nutri- probiotic strain/combination was resuspended in a spray bottle
tional, and blood parameters, as well as on fecal microbiology, containing 750 mL of tap water. The suspension was sprayed and
during feedlot confinement of cattle were evaluated. mixed over the feed ration to obtain a final probiotic concentra-
tion between 107 and 108 CFU/animal/day. An operator checked
daily that all the animals consumed the food provided. Before
2. Material and methods administration, ear tags (numbered in different colors for each
2.1. Ethics statement probiotic group) were used for the identification of each animal.

All the procedures and protocols used in this study were reviewed 2.4. Animals experimental design
and approved by the Institutional Committee for the Care and
Use of Laboratory Animals (CICUAL-UNT, Argentina). After veterinary control and the adaptation period (day 0), ani-
mals were randomly separated into three groups (n = 15) for the
2.2. Probiotic bacteria, culture conditions, and administration of probiotics as follows: (A) L. acidophilus CRL
inoculum preparation 2074, (B) Lim. fermentum CRL2085, and (C) L. acidophilus
CRL2074 + Lim. fermentum CRL2085 + Lim. mucosae CRL2069.
Lactobacillus acidophilus CRL2074, Limosilactobacillus fer- A control group (which was not administered with probiotics)
mentum CRL2085, and Limosilactobacillus mucosae CRL2069, was also included, as shown in Figure 1. At each experimental
which were previously isolated from fattening cattle and selected period (T0, T45, and T105), individual samples were taken from the
for their beneficial properties related to epithelial adhesion animals for general clinical examination (evaluation of body
(hydrophobicity, self-aggregating, biofilm-forming), enzymes, or condition and inspection of mucous membranes, presence of
antagonistic substances (organic acids and/or hydrogen perox- ocular and nasal secretions, and sensory status). Their weight (on
ide), were used as probiotics [26]. Inocula were prepared by a mechanical scale), blood parameters, and rectal feces were
transferring frozen glycerol stock culture of the strains to MRS analyzed. Fecal samples were collected aseptically from the colon/
(De Man, Rogosa, and Sharpe) broth (Biokar, France) and rectum of each steer restrained in an operating stall. The anus was
subcultured twice in the same media at 37°C for 18 hours. Each cleaned with disposable paper, and then the fecal samples were
LAB probiotic strain was multiplied at the CERELA (CONICET) collected from the rectal blister by inserting the gloved hand. If no
pilot plant. The obtained concentrated cell mass of each probiotic feces were found, defecation was stimulated by massaging the
strain was distributed in plastic containers of 100 g each, with a inside of the intestine with the fingers. Once the samples were
cell concentration of 1011 CFU/100 g, and stored at −20°C until obtained, they were stored separately in precisely marked sterile
use. The viability of the microbial cells was determined before collection bottles.
administration by the plate-counting method (through succes-
sive dilutions in 0.85% sterile physiological solution and subse- 2.5. Monitoring probiotics’ effect on animals
quent plating on MRS agar).
2.5.1. Clinical parameters
2.3. Animals, feeding, and probiotic treatments Each animal from the different probiotics-administered groups
was inspected. Following the scoring method of Edmonson et al.
Sixty Brangus and Braford male and castrated animals were [27], the steers’ body condition was evaluated by visually and
eligible for their inclusion in this study. Cattle belonged to a physically examining the body fat around their tail head. The
commercial feedlot located in the Northern Province of Santiago amount of subcutaneous fat of each animal was assessed by
del Estero (Argentina). Upon their arrival, the status of animals’ manually palpating the tail head and observing the shape of the
health (vaccination against infectious pathogens, respiratory loins, pelvis, and tail head areas of the animal from behind. Based
diseases, and parasites) was assessed according to the preventive on the assessment, overall body condition was scored on a 1–5
sanitary plan developed by the veterinary staff of the livestock scale of severe under-condition (emaciated) to over-condition
industry. In the feedlot, steers were fed diets consisting of three (very fat). The sensorium state of steers was evaluated by observ-
rations with different compositions in different time periods: ing animal behavior and characterized as depressed, normal, and
initial/adaptation up to 15 days (T0), intermediate up to 45 days exited. Nasal and ocular discharges were individually inspected,
(T45), and finishing ration until 105 days (T105). The composition and their presence/absence was recorded on a scale. A macro-
of the feed was designed by decreasing sorghum silage (63–17%) scopic analysis of steers’ feces was carried out for consistency,
and soybean expeller (9.5–3%), while increasing dry corn crac- and the observations were recorded as (1) normal or pasty and
ked grain (16–80%). In addition, rations were also supplemented (2) diarrhea.
with urea (0.5%), minerals/vitamins (1.7–2%), and occasionally

ACADEMIA BIOLOGY 2024, 2 2 of 14

https://www.academia.edu/journals/academia-biology/about https://doi.org/10.20935/AcadBiol7287

Figure 1 • Probiotics administration to feedlot cattle. Experimental protocol was applied to different groups of animals (n = 15 each).
Animals receiving probiotics from day 0 to day 105 (T0–T105) and control animals (n = 15) were fed ad libitum: (A) L. acidophilus CRL
2074, (B) Lim. fermentum CRL2085, and (C) mixture of CRL 2074 + CRL 2085 + CRL2069. Samples were taken on days 0, 45, and 105.

2.5.2. Nutritional parameters Lab Liquid Plus kits (using GPO/PAP and CHOD/PAP Trinder’s
Growth and performance were evaluated on days 0, 45, and 105 color colorimetric methods). In addition, amounts of total
for each probiotics-supplemented cattle group, as indicated in proteins and albumin were evaluated by using the biuret and dye-
the experimental protocol (Figure 1). Feedlot facilities were well binding methods. Glucose was determined by applying the
designed, and handlers were trained to reduce/avoid cattle GPO/PAP Trinder’s color kit, and C-reactive protein (CRP) was
stress. Animals were individually immobilized in the chute (oper- qualitatively assayed using the direct latex method. All kits used
ating box) composed of a semiautomatic stock and a lever- for serum determinations were from GT Lab (Rosario, Argen-
operated vacuum clamp, allowing for a complete animal immo- tina). Results for metabolic parameters were compared with
bilization without hurting it to work safely. At each experimental reference values [28–31].
time (T0, T45, and T105), animals were individually weighed by
using a mechanical livestock scale. Mean daily weight gain 2.5.4. Fecal microbiological analysis
(DWG) per animal was calculated as follows: [FW (final weight) Rectal fecal samples from each animal were collected, and 5 g of
– IW (initial weight)]/number of days between samplings. Then, each was used to determine the number of cultivable bacteria
the group average ± SD was calculated. For biometrics parame- from the different animal groups in the sampling times. Fecal
ters, height (cm) was determined from the highest point of the samples (5 g) were aseptically homogenized in 45 mL of saline-
animal’s withers to the floor using a rigid tape measure. The peptone water (8.5 g/L NaCl, 1 g/L bacteriological peptone) in a
thoracic circumference (cm) was taken with a tape that sur- sterile plastic bag using Stomacher (Stomacher Lab-Blender 400,
rounded the trunk behind the knuckle, the first ribs, and the first A.J. Seward Lab., London, UK) for two minutes, and decimal
thoracic vertebrae of the steer. The weight, height, and thoracic dilutions were then prepared in saline (0.9 w/v NaCl). Microbial
diameter differences were calculated for each animal by suspensions were plated in triplicate and incubated as follows:
subtracting the value obtained in the previous sampling from the total aerobic mesophyles (TAM) were plated on Plate Count Agar
value obtained in the latter sampling, and then the average per (PCA, Biokar, France) and incubated aerobically (48 hours at
group was determined. 37°C), and LAB were plated on the MRS agar medium and
incubated under microaerophilic conditions (48 hours at 37°C).
2.5.3. Hematologic and metabolic parameters Total coliforms (TC) were determined on the McConkey agar (24
Animals’ blood was collected from the coccygeal vein using a 5- hours at 37°C).
mL syringe and a sterile 18 Gx1–1/2 (Neojets Ltd, UK) disposable
hypodermic needle. The collected blood was fractionated in 2.6. Statistics
hemolysis tubes both with and without heparin. The hematocrit A descriptive analysis of the evaluated weight was carried out.
% was determined from the blood collected in heparinized tubes Inferential analysis was performed using the hypothesis test to
[28]. Briefly, capillary tubes with their one end sealed were filled compare the treatments at each evaluated time; the Kruskal-
with blood to three-fourths of their volume and centrifuged. The Wallis’ and Fisher’s exact tests were applied. The level of
hematocrit % was calculated as follows: erythrocytes column significance used was p < 0.05. The statistical package used was
length/total blood length in the capillary tubes × 100. Leukocyte Stata15IC (Stata-UK.com).
percentage was also determined as previously described [28].
Different types of leukocytes in blood were counted by staining
blood smear in the glass using the May-Grünwald Giemsa tech- 3. Results
nique. Different types of cells, namely lymphocytes, neutrophils,
eosinophils, monocytes, and basophils, were observed using an 3.1. Clinical parameters
optical microscope (100×) and counted, and the cell volumes The effects of individual probiotic strains, namely L. acidophilus
were expressed as percentages. Hematology data taken at the CRL2074 (A) and L. fermentum CRL2085 (B), and the multi-
beginning of the study were used for comparative purposes. strain formulation of L. acidophilus CRL2074 + L. fermentum
Serum metabolic parameters were analyzed from the blood col- CRL2085 + L. mucosae CRL2069 (C) at a final concentration of
lected in non-heparinized tubes. Liver activity and bilirubin con- 107–108 UFC/g for each probiotics group were evaluated for a
centration were quantified using the diazo-reagent colorimetric period of 105 days in beef cattle. A combination of subjective and
method. AST (aspartate transaminase) and ALT (alanine trans- objective analyses was applied to animals. Exhaustive clinical ex-
aminase) activities were evaluated by the Reitman–Frankel color- amination of both probiotics-administered and non-probiotics-
imetric method. Lipid profile assessment, serum triglycerides, and administered cattle was conducted to identify possible pathologi-
total cholesterol concentrations were determined by using the GT cal evidence, as shown in Table 1. Inspection of steers’ body

ACADEMIA BIOLOGY 2024, 2 3 of 14

https://www.academia.edu/journals/academia-biology/about https://doi.org/10.20935/AcadBiol7287

condition initially showed values between 3 and 5. There were no all treatments at 105 days. In addition, during probiotics admin-
significant differences when comparing the sample groups with istration, nasal and ocular discharges were monitored as disease
the control group initially (p > 0.05), while increased scores were markers (Table 1).
observed for body condition over time when comparing the groups
Initially, apart from cattle administered with probiotics formu-
undergoing probiotic treatments with the control at different
lation, a certain degree of nasal discharge was observed, decreasing
experimental times. A higher number of animals (80%) exhibited
at the end of the experiment for control and L. acidophilus
a score of 4 (frame as visible as covering) at day 0 in probiotics-
CRL2074 supplementation. The number of cattle with this sign
supplemented groups, while 100% of animals reached a score of 5
increased (20%) after 45 days when Lim. fermentum CRL2085
(severe over-conditioning) at 105 days of confinement.
and probiotic formulation, respectively, were administered. Ocular
When the effects of probiotics treatments were analyzed, a score of inspection of cattle showed 20% and 26.6% of animals in the
5 was displayed by 6.6–20% of cattle at day 0, 40–100% at day 45, control group with eye secretions at T0 and T45, although this effect
and 100% at the end of the trial (105 days). Lim. fermentum was further reduced. Probiotics administration exhibited a lower
CRL2085 and multistrain probiotics (CRL2074 + CRL2085 + percentage of affected cattle. One hundred percent of animals from
CRL2069) were the quickest to change the general body condition the three probiotics-administered groups were free of ocular
of cattle during the trial. Statistical analysis of cattle supplemented secretions on the 105th day. As a complementary clinical
with probiotics groups showed no significant differences (p = 0.129 parameter, consistency of cattle feces was evaluated (Table 1).
and p = 0.082) for body condition when compared between 0 and Although the stools from the different groups were mostly normal
45 days and 45 and 105 days, respectively. When the sensorium/ (pasty), the control group exhibited a greater proportion of liquid
behavior of confined feedlot cattle was evaluated, most of them stools at day 0, which evolved to pasty at the end of the trial.
were in the normal category for all the treatments (Table 1). As Probiotics-administered cattle groups presented lower per-
the administration protocol progressed, several animals showed centages of diarrhea. Administration of CRL2074 probiotics
excited behaviors compared to day 0. Supplementation of L. changed the consistency of feces from pasty to more liquid in 0–
acidophilus CRL2074 resulted in the highest level (20%) of 20% of animals at 105 days, while supplementation of multistrain
excitement, while a somewhat depressed behavior (6.6%) was probiotics maintained the pasty consistency in 100% of feedlot
found for the supplementation of the multistrain probiotics. Cattle cattle throughout the period of experiment.
sensorium was normal (between 80 and 100% of the animals) in
Table 1 • Clinical parameters of feedlot cattle in-feed supplemented with probiotics

Clinical parameters L. acidophilus Lim. fermentum Multistrain

Control (Co)
(animals %) CRL2074 CRL2085 probiotic
Time (days)
0 45 105 0 45 105 0 45 105 0 45 105
Body condition

3—Frame/balanced covering 6.6 – – – – – 6.6 – – 6.6 – –

4—Frame as visible as covering 73.3 53.3 6.6 80 60 – 86.6 13.3 – 80 – –

5—Severe over-conditioning 20 46.7 93.3 20 40 100 6.6 86.6 100 13.3 100 100

Sensorium state

Normal 100 100 100 100 100 80 100 93.3 100 100 93.3 93.3

Depressed – – – – – – – 6.6 –

Excited – – – – – 20 – 6.6 – – – 6.6

Nasal discharge

Yes 13.3 6.6 6.6 6.6 13.3 6.6 13.3 20 20 – 20 20

No 86.6 93.3 93.3 93.3 86.6 93.3 86.6 80 80 100 66.6 66.6

Ocular discharge

Yes 20 26.6 13.3 6.6 13.3 – – 20 6.6 – 6.6 –

No 80 73.3 86.6 93.3 86.6 100 100 80 93.3 100 93.3 100

Consistency of feces

Diarrhea 33.3 20 6.6 – 13.3 20 6.6 – 6.6 – – –

Pasty 66.7 80 93.3 100 86.6 80 93.3 100 93.3 100 100 100

3.2. Nutritional parameters changes of cattle were evaluated. In Figure 2a, a mean height of
To assess the improvement in feedlot cattle growth and 110.7  4.6 cm for control animals was observed initially, and it
performance, biometric parameters, mean weight, and DWG increased to 117.1  2.9 cm at 105 days. Mean height changes from
T0 to T105 were 7.1, 9.2, and 9.3 cm for feedlot cattle administered

ACADEMIA BIOLOGY 2024, 2 4 of 14

https://www.academia.edu/journals/academia-biology/about https://doi.org/10.20935/AcadBiol7287

with L. acidophilus CRL2074, Lim. fermentum CRL2085, and thoracic diameter of control animals increased from 162.3  8.9
multistrain probiotics (CRL2074 + CRL2085 + CRL2069), to 182.4  6.2 cm between 0 and 105 days (Figure 2b). During
respectively. When different treatments were compared, no the trial, a significant difference in thoracic diameter was ob-
significant differences were detected for mean heights of animals served between 45 and 105 days (p  0.0001). When treatments
treated with CRL2074 and CRL2085 (p = 0.887), CRL2074 and with probiotics were compared, supplementation of L. acidophi-
probiotics mix (p = 0.113), and CRL2085 and probiotics formulation lus CRL2074 showed the highest mean values at 0, 45, and 105
(p = 0.149). However, there is evidence that the mean heights days. However, total thoracic diameter increments were maxi-
were significantly different at 45 and 105 days compared to the mum (25.0 cm) in animals supplemented with Lim. fermentum
control (p  0.001). The greatest mean height increase was pro- CRL2085 and probiotic formulation (25.1 cm), while the incre-
duced during the 0–45-day period, while total increases of mean ment for CRL2074 was 20.6 cm. In general, as the administration
height values (9.0 cm) were maximum for the administration of protocol progressed, all the biometric values increased indicating
CRL2085 and multistrain probiotics at 105 days. The mean normal growth and development of animals.

Figure 2 • Biometric parameters of steers fed ad libitum, added with L. acidophilus CRL2074, Lim. fermentum CRL2085, or combined
strains (CRL 2074 + CRL2085 + CRL2069) and the control group during 45 and 105 days. (a) Height and (b) thoracic diameter of
animals at different sampling times. Each point represents the data obtained from each animal.

Changes in the mean weight of feedlot cattle supplemented with animals increased from 245.2 kg (0 days) to 298.9 kg (45 days),
probiotic groups are shown in Figure 3 and Table S1, Supple- and 352.3 kg (105 days). Comparison of supplementation with
mentary materials. As expected, animal weight increased during Lim. fermentum CRL2085 and probiotic mixture formulation
the stay in feedlot. At the end of experimental time (105 days), (p = 0.5756), and supplementation with L. acidophilus CRL2074
the highest average weight (361.3  23.5 kg) was found for L. and CRL2085 (p = 0.0525) indicated non-significant differences,
acidophilus CRL2074-supplemented group compared to the while significant differences were found when comparing CRL2074
control (347.9  29 kg). When cattle weights were analyzed for with multistrain probiotic mix (p = 0.0124) (from a mixed linear
each administration period, the average weights of all the model in Stata/IC 15 applied). In addition, weights between day

ACADEMIA BIOLOGY 2024, 2 5 of 14

https://www.academia.edu/journals/academia-biology/about https://doi.org/10.20935/AcadBiol7287

0 and days 45 and 105, and between 45 and 105 days had maximum between 0 and 45 days, and the highest value of DWG
significant differences among the groups. Weight increased was obtained for Lim. fermentum CRL2085 supplementation
throughout the experimental time from 100.3 kg (CRL2074) to with a value of 1.44 ± 0.19 kg/day. Although a reduction of DWG
113.1 kg (CRL2085), and 112.3 kg (probiotic mixture). The great- was observed during the final administration stage (45–105
est increase of live weight at 105 days was for supplementation days), the overall highest values (0–105 days) were obtained for
with Lim. fermentum CRL2085. However, changes in DWG were CRL2085 and multistrain probiotics mix with DWGs of 1.3 ± 0.12
observed around the general mean for each administration and 1.21 ± 0.21 kg/day, respectively. As a whole, feedlot steers
period (Table 2). When treatments were compared, significant supplemented with Lim. fermentum CRL2085 and multistrain
differences were evidenced between the control and the group probiotics thrice per week for 105 days had an 11% higher average
supplemented with Lim. fermentum CRL2085 probiotics at day DWG than non-administered control.
45 (p = 0.0078) and day 105 (p = 0.0178). Average DWG was

Table 2 • Daily weight gain of steers fed with different probiotic formulas
DWG (kg/animal/day) ± SD
From day 0 to From day 45 to From day 0 to
Treatment 45 105 105
Control 1.14  0.28 1.12  0.13 1.13  0.15

L. acidophilus CRL2074 1.23  0.23 0.99  0.20 1.10  0.17

1.44  0.19 1.3  0.12

Lim. fermentum CRL2085 (p = 0.0078) 1.16  0.14 (p = 0.0178)

L. acidophilus CRL2074 + Lim. fermentum CRL2085 + L. mucosae

CRL2069 1.31  0.22 1.11  0.22 1.21  0.21

Figure 3 • Mean body weight of feedlot cattle fed ad libitum, added with L. acidophilus CRL2074, Lim. fermentum CRL2085, or
combined strains: CRL 2074 + CRL2085 + CRL2069 and the control group during 45 and 105 days. Each point represents the data
obtained from each animal.

3.3. Blood and serum parameters mean values showed hematocrit % within the reference range for
The effect of probiotics administration on cattle was also evalu- cattle from the control group during the trial, whereas mean
ated by hematologic parameters at the end of administration values of the probiotics-administered group were higher than the
time. The obtained results were compared to those at the reference values, indicating that the animals were not suffering
beginning of the study (day 0) and physiological reference values from anemia. The highest final value (59.8  10.2%) was reached
(Table 3 and Table S2, Supplementary materials). Descriptive at 105 days by the control group, while the final hematocrit % was

ACADEMIA BIOLOGY 2024, 2 6 of 14

https://www.academia.edu/journals/academia-biology/about https://doi.org/10.20935/AcadBiol7287

found between 55% and 58.3% when probiotics were supple- On the contrary, lower mean values were exhibited for neutro-
mented in the diet (Table S2, Supplementary materials). When phils at day 0, and values within and below the referential range
lymphocytes were evaluated, values at 105 days were also higher were obtained for control and probiotics groups, respectively.
than the reference range. A mean value of 75% was found The greatest values were obtained for lymphocytes, eosinophils,
during the whole experiment, reaching maximum values for the and neutrophils at 105 days when L. acidophilus CRL2074 pro-
control (85.5%) and L. acidophilus CRL2074 probiotics groups biotics was supplemented to feedlot cattle (Table S2, Supple-
(83.4%), whereas CRL2085 and multistrain probiotics groups mentary materials). The highest mean values were obtained for
normalized their values within the referential range (Table S2, monocytes and basophils at day 0 (out of the reference range),
Supplemen-tary materials). At the beginning of the trail, reaching their maximum for Lim. fermentum CRL2085 (10.5%),
eosinophils were close to the lower reference values in all the and then these values reduced between 0 and 0.71  1.4%,
groups, but resulted in higher values for the probiotic groups at respectively, at 105 days (Table 3 and Table S2, Supplementary
the end of the assay. materials).

Table 3 • Descriptive mean values of blood and serum metabolic parameters of feedlot cattle
administered with probiotics for 105 days

Control Probiotics administration

Parameter  SD
0 days 105 days 105 days Reference values
Hematocrit (%) 42.75  12.7 59.8  10.2 57.17  12.2 (24–48%)

Lymphocytes (%) 76.84  10.1 85.50  22.6 78.81  16.9 (45–75%)

Eosinophils (%) 2.28  3.1 2.54  3.5 3.13  4.3 (2–20%)

Neutrophils (%) 11.7  8.3 17.5  6.4 12.0  13.6 (15–45%)

Monocytes (%) 6.08  5.6 0 0 (2–7%)

Basophils (%) 4.32  3.3 1.6  0.5 0.71  1.4 (0–2%)

Glucose (mg/dL) 74.02  13.4 46.2  12.7 46.27  11.6 (45–75 mg/dL)

Total protein (g/dL) 5.60  0.54 6.19  0.28 6.16  0.63 (5.70–8.10 g/dL)

Albumin (g/dL) 2.23  0.48 3.06  0.51 3.36  0.46 (2.10–3.60 g/dL)

Total bilirubin (mg/L) 0.43  0.31 0.58  0.54 0.48  0.60 (0.01–0.5 mg/L)

AST (U/L) 3.08  1.23 3.82  0.95 3.25  1.04 (19.3–37.7 U/L)

ALT (U/L) 1.89  0.52 2.27  0.63 2.94  0.80 (13.8–26.5 U/L)

Triglycerides (mg/L) 17.89  5.3 55.8  6.3 27.63  10.8 (140 mg/L)

Total cholesterol (mg/dL) 102.71  15.1 154.3  23.2 135.5  17.2 (65–220 mg/dL)

C-reactive protein (ng/mL) 1.7 1.4 1.3 ( 2.0 ng/mL)

Reference values used in this study for hematological parameters are as follows: hematocrit, lymphocytes, eosinophils, neutrophils, monocytes, basophils [28];
total protein, glucose, albumin, triglycerides, cholesterol, total bilirubin [29]; AST, ALT [30]; C-reactive protein [31].

Moreover, when metabolic parameters were assessed (Table 3), values for both liver enzymes (Table 3 and Table S2, Supple-
serum descriptive mean values for glucose were at the upper limit mentary materials). Animals in all experimental groups exhibited
of the referential range at day 0, suggesting a hyperglycemic lower descriptive values of triglycerides according to the refer-
state. Then, at the end of the trial, values for both groups reduced ence range. The control group showed higher values (55.8  6.3
to a lower limit (46 mg/dL). At 105 days, glucose level reached mg/dL) than the probiotics-administered groups. Among all, the
the physiological standard for the multistrain probiotics group L. acidophilus CRL2074 group displayed the greatest value (32.4
(68.5 mg/dL), while CRL2074 and CRL2085 probiotics exhibited mg/dL). Mean values of total cholesterol were observed to fall
lower glucose values than the referential range (Table 3 and within the normal range. However, increases in the cholesterol
Table S2, Supplementary materials). Mean values of serum total content were observed in both cattle groups. Lower final values
protein were observed near the lower limit of reference at day 0, (134–135 mg/dL) were displayed by the probiotics-supple-
showing a low increase at 150 days. The maximum value was mented group at 105 days compared to the control (Table 3).
registered for Lim. fermentum CRL2085 supplementation (6.89 Moreover, mean values of serum CRP decreased from 1.70 to 1.40
mg/dL). Mean values of serum albumin also increased at the end mg/dL during the whole trial, which was consistent with the
of the trial, exhibiting the maximum value (3.72 g/dL) when referential value (Table 3).
probiotics formulation was supplemented to cattle (Table 3 and
Table S1, Supplementary materials). In the analysis of liver 3.4. Fecal microbiological parameters
activity, mean values for bilirubin fell within the reference range The effect of different groups of probiotics on feces of feedlot
throughout the trial. In addition, mean values of AST and ALT cattle was evaluated by analyzing the changes in the total count
increased at 150 days compared to day 0, although they remained of aerobic mesophiles (TAM), Enterobacteriaceae, and LAB at 0,
at a low level. Lim. fermentum CRL2085 displayed the lowest

ACADEMIA BIOLOGY 2024, 2 7 of 14

https://www.academia.edu/journals/academia-biology/about https://doi.org/10.20935/AcadBiol7287

45, and 105 days (Figure 4). Results for TAM showed initial CFU/g with a reduction at 105 days only when the probiotic
mean values in the range of 7.16–7.45 log CFU/g, whereas initial formulation was supplemented, reaching the lowest final value of
mean values for Enterobacteriaceae and LAB ranged from 5.33 6.33 log CFU/g (Figure 4b). In addition, initial LAB counts
to 6.66 log CFU/g and 6.13–7.00 log CFU/g, respectively ranged from 6.13 to 7.00 log CFU/g exhibiting an increasing
(Figure 4a–c). Different bacterial growth patterns were ob- growth trend up 45 days, with values between 6.78 and 7.19 log
served for these populations. TAM showed a sustained growth CFU/g, while a decreasing tendency was found for all groups at
reduction during the trial for the control group, while a moderate 105 days, reaching final mean values between 6.02 and 6.75 log
count increase was produced when probiotics were administered CFU/g (Figure 4c). The reduction in the count of Enterobacteri-
to cattle. Multistrain probiotics supplementation reached maxi- aceae in the cattle supplied with multistrain probiotics agrees
mum numbers (7.72 log CFU/g) at 45 days, and then a reduction with the high LAB counts during the trial, while no reduction was
was observed for all experimental groups (Figure 4a). Entero- observed for the remaining experimental groups (L. acidophilus
bacteriaceae exhibited initial values between 5.33 and 6.66 log CRL2074 and Lim. fermentum CRL2085).

Figure 4 • Microbiological evaluation of cultivable bacteria in feces of cattle fed with L. acidophilus CRL2074, Lim. fermentum
CRL2085, or combined strains: CRL 2074 + CRL2085 + CRL2069, and the control group during 45 and 105 days. The results are
expressed as mean ± SD: (a) total aerobic mesophiles, (b) enterobacteria, and (c) lactic acid bacteria.

ACADEMIA BIOLOGY 2024, 2 8 of 14

https://www.academia.edu/journals/academia-biology/about https://doi.org/10.20935/AcadBiol7287

4. Discussion stress, while pasty stools indicate a balanced highly digestible

diet with adequate fiber content and water–protein ratio [42].
Evidence of favorable changes in the activity of the digestive
microbiota induced using probiotics was abundantly reported. Results from this study agree with the better fecal scores for
However, information on the impact of probiotics on productivity Nelore heifers and Holstein calves administered with probiotic or
and health parameters is scarce. Thus, the effect of probiotics on symbiotic products during the first few days in the feedlot system
clinical parameters and hematological, nutritional, and fecal and 90 days after weaning, respectively [15, 43]. However, the
microbiological profiles of beef cattle was evaluated in this study. growth and development of ruminants is defined as the accretion
Among the clinical parameters, body condition and animal sen- of protein, fat, and bone, which is accompanied by body size
sorium showed optimal muscle skeletal development and high changes. In this study, the analysis of the effect of probiotics on
confinement adaptation after a satisfactory objective estimation, cattle nutritional parameters showed the height at the withers
while only a few animals presented nasal/eye discharges and and thoracic diameter exhibiting a growing trend. At 105 days,
diarrheic feces consistency during the experimentation trial. increases in mean biometric indices were maximum for cattle
supplemented with Lim. fermentum CRL2085 and multistrain
Body condition scoring is a management tool designed to assess formulation. This result agrees with that reported for growing
body reserves or fat accumulation of an animal, and a reliable goats and lambs fed probiotics-supplemented diets with a pool of
method for critically examining the nutritional status of beef and lactobacilli and Bacillus subtilis, respectively [33, 44].
dairy cattle [32]. In this study, probiotics administration was shown
to affect the general body condition of overconditioned cattle at the Animal growth is a complex process until reaching mature age
end of the trial, in agreement with that reported for goats mainly depending on breed, sex, and environmental conditions,
supplemented with L. acidophilus, Ligilactobacillus salivarius, and during which the volumes of bone and muscle increase faster
Limosilactobacillus reuteri (1011 CFU/kg as probiotics) [33]. than that of adipose tissue. However, when cattle age and protein
Evaluation of cattle sensorium indicates the relationship of animals accretion declines, animals can continue to accrete fat at a faster
with their environment [34]. Different behavior patterns can be rate than muscle [45]. When the effect of probiotics on cattle
induced when the nervous system is alerted by a perceived sensory mean weight and DWG was assessed, increases of live weight and
information [12]. Here, a normalized sensorium state at the end of average DWG were found at 105 days by twice-a-day and thrice-
experimentation time was evidenced as a confinement adaptation. a-week administration of probiotics. Dietary supplementation of
Dietary probiotics, in addition to performance improvement, can Lim. fermentum CRL2085 and multistrain probiotics allowed to
exert benefits for handling cattle without affecting their welfare with reach maximum values with an 11% greater average DWG
respect to stress as reported for weaned-growing calves [35]. Thus, compared to the non-administered control. Similar increment of
cattle-handling facilities designed and maintained to reduce cattle mean weight and DWG (12.5%) was found in Nelore heifers after
stress avoid alteration in temperament, while depression may be administration of a probiotics consortium (Complete Bio Cycle;
produced by chronic and excessive confinement [36]. Animals with LAB 105 CFU/mL + yeast 106 CFU/mL) for 93 days [15].
both depressive and highly excitable temperaments are not able to In another study, mean DWG values were in the range of 17–20%
reach their maximum performance potential [22]. when multistrain probiotics (Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus,
In commercial animal farming, environmental factors such as Streptococcus, and Bacillus, 106–107 CFU/g) formulation was
radiation, wind, precipitation, high/low air temperature, and supplemented to dairy calves during the first month of life [46].
relative humidity should all be considered to avoid stress risk. For Consistently, higher average DWG was reported for calves fed
example, heat stress triggers the release of stress hormones such as multistrain probiotics (seven bacteria and two yeast strains, 2 × 109
cortisol and epinephrine [34, 37]. Indeed, probiotic administration CFU/g/day) than the control group [47]. Conversely, lower average
was reported to induce calmer behavior of ewes during weighing DWG was reported when feedlot cattle were administered with a
and alleviate weaning stress in grazing yak calves through a symbiotic formulation (yeast-derived prebiotic + B. subtilis, 109
reduction of serum cortisol level [38, 39]. Similarly, probiotics CFU/steer/day) for 45 days [14]. On the contrary, no effect was
administration in weaned/growing calves and mid-lactation evidenced on body weight and DWG of neonatal Holstein calves fed
Holstein cows resulted in decreased stress during handling and milk diet containing compound probiotics (Lactobacillus,
exposure to high-temperature conditions, respectively, without Pediococcus, and Bacillus, 107–108 CFU/g) up to 3 months of age
negatively affecting cattle welfare [35, 40]. [16]. In this study, a reduction of DWG during the last period (45–
105 days) coincided with the reported DWG values for Nelore
In this study, the presence of nasal discharges and non- heifers fed diet containing a probiotic consortium [15]. These results
purulent ocular discharges as preliminary signs of respiratory correlate with the model of rate and composition of cattle tissue
disease and kerato-conjunctivitis may be caused by accretion of feedlot animals, which at the end of their growth would
transportation, climatic conditions in the feedlot location, allocate most of their nutrient intake into finishing, but not into
and/or immunological condition of the animals. The lower protein accretion or skeletal muscle development. The rate of
nasal discharge in L. acidophilus CRL2074-supplemented weight gain and accretion of protein and fat are controlled by factors
group is in agreement with the reported potential of this such as maturity, genetics, age, and weight [45]. As probiotics are
bacterial species to colonize the bovine respiratory tract, thus large intestinal colonizers multiplying and establishing themselves
exerting antagonistic effects against the respiratory pathogen in the gastrointestinal tract, excluding harmful bacteria, stimulating
Mannheimia haemolytica [41]. However, Lim. fermentum the immune system, and improving animal efficiency and perfor-
CRL2085 and multistrain probiotics administered to feedlot mance, changes in microbiology (beneficial bacteria stimulation)
cattle were able to avoid diarrhea as stated by stool consistency and chemistry (production of volatile fatty acids for energy
evaluation. Liquid feces in cattle suggest intestinal dysbiosis efficiency improvement) of the gastrointestinal tract may be
caused by intoxications, infections, ruminal acidosis, or heat considered responsible for improved DWG [47].

ACADEMIA BIOLOGY 2024, 2 9 of 14

https://www.academia.edu/journals/academia-biology/about https://doi.org/10.20935/AcadBiol7287

Data of blood biochemical parameters are commonly used to the referential range, slight increases in the mean values of
assess the nutritional and physiological status of animals. Results bilirubin, triglycerides, and cholesterol were found at 105 days
showed higher hematocrit and lymphocytes % mean values than compared to day 0.
the referential range at 105 days. These results may preliminarily
The level of hemoglobin degradation products, such as total
indicate some hemoconcentration due to dehydration. However,
bilirubin, is an important indicator for some pathological condi-
dietary inclusion of probiotics was reported to increase hemoglo-
tions (massive hemolysis of erythrocytes, obstruction of the bile
bin content and red blood cell counts in newborn and growing
ducts, or other liver diseases). In this study, a normal level of
calves, as well as Barki lambs, suggesting an improvement of iron
bilirubin was found for both cattle groups, indicating no hepato-
absorption from the small intestine and B vitamin production by
cellular disorders. Similar results were reported for crossbred
probiotics facilitating blood cell forming process [44, 48].
calves fed probiotic L. acidophilus + prebiotic [57]. When lipid
Emerging evidence supports the ability of probiotics to enhance profile was evaluated, a lower level of cholesterol was found for
the status of micronutrients such as vitamin B12, folate, iron, probiotics-supplemented animals after 105 days compared to the
calcium, and zinc. There are several possible suggested mech- control. These findings agree with those described when L.
anisms by which probiotics can optimize the intestinal envi- acidophilus + prebiotic and B. subtilis were dietary supplemented
ronment for better absorption of micronutrients. These mecha- to crossbred calves and growing Barki lambs, respectively [44, 57].
nisms include pH decrease by increased intraluminal lactic acid Contrarily, higher levels or no significant changes of cholesterol
production, beneficial alterations of gut microbiota populations, were reported for growing goats and cattle, and lactating ewes
and inhibition of intestinal epithelial adhesion of pathogenic when probiotics were administered [33, 48, 57, 58].
bacteria and consequent reduction of competition with the host
Accumulating studies have shown that probiotics, prebiotics, and
for available nutrients [49]. Indeed, some species of lactobacilli
symbiotics possess hypocholesterolemic effects modulating
and Bifidobacterium can produce B group vitamins and are able
serum lipids in humans and animals [59]. Several mechanisms
to improve the iron status [50, 51]. However, white blood cells
are being suggested to explain this finding. As previously
(WBCs), as a major part of the body’s immune system, are critical
reported [59–61], these mechanisms include enzymatic bile acids
in defending the body against infections.
deconjugation by bile salt hydrolases of probiotics, assimilation
In cattle, the total number of WBCs decreases with age, and as of cholesterol by probiotics, co-precipitation of cholesterol with
the dominant subpopulation percentage of lymphocytes de- deconjugated bile, cholesterol binding to probiotics’ cell walls,
creases progressively in adult cattle [52]. In this study, descrip- incorporation of cholesterol into probiotics’ cellular membranes
tive mean values were found above the reference range at 105 during growth, conversion of cholesterol into coprostanol, and
days for both groups. In line with these results, higher values of production of short-chain fatty acids (SCFA) by probiotics upon
WBC count were reported for newborn calves and growing cattle fermentation. Indeed, the hydrolysis of bile salts agrees with the
administered with probiotics compared to the control group [48]. number of hydrolases reported for probiotic lactobacilli [60].
Moreover, the administration of Lactiplantibacillus (lpb) planta- Control and treated samples of this study showed lower triglyc-
rum LP1 with an immunomodulatory function for alleviating eride values, in coincidence to that reported for young goats fed
inflammatory responses decreased peripheral blood lymphocyte probiotic lactobacilli pool [33]. However, cattle diet supple-
levels in cows under high-energy diets [53]. An increased number mented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae showed increased
of WBCs might be involved in the production of more immune triglycerides compared to control [62], while no changes were
cells that play an important role in preventing different diseases observed in crossbred calves, lactating ewes, and Barki lambs
in cattle [54]. However, the status of entry-metabolization-exit after L. acidophilus + prebiotic, commercial probiotic, and B.
process of nutrients in organs and tissues will be reflected in the subtilis administration, respectively [44, 57, 58]. Low triglyceride
animal blood and serum parameters. Homeostatic equilibrium levels in feedlot cattle administered with probiotics would
involves complex metabolic-hormonal mechanisms. When the suggest better metabolic status and positive energetic balance of
balance of these mechanisms is broken, zootechnical performance animals, while elevated levels of serum triglycerides in the
of the body decreases and diseases occur [55]. The severity of the control group could be attributed to insulin’s effect on increased
diseases is dependent on the degree of imbalance. Accordingly, lipid synthesis in the liver [56].
blood parameters were used in this study to diagnose possible
In addition, similar low mean values for activities of liver
imbalances in animal health.
enzymes AST and ALT during the trial were found. This result
Descriptive mean values of serum biochemistry showed that most can be attributed to decreased gluconeogenesis as both enzymes
of the metabolic indicators fell within the reference range. Alt- are highly active in the liver. Similarly, low values for activities of
hough the mean value in probiotics-supplemented cattle was both liver enzymes were reported for control and probiotic/
higher than that at day 0, the serum mean value of glucose was prebiotic/symbiotic dietary supplementation to crossbred calves
notably lower for both cattle groups at 105 days, indicating a nearly and lactating ewes [57, 58]. It is known that diets with a high
hypoglycemic state. Similarly, glucose level was significantly concentration of grains (as in this study) could lead to ruminal
decreased in growing cattle and Barki lambs dietary supplemented acidosis and liver lesions. However, liver activity indicators
with multispecies probiotics and B. subtilis, respectively [44, 48]. exhibited normal values after probiotics treatments. Values of
The decreased level of serum glucose in probiotics-supplemented blood plasmatic protein were found almost within the reference
lambs was explained by lowered gluconeogenesis, either directly range for cattle administered with probiotics, indicating a good
as a result of the increased acids concentration or indirectly nutritional status that should not resort to amino acid deam-
because of the influence of insulin inhibition of phosphorylase ination to obtain energy [62]. High albumin concentrations
and gluconeogenic enzymes. Gluconeogenesis in ruminants is the would indicate the presence of infection, dehydration, and high-
main source of glucose, and it has a decisive influence on the energy diets, while lower albumin levels might indicate liver,
glucose level in blood [44, 56]. On the contrary, although within kidney, or other health disorders [63]. Moreover, acute-phase

ACADEMIA BIOLOGY 2024, 2 10 of 14

https://www.academia.edu/journals/academia-biology/about https://doi.org/10.20935/AcadBiol7287

proteins encompass all the phenomena that take place in animals responsible for their probiotic features and reveal their metabolic
following tissue damage and are particularly associated with attributes to fully exploit their biotechnological capabilities.
inflammation. Acute-phase response is formulated by several dif-
ferent proteins that vary in magnitude and type among animal
species and act as part of the innate immune system for Funding
reestablishing homeostasis and promoting health [64]. Among The research was supported by CONICET (PIP 744) and ANPCYT
acute-phase proteins is CRP. Although it is not considered a (PICT2017 1187, PICT 4324, and PICT2018 664) grants.
major acute-phase protein in cattle, it exerts biological functions
involving modulation of monocytes and macrophages, cytokine
production, and tissue migration of neutrophils [65]. Elevated
Author contributions
CRP levels in bovine serum and milk is a result of infection and Conceptualization, G.M.V. and M.E.F.N.-M.; methodology,
disorders. Thus, it can be used as a biomarker to predict diseases. M.C.A.F. and F.I.M.; validation, M.C.A.F. and F.I.M.; formal
analysis, M.E.F.N.-M. and G.M.V.; investigation, M.C.A.F. and
It was reported that nutritional management of beef cattle led to
F.I.M.; software, M.D.V.; writing—original draft preparation,
inflammation during transportation and at feedlot entry, and
G.M.V.; writing—review and editing, G.M.V. and M.E.F.N.-M.;
generate stressors in cattle (nutrient deprivation, physical injury,
funding acquisition, G.M.V. and M.E.F.N.-M. All authors have
strenuous exercise), which stimulate inflammatory and acute-
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
phase responses [66]. In this study, CRP mean values were within
the reference range, and lower values were obtained for both
evaluated groups at 105 days, which is still lower in probiotics- Conflict of interest
supplemented cattle. Supplementation of B. subtilis–based pro-
biotic restored heat stress–related behaviors and inflammation in The authors declare no conflict of interest.
broilers, while attenuation of the acute-phase response following a
lipopolysaccharide challenge in weaned pigs was described [67, 68].
Data availability statement
The effect of dietary probiotic supplementation was observed to
alter the microbial composition of feedlot cattle feces. In this Data supporting these findings are available within the article, at
study, populations of cultivable total aerobic mesophiles and LAB https://doi.org/10.20935/AcadBiol7287, or upon request.
in feces collected from feedlot steers’ rectal area were similar to
those reported for four-month-old calves [69]. The presence of
LAB in bovine feces at 105 days after multistrain probiotic
Institutional review board statement
administration was somewhat higher than that reported up to The research protocol of the present study was reviewed and
103 days for feedlot cattle feces [26]. Moreover, the growth approved by the Institutional Committee for the Care and Use of
pattern of the fecal population in this study coincided with that Laboratory Animals (CICUAL-UNT, Argentina).
of a high-energy-fed Holstein cow administered with the
probiotic Lpb. plantarum LP1, in which a quick growth of
lactobacilli with a rapid reduction thereafter and no alteration of Informed consent statement
coliform population by probiotic lactobacilli were reported [53]. Not applicable.
The amount of potential pathogenic enterobacteria decreased in
the intestine when multistrain probiotics were supplemented to
feedlot cattle in this study, which is in agreement with that Sample availability
previously reported by Maldonado et al. [26].
The authors declare no physical samples were used in the study.

5. Conclusion
Supplementary materials
According to this study, the administration of an individual
probiotic, Lim fermentum CRL 2085, and a probiotic mix The supplementary materials are available at https://doi.org/
formulated by L. acidophilus CRL2074 + Lim. fermentum CRL 10.20935/AcadBiol7287.
2085 + L. mucosae CRL2069 improved clinical parameters and
growth performance of feedlot cattle by increasing the body Additional information
structure, weight, and DWG. No nutritional and physiological
imbalances were identified. Hematological and serum biochemi- Received: 2024-05-13
cal indicators were positively affected by probiotics. These results Accepted: 2024-07-03
correlated with the recent trend to use multistrain probiotics
Published: 2024-07-30
combining two or more bacteria of the same or different genera
and species as a beneficial consortium for targeting different Academia Biology papers should be cited as Academia Biology
delivery sites and complementing each other’s effect in the host. 2024, ISSN 2837-4010, https://doi.org/10.20935/AcadBiol7287.
The mixed probiotics formulation administered as in-feed The journal’s official abbreviation is Acad. Biol.
supplementation to cattle under a feedlot-intensive system im-
proved metabolic-nutritional status, overall performance, and
stress-related behavior. Further studies are being currently Publisher’s note
carried out based on the gene sequence of Lim. fFermentum Academia.edu Journals stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional
CRL2085 and Lim. mucosae CRL2069 to identify the genes claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. All claims

ACADEMIA BIOLOGY 2024, 2 11 of 14

https://www.academia.edu/journals/academia-biology/about https://doi.org/10.20935/AcadBiol7287

expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not 10. Bąkowski M, Kiczorowskam B. Probiotic microorganisms
necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or and herbs in ruminant nutrition as natural modulators of
those of the publisher, the editors, and the reviewers. Any health and production efficiency – a review. Ann Anim Sci.
product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may 2021;21:3–28. doi: 10.2478/aoas-2020-0081
be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by
11. Lambo MT, Chang X, Liu D. The recent trend in the use of
the publisher.
multistrain probiotics in livestock production: an overview.
Animals. 2021;11:2805. doi: 10.3390/ani11102805
Copyright
12. Nalla K, Manda NK, Dhillon HS, Kanade SR, Rokana N, Hess
© 2024 copyright by the authors. This article is an open access M, et al. Impact of probiotics on dairy production efficiency.
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Front Microbiol. 2022;13:805963. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// 805963
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
13. Shoukry MM, El-Nomeary YAAE-F, Salman FM, EL-Sayed
Shakweer WM. Improving the productive performance of
References growing lambs using prebiotic and probiotic as growth
promoters. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2023;55:375. doi: 10.
1. Hu Y, Cheng H, Tao S. Environmental and human health
1007/s11250-023-03752-8
challenges of industrial livestock and poultry farming in
China and their mitigation. Environ Int. 2017;107:111–30. 14. Colombo EA, Cooke RF, Brandão AP, Wiegand JB, Schubach
doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2017.07.003 KM, Sowers CA, et al. Performance, health, and physio-
logical responses of newly received feedlot cattle supple-
2. Ominski K, Gunte KE, Wittenberg KM, Legesse G, Mengistu
mented with pre- and probiotic ingredients. Animal. 2021;
G, McAllister TA, et al. The role of livestock in sustainable
15:100214. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2021.100214
food production systems in Canada. Can J Anim Sci. 2021;
101:591–601. doi: 10.1139/cjas-2021-0005 15. Moreira GM. Performance and feed efficiency of beef cattle
fed high energy diet with probiotic consortium technology.
3. Granstad S, Kristoffersen AB, Benestad SL, Sjurseth SK,
Rev Bras Saúde Prod Anim. 2019;20:e0182019. doi: 10.1590/
David B, Sørensen L, et al. Effect of feed additives as alter-
S1519-9940200182019
natives to in-feed antimicrobials on production performance
and intestinal Clostridium perfringens counts in broiler 16. Wang H, Yu Z, Gao Z, Li Q, Qiu X, Wu F, et al. Effects of
chickens. Animals. 2020;10:40. doi: 10.3390/ani10020240 compound probiotics on growth performance, rumen fer-
mentation, blood parameters, and health status of neonatal
4. Pandey AK, Kumar P, Saxena MJ. Feed additives in animal
Holstein calves. J Dairy Sci. 2022;105:2190–200. doi: 10.3168/
health. In: Gupta RC, Srivastava A, Lall R, editors.
jds.2021-20721
Nutraceuticals in veterinary medicine. Cham: Springer; 2019.
p. 345–62. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-04624-8_23 17. Mansilla FI, Ficoseco CA, Miranda MH, Puglisi E, Nader-
Macías MEF, Vignolo GM, et al. Administration of probiotic
5. Kang D, Chung KY, Park BO, Kim UH, Jang SS, Smith ZK, et
lactic acid bacteria to modulate fecal microbiome in feedlot
al. Effects of feeding high-energy diet on growth perfor-
cattle. Sci Rep. 2022;12:12957. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-
mance, blood parameters, and carcass traits in Hanwoo
16786-z
steers. Anim Biosci. 2022;35:1545–55. doi: 10.5713/ab.22.
0014 18. Mansilla FI, Miranda MH, Uezen JD, Maldonado NC, Villar
MAD, Merino LA, et al. Effect of probiotic lactobacilli
6. Chai J, Weiss CP, Beck PA, Zhao W, Li Y, Zhao J. Diet and
supplementation on growth parameters, blood profile, pro-
monensin influence the temporal dynamics of the rumen
ductive performance, and fecal microbiology in feedlot
microbiome in stocker and finishing cattle. J Anim Sci
cattle. Res Vet Sci. 2023;155:76–87. doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.
Biotechnol. 2024;15:12. doi: 10.1186/s40104-023-00967-5
2023.01.003
7. Squizatti MM, Rigueiro ALN, Silvestre AM, Soares CHG,
19. Markowiak P, Śliżewska K. The role of probiotics, prebiotics
Assumpção AHPM, Dias EFF, et al. Shortening the adapta-
and symbiotics in animal nutrition. Gut Pathog. 2018;10:21.
tion of Nellore cattle to high-concentrate diets using only
doi: 10.1186/s13099-018-0250-0
virginiamycin as sole feed additive negatively impacts rumi-
nal fermentation and nutrient utilization. Front Vet Sci. 20. Foster JA, McVey Neufeld K-A. Gut-brain axis: how the
2023;10:1089903. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1089903 microbiome influences anxiety and depression. Trends Neu-
rosci. 2013;36:305–12. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2013.01.005
8. EFSA. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Additives and
Products or Substances used in Animal Feed on the safety 21. Frazer AF. The behaviour of maintenance and the intensive
and efficacy of the coccidiostat Elancoban® (monensin husbandry of cattle, sheep and pigs. Agr Ecosyst Environ.
sodium) as a feed additive for calves for rearing and cattle 1983;9:1–23. doi: 10.1016/0167-8809(83)90002-6
for fattening in accordance with Regulation (EC) No
22. Marino L, Allen K. The psychology of cows. Anim Behav
1831/2003. EFSA J. 2006;387:1–33.
Cogn. 2017;4:474–98. doi: 10.26451/abc.04.04.06.2017
9. Al-Shawi SG, Dang DS, Yousif AY, Al-Younis ZK, Najm TA,
23. Callaway TR, Carr MA, Edrington TS, Anderson RC, Nisbet
Matarneh SK. The potential use of probiotics to improve
DJ. Diet, Escherichia coli O157:H7, and cattle: a review after
animal health, efficiency, and meat quality: a review. Agri-
10 years. Curr Issues Mol Biol. 2009;11:67–79. doi: 10.21775/
culture. 2020;10:452. doi: 10.3390/agriculture10100452
cimb.011.067

ACADEMIA BIOLOGY 2024, 2 12 of 14

https://www.academia.edu/journals/academia-biology/about https://doi.org/10.20935/AcadBiol7287

24. Rigobelo EEC, Karapetkov N, Maestá SA, Avila FA, cattle: analyzing cortisol residues in commercial milk
McIntosh D. Use of probiotics to reduce faecal shedding of products in relation to the temperature-humidity index.
Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in sheep. Benef Animals. 2022;13:2407. doi: 10.3390/ani13152407
Microbes. 2015;6:53–60. doi: 10.3920/BM2013.0094
38. Naglaa AA, Ghada MS. Turning nervous ewes to calm ones
25. Ficoseco CA, Mansilla FI, Maldonado NC, Miranda H, "behavioral and biochemical indicators" by use of Saccharo-
Nader-Macias MEF, Vignolo GM. Safety and growth opti- myces cerevisiae probiotic. Int J Adv Res. 2014;2:386–93.
mization of lactic acid bacteria isolated from feedlot cattle
39. Zhou J, Zhao K, Shao L, Bao Y, Gyantsen D, Ma C, et al.
for probiotic formula design. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:2220.
Effects of Bacillus licheniformis and combination of probiot-
doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02220
ics and enzymes as supplements on growth performance and
26. Maldonado NC, Ficoseco CA, Mansilla FI, Melián C, Hébert serum parameters in early weaned grazing Yak calves.
EM, Vignolo GM, et al. Identification, characterization and Animals. 2023;13:785. doi: 10.3390/ani1305078540
selection of autochthonous lactic acid bacteria as probiotic
40. Vander Poel M, Collier RJ, Xiao Y, Compart D, Russo K,
for feedlot cattle. Livestock Sci. 2018;212:99–110. doi:
Renquist B, et al. Holstein cows during heat stress in
10.1016/j.livsci.2018.04.003
response to a dietary feed additive. Dairy Vet Sci J. 2020;14:
27. Edmonson AJ, Lean IJ, Weaver LD, Farver T, Webster G. A 555900. doi: 10.19080/JDVS.2020.14.555.900
body condition scoring chart for Holstein dairy cows. J Dairy
41. Amat S, Subramanian S, Timsit E, Alexander TW. Probiotic
Sci. 1989;72:68–78. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(89)79081-0
bacteria inhibit the bovine respiratory pathogen Mann-
28. Gallo Lamping CA. Manual de diagnostico con énfasis en heimia haemolytica serotype 1 in vitro. Lett Appl Microbiol.
laboratorio clínico veterinario [Licenciatura thesis]. 2017;64:343–9. doi: 10.1111/lam.12723
Managua: Universidad Nacional Agraria; 2014.
42. Rossanigo CE, Bengolea A, Sager RL. Bovine diseases in
29. Jackson PGG, Cockcroft PD. Laboratory reference values: intensive systems of semiarid sub-humid central región. Rev
biochemistry. In: Jackson PGG, Cockcroft PD, editors. Arg Prod Anim. 2009;9:151–60.
Clinical examination of farm animals. Oxford: Blackwell
43. Hasunuma T, Kawashima K, Nakayama H, Murakami T,
Science Ltd.; 2002. p. 303–5; Appendix 3.
Kanagawa H, Ishii T, et al. Effect of cello-oligosaccharide or
30. Xuan NH, Huynh T, Nguyen N. Blood biochemical profiles symbiotic feeding on growth performance, fecal condition
of Brahman crossbred cattle supplemented with different and hormone concentrations in Holstein calves. Anim Sci J.
protein and energy sources. Vet World. 2018;11:1021–4. doi: 2011;82:543–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-0929.2010.00861.x
10.14202/vetworld.2018.1021-1024
44. El-Sayed AA, Mousa SA. Effects of administration of
31. Emmanuel DGV, Dunn SM, Ametaj BN. Feeding high probiotic on body growth and hematobiochemical profile in
proportions of barley grain stimulates an inflammatory growing Barki lambs. Comp Clin Path. 2019;29:297–303.
response in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2008;91:606–14. doi: doi: 10.1007/s00580-019-03057-z
10.3168/jds.2007-0256
45. Owens FN, Gill DR, Secrist DS, Coleman SW. Review of
32. Cooke RF, Lamb GC, Vasconcelos JLM, Pohler KG. Effects some aspects of growth and development of feedlot cattle. J
of body condition score at initiation of the breeding season Anim Sci. 1995;73:3152–72.
on reproductive performance and overall productivity of Bos
46. Guo Y, Li Z, Deng M, Li Y, Liu G, Liu D, et al. Effects of a
taurus and B. indicus beef cows. Anim Reprod Sci.
multi-strain probiotic on growth, health, and fecal bacterial
2021;232:106820. doi: 10.1016/j.anireprosci.2021.106820
flora of neonatal dairy calves. Anim Biosci. 2022;35:204–16.
33. Chiofalo V, Liotta L, Chiofalo B. Effects of the administration doi: 10.5713/ab.21.0084
of lactobacilli on body growth and on the metabolic profile
47. Roodposhti PM, Dabiri N. Effect of probiotic and prebiotic
in growing Maltese goat kids. Reprod Nutr Dev. 2004;44:
on average daily gain, fecal shedding of Escherichia coli, and
449–57. doi: 10.1051/rnd:2004051
immune system status in newborn female calves. Asian-Aust
34. Adamczyk K, Górecka-Bruzda A, Nowicki JP, Gumułka M, J Anim Sci. 2012;25:1255–61. doi: 10.5713/ajas.2011.11312
Edyta M, Schwarz T, et al. Perception of environment in farm
48. Yasmin F, Kabir ME, Alam MS, Al Maruf A, Hossain MF,
animals - a review. Ann Anim Sci. 2015;15:565–89. doi:
Islam M. Influence of probiotics supplementation on growth
10.1515/aoas-2015-0031
and haemato-biochemical parameters in growing cattle. Int
35. Kelsey AJ, Colpoys JD. Effects of dietary probiotics on beef J Livestock Res. 2021;11:36–42. doi: 10.5455/ijlr.2021040
cattle performance and stress. J Vet Behav. 2018;27:8–14. 1123825
doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2018.05.010
49. Barkhidarian B, Roldos L, Iskandar MM, Saedisomeolia A,
36. Parish JA, Karisch BB, Vann RC. Beef cattle behavior and Kubow S. Probiotic supplementation and micronutrient
handling. Mississippi State University, cooperating with U.S. status in healthy subjects: a systematic review of clinical
Department of Agriculture. Acts of Congress, 2013; May 8 and trials. Nutrients. 2021;13:3001. doi: 10.3390/nu13093001
June 30, 1914. Available from: http://extension.msstate.
50. LeBlanc JG, Laiño JE, del Valle MJ, Vannini V, van Sinderen
edu/publications/publications/beef-cattle-behavior-and-
D, Taranto MP, et al. B-group vitamin production by lactic
handling
acid bacteria – current knowledge and potential applica-
37. Ataallahi M, Cheon SN, Park G-W, Nugrahaeningtyas E, tions. J Appl Microbiol. 2011;111:1297–309. doi: 10.1111/
Jeon JH, Park K-H. Assessment of stress levels in lactating j.1365-2672.2011.05157.x

ACADEMIA BIOLOGY 2024, 2 13 of 14

https://www.academia.edu/journals/academia-biology/about https://doi.org/10.20935/AcadBiol7287

51. Axling U, Önning G, Combs MA, Bogale A, Högström M, different probiotic microorganisms. Foods. 2021;10:674.
Svensson M, et al. The effect of Lactobacillus plantarum doi: 10.3390/foods10030674
299v on iron status and physical performance in female iron-
61. Wang J, Zhang H, Chen X, Chen Y, Menghebilige, Bao Q.
deficient athletes: a randomized controlled trial. Nutrients.
Selection of potential probiotic lactobacilli for cholesterol-
2020;12:1279. doi: 10.3390/nu12051279
lowering properties and their effect on cholesterol metabolism
52. Roland L, Drillich M, Iwersen M. Hematology as a diagnostic in rats fed a high-lipid diet. J Dairy Sci. 2012;95:1645–54. doi:
tool in bovine medicine. J Vet Diag Invest. 2014;26:592–98. 10.3168/jds.2011-4768
doi: 10.1177/1040638714546490
62. Rius AG, Weeks HA, Cyriac J, Akers RM, Bequette BJ,
53. Chida S, Sakamoto M, Takino T, Kawamoto S, Hagiwara K. Hanigan MD. Protein and energy intakes affected amino
Changes in immune system and intestinal bacteria of cows acid concentrations in plasma, muscle, and liver, and cell
during the transition period. Vet Anim Sci. 2021;14:100222. signaling in the liver of growing dairy calves. J Dairy Sci.
doi: 10.1016/j.vas.2021.100222 2012;95:1983–91. doi: 10.3168/jds.2011-4688

54. Gaggìa F, Mattarelli P, Biavati B. Probiotics and prebiotics in 63. Bobbo T, Fiore E, Gianesella M, Morgante M, Gallo L, Ruegg
animal feeding for safe food production. Int J Food Micro- PL, et al. Variation in blood serum proteins and association
biol. 2010;141:S15–28. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.02. with somatic cell count in dairy cattle from multi-breed
031 herds. Animal. 2017;11:2309–19. doi: 10.1017/S1751731117
001227
55. Sundrum A. Metabolic disorders in the transition period
indicate that the dairy cows’ ability to adapt is overstressed. 64. Cray C. Acute phase proteins in animals. Prog Mol Biol
Animals. 2015;5:978–1020. doi: 10.3390/ani5040395 Transl Sci. 2012;105:113–50. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-394596-
9.00005-6
56. Antunović Z, Šperanda M, Liker B, Seric V, Sencic D,
Domaćinović M, et al. Influence of feeding the probiotic 65. Yogeshpriya S, Selvaraj P. C-Reactive protein in veterinary
Pioneer PDFM to growing lambs on performances and blood practice. J Dairy Vet Sci. 2019;13(2):1–3. doi: 10.19080/
composition. Acta Vet. 2005;55:287–300. doi: 10.2298/ JDVS.2019.13.555858
AVB0504287A
66. Cooke RF. Nutritional and management considerations for
57. Dar AH, Singh SK, Kumar S, Para IA, Devi KM, Kumar N, et beef cattle experiencing stress-induced inflammation. Prof
al. Impact of supplementation of probiotic, prebiotic and Anim Sci. 2017;33:1–11. doi: 10.15232/pas.2016-01573
symbiotic on serum biochemical profile of crossbred calves.
67. Burdick Sanchez NC, Carroll JA, Broadway PR, Bass BE,
Indian J Anim Res. 2017;B-3485:1–4.
Frank JW. Supplementation of a Lactobacillus acidophilus
58. Kafilzadeh F, Payandeh S, Gómez-Cortés P, Ghadimi D, fermentation product can attenuate the acute phase re-
Schiavone A, Marin ALM, et al. Effects of probiotic sup- sponse following a lipopolysaccharide challenge in weaned
plementation on milk production, blood metabolite profile pigs. Animal. 2019;13:144–52. doi: 10.1017/S175173111800
and enzyme activities of ewes during lactation. Ital J Anim 1222
Sci. 2018;18:134–9. doi: 10.1080/1828051X.2018.1496040
68. Wang WC, Yan FF, Hu JY, Amen OA, Cheng HW. Supple-
59. Roa-Vega ML, Ladino-Romero EA, Hernández-Martínez mentation of Bacillus subtilis-based probiotic reduces heat
MC. Blood biochemistry indicators in cattle supplemented stress-related behaviors and inflammatory response in
with Cratylia argentea and Saccharomyes cerevisiae. broiler chickens. J Anim Sci. 2014;96:1654–66. doi: 10.1093/
Pastos y Forrajes. 2017;40:144–51. jas/sky092

60. Hernández-Gómez JG, López-Bonilla A, Trejo-Tapia G, 69. Maldonado NC, Silva de Ruiz C, Otero MC, Sesma F, Nader-
Ávila-Reyes SV, Jiménez-Aparicio AR, Hernández-Sánchez Macías ME. Lactic acid bacteria isolated from young calves –
H. In vitro bile salt hydrolase (BSH) activity screening of characterization and potential as probiotics. Res Vet Sci.
2012;92:342–9. doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2011.03.017

ACADEMIA BIOLOGY 2024, 2 14 of 14