SCD Probiotics

White Paper:
Application of SCD Probiotics Technology
for Livestock Production

---

Copyright © 2010 SCD Probiotics
SCD Probiotics Technology

Background

Sustainable Community Development, LLC ("SCD"), based in Kansas City, Missouri, USA, is a company specializing in natural microbial-based products and services for human health, agriculture industry, industrial waste management and environmental sustainability. Through 10 years of research and development, SCD has selected 16 different microbial strains for production of various probiotic products. These include lactic acid bacteria such as Lactobacillus, and Streptococcus; yeast such as Saccharomyces; photosynthetic bacteria such as Rhodopseudomonas; and other beneficial bacteria such as Bacillus.

In essence, the SCD Probiotics Technology is a consortium of lactic acid bacteria, phototrophic bacteria, nutritional yeast and other beneficial microorganisms. The SCD consortium culture synergistically works to inhibit the growth of pathogenic harmful bacteria through competitive exclusion. In addition to competitive exclusion effects, the metabolites produced by the consortia and its chemical characteristics contribute to antimicrobial properties and health benefits. Average pH of the product ranges from 3.2-3.5. Some products with SCD Probiotic Technology microorganisms consortium, can for instance, include Lactobacillus acidophilus, L. bulgaricus, L. casie, L. fermentum, L. Plantarum, Rhodoseudomonas palustris, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Steptococcus thermophilus, etc. These microorganisms have been known to be associated with human foods and are ubiqitously used in manufacturing of probiotic dietary supplement products for human, animal and aquaculture health.

While the traditional meaning of the word “probiotic” is applied to human and animal digestive microorganisms, SCD is on the cutting edge of developing technology to apply the concept of “probiotics” to many fields globaly including waste water treatment, odor control, environmental bioremediation, agriculture, pest control, mold remediation, industrial and home agriculture, aquaculture, gardening, prevention of skin diseases, turf grass, composting and other fields.

SCD Probiotics Technology and Certifications

All SCD products are manufactured under high and strict quality control standards. Products are manufactured in a food grade facility, utilizing food grade equipment, raw materials and utensils. SCD complies with the Food Grade current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) Guidelines enforced in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration. GMP guidelines provide a system of processes, procedures and documentation to assure the product produced has the identity, strength, composition, quality and purity that it is represented to possess. Information about SCD Probiotics Technology can be found at www.SCDProbiotics.com

Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) provides certifiers, growers, manufacturers and suppliers an independent review of products intended for use in certified organic production, handling, and processing (Organic Materials Review Institute, 2006). OMRI’s services are directed to all aspects of the organic industry with a primary focus on the decision makers who deal with the compliance status of generic meterials and brand name products. With the OMRI Generic Materials List and OMRI Products List, OMRI provides guidance on the suitability of material inputs under the USDA National Organic Program standards (Organic Materials Review Institute, 2006). Many SCD products are LISTED with OMRI as “safe for use in organic production.” Please visit www.omri.org for more information and to verify SCD’s listed products.

SCD’s compliance with the above-mentioned regulatory agencies illustrates the safety and quality of the products manufactured as well as routine testing that has been conducted over the past two years. SCD products are routinely tested both in house and by third party independent laboratories for the incidence of pathogenic activity, heavy metals, and mycotoxins. Certificates of analysis of two of the products, ProBio Balance™ Plus and SCD Probiotics Food ™ are enclosed.

ProBio Balance™ Plus is recommended for use in livestock, agriculture and environment applications. It can be used to manufacture secondary products such as SCD Bio Klean™ and SCD Odor Away™ for specific applications in the area of odor control and environmental cleanliness. The secondary products are as below.

SCD Bio Klean™: This is an all-natural industrial cleaner containing exclusive microbes and their metabolites, which is recommended for treatment of industrial wastewater, grease, grime and dirt. SCD Bio Klean™ is an environmentally safe, and uniquely effective biological cleaner.

SCD Odor Away™: This is an all-natural biological odor reducer containing exclusive microbes and their metabolites. SCD Odor Away™ is environmentally safe and distinctly effective at decreasing odors in livestock lagoon, holding areas and pens, waste treatment facilities and composting operations.

SCD Probiotics Food ™ is recommended for use in livestock and human health applications. It can be used to manufacture secondary products such as SCD Bio Livestock® for specific applications in the area of animal productivity and human health. The secondary products are as below.

SCD Bio Livestock®: This is an all-natural biological probiotic feed additive containing exclusive microbes and their metabolites. SCD Bio Livestock® is distinctly effective at improving the health of animals and avoids the need for antibiotics.

Livestock Applications of SCD Probiotics Technology

A number of positive results have been reported when probiotics has been introduced to livestock production. An experiment done by Yongzhen and Weijiong (2006), showed a reduction in ammonia concentration in ppm of 69.70% when broilers and laying hens were given probitics treatment in both the water and feed. The main contributors to foul odors are ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, mercaptan and methylmercaptan. Higher concentrations of ammonia not only influence the normal growth of animals, but also cause diseases. Probiotic treatment reduces the concentration of ammonia, thus reducing the incidence of diseases and improving the growth of the animal, including an increased egg production, weight gain and efficiency of feed utilization (Yongzhen and Weijiong, 2006).

In recent years, numerous reports in the literature can be found pertaining to the uses of probiotics or direct-fed microbial (DFM) bacteria, the addition of useful microorganisms cultures to diet or drinking water, to improve production performance and quality of products.

Anjum et. al (2006), showed great increases in body weight gain among broilers after only five weeks. Probiotic was introduced into the animals feed in three different ways:

1. 1ml/L EM in drinking water
2. 30g/Kg EM in biofeed
3. Both 1mL/L in drinking water and 30g/Kg in biofeed

After five weeks of treatment, average body wight gain in the control group, probiotic solution, Biofeed, and Probiotic Solution + Biofeed was 864, 1,217, 1,207, 1,361 grams, respectively (Anjum et. al., 2006). Another study tested the effects of probiotics as an alternative to antibiotics (AB) (Safaloah and Smith, 1999). The broilers given 30g/kg of probiotics combined with AB had the greatest weight gain when compared to those not given any probiotics or AB. Even broilers given probiotics without AB had great weight gains. At 42 days of age, the control broilers had gained 2065.99 grams of weight compared to those with probiotics in their feed at 30g/kg and no AB with a gain of 2091.70. A decrease in serum cholesterol was also seen (Safaloah and Smith, 1999). Even though detail mechanisms of probiotics has yet been identified from these findings, significant production performances have been reported to be a function of improving feed bioavailability, balancing gastrointestinal microorganisms, and enhancing immunity when probiotic strains are ingested (Safaloah and Smith, 1999).

Hieu and Tho (2002), studied the effect of probiotics for treatment of diarreheic disease in piglets. It was found that antimicrobial properties of probiotics increased with dosage. The growth of E. coli, Salmonella, Kleisiella, Shigella, Staphylococcus, Streptococcus and C. perfringens, including antibiotic resistant strains, were completely inhibited when probiotics were used at 10mL (Hieu and Tho, 2002). The results differed significantly from the controls (distilled water and distilled water with pH of 3.5). Probiotics were effective in treating diarrhea in piglets due to complicated infection of enteric bacteria. Efficacy of probiotics in treating diarreheic disease in piglets did not differ significantly form conventional antibiotics such as Colistin (Hieu and Tho, 2002).

After 40 days the body weight gain of the probiotics treated cow was significantly higher than the control animal (Zhengao, 2006). Average increase of 1kg per day of milk production was observed in probiotics treated animal. In addition to increase milk production, the Beaume Scale also increased 1-2 degrees compared to the control. Dahal (2006) reported that goat body weight gain increased 10% when compare to the control. Body weight gain in pig was not significantly noticed. However, Zhengao’s studies has shown that probiotics treated swine gained 38.5% more body weight than the control within 67 days of treatment, while ratio of forge/pork decreased by 2.8%.

Ammonia is not the only contributor to odor in agricultural applications. Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) also cause an increase in odor. BOD and COD are often seen as problem in the wastewater industry, where the primary purpose is to remove the suspended and soluble organic constituents measured as COD and BOD, as well as reduce fecal coliform.

Studies were conducted to determine the effect of probiotics technology for wastewater treatment around the world (Wood et al., 2004, Sun et al., 2006). In essence, studies indicated reductions in BOD, COD, pathogens and total coliforms in wastewater treated with probiotics solution. Wood et at. (2004) applied probiotics solution at a rate of 1:10,000 to the wastewater. Foul odors and total coliform were reduced significantly when wastewater was treated with EM solution. Average sulfide removal as well as sulfates removal were significantly increased by 70% and 110% (Wood et al., 2004). In addition, probiotics treatment significantly decreased ammonia in the water at the plant influent from an average of 1244 mg/l to 194 mg/l and at the plant effluent from 614 mg/l to 214 mg/l. Average fecal colidorms removal at the plant was significantly increased by 3 times after treatment with probiotics (Wood et al., 2004). Similar results have been shown in recent studies carried out in a sewer system of the city of Cartagena (Correa, 2008)

Sun et al. (2006) studied swine waste management using probiotics technology. Two by three latin square experimental design was used for the experiment with two different seasons as seasonal effects. Comparing to control, BOD and COD content were significantly decreased when probiotics solution at different dilution, including 1:1000, 1:5,000 and 1:10,000 were used (Sun et al., 2006). Consistent outcome was found with nitrogen and phosphorus content. Best result was obtained when probiotics solution was used in conjunction with sediment screening and aerobic pretreatment. The reduction of BOD, COD, N and P was affected by temperature, particularly cold environment (10-15oC).

Microbial Contamination

A “pathogen” is defined as a biological agent that causes disease or illness to its host. (Wikipedia, 2006). Some harmful pathogens include Escherichia coli, which can lead to urinary tract infection and food poisoning. Salmonella leads to food poisoning and Staphylococcus aureus can lead to toxic shock syndrome (Wikipedia, 2006). Clostridium perfringens can also lead to food poisoning. These pathogens are extremely toxic and typically found in foods that are improperly sanitized (Todar, 2002). The above mentioned pathogenic bacterias are included in those routinely tested at SCD. For the past two years, every batch of SCD Probiotics Food ™ produced was sent to a third party laboratory for pathogen screening. The species tested includes; Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Clostridium perfringens and Salmonella. Throughout the past two years of testing, the incidence of pathogenic activity among each species has been negative. The table below shows an average of the results (n=16).

Table 1: Results of Microbial Testing - Pathogen Screening

Physical and Chemical Contaminations

When tested for heavy metals, SCD Probiotics Food ™ has shown levels below 10 parts per million (ppm) for the past two years. The heavy metals tested include; arsenic, cadmium, iron, lead, mercury and nickel. Lead and mercury have been shown to cause multiple health problems when ingested in drinking water, foods that have not been properly cleaned and even from houses with lead-based paint. People are typically exposed to mercury from vapors due to a spill or break in elemental mercury that results from warm, un-ventilated spaces (Environmental Protection Agency, 2006). SCD conducted a nutritional analysis test to verify that SCD Probiotics Food ™ is suitable for commercializing as dietary supplement and the results are shown in the table below.

Table 2: Test Results of SCD Probiotics Food ™ for Heavy Metals And Nutritonal Analysis

Wikipedia (2006), defines “mycotoxin” as a toxin produced by a fungus under specific conditions of moisture and temperature. Mycotoxins can result in obvious problems making people and animals sick. Mycotoxins are structurally diverse secondary metabolites of fungi that grow on a variety of feeds and foods consumed by animals and man, respectively. Most of the research has been conducted on aflatoxins, ochratoxins, T-2 toxin, deoxynivalenol (DON), trichothecenes, fumonisins and zearalenone. Mycotoxins exhibit many different biological effects in the animal and man. They can be carcinogenic, teratogenic, genotoxic, hepatotoxic, nephrotoxic, haematotoxic, immunosuppressive, estrogenic, tremorgenic or mutagenic (Dirheimer, 1998). Mycotoxins are usually a result from contaminated feed for animals, which results in contaminated meat for people (Wikipedia, 2006). SCD Probiotics Food ™ has shown results of <2 parts per billion (ppb) mycotoxins.

Conclusion
SCD Probiotics Food™ has been shown to be safe for use in the environment of animals and other agricultural applications, such as waste treatment. From previous testing over two years, the incidence of pathogenic activity, heavy metals and mycotoxins has been non-detected or zero. Furthermore, SCD Probiotics Food ™ contains beneficial probiotic cultures that have been used for years in foods for humans and animals. The probiotic cultures and Purple Non-Sulfur Bacteria (PNSB) contained in SCD Probiotics Food ™ product are safe and benefitial for animal health. Probiotics have been widely used in dairy product, dietary supplements and incorporated into livestock silage to enhance the intestinal health of the host. PNSB have also been applied as animal feed due to the nutritious property of their biomass, which is rich in high quality protein, vitamin and carotenoids.

SCD Probiotics Technology Benefit Analysis
The successful application of SCD Probiotics Technology is expected to have the following impact on livestock applications

• Reduce mortality in the farm
• Reduce or eliminate the use of antibiotics
• Control odors in animal housing as well as leachate lagoons
• Improve the feed conversion ratio
• Reduce sludge accumulation and coliforms in the lagoons
• Overall reduction in the cost

References:

1. Anjum, A.D., Hussain, T., Rizvi, F., Gilani, G. and Javaid, T. Influence of effective microorganisms on health and immune system of broilers under experimental conditions, EM Technology Network Database, 2006.
2. Cadieux, P., Burton, J., Gardiner, G., et al. 2002. Lactobacillus strains and vaginal ecology. JAMA. 287: 1940 –1941.
3. Cremonini, F., Di Caro, S., Nista, E. C., et al. 2002. Meta-analysis: the effect of probiotic administration on antibiotic-associated diarrhoea. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 16:1461 –1467.
4. Cui, Z. 1999. The fundamental features and value of applications of photosynthetic bacteria (PSB). Journal of Heilongjiang August First Land Reclamation. 1: 1.
5. Dairy & Food Culture Technologies. 2004. Products with Probiotics. [Available at: http://www.usprobiotics.org/products/ ].
6. Dani, C., Biadaioli, R., Bertini, G., Martelli, E., Rubaltelli F. F. 2002. Probiotics feeding in prevention of urinary tract infection, bacterial sepsis and necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm infants. A prospective double-blind study. Biol Neonate. 82: 103 –108.
7. Dirheimer, G. 1998. Recent advances in the genotoxicity of mycotoxins. Rev. Med. Vet. 149:605-616.
8. D’Souza, A. L., Rajkumar, C., Cooke, J., Bulpitt, C. J. 2002. Probiotics in prevention of antibiotic associated diarrhoea: meta-analysis. BMJ. 324: 1361
9. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Health Effects of Lead and Mercury. Available online at: http://epa.gov/mercury/effects.htm
10. Fuller, R. 1987. Probiotics in man and animals. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 66:365-378.
11. Harwood, C. S., Gibson, J., 1988. Anaerobic and aerobic metabolism of diverse aromatic compounds by the photosynthetic bacterium Rhodopseudomonas palustris. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 54: 712-717.
12. Hieu, Phan Knac and Tho, Bui Thi. 2002. Application of EM1 (Effective Microorganisms) for Treatment of Diarrheic Disease in Piglets in Vietnam.Kyusei Nature Farming Proceeding, 7th , Christchurch, New Zealand, 105-107.
13. Hilton, E., Kolakowski, P., Singer, C., Smith, M. 1997. Efficacy of Lactobacillus GG as a diarrheal preventive in travelers. J Travel Med.4: 41 –43.
14. Hirayama, O., Katsuta, Y., 1988. Stimulation of vitamin B12 formation in Rhodospirillum rubrum G-9 BM. Agricultural and Biological Chemistry 52 (11): 2949-2951.
15. Holt, J. G., Krieg, N. R., Sneath, P. H. A., Staley, J. T. and Williams, S. T. 1994. Bergey's manual of determinative bacteriology. 9th. Baltimore. The Williams and Wilkins Co., 787p. ISBN 0-683-00603-7.
16. Imhoff, J. F. and Trüper, H. G. 1989. Purple nonsulfer bacteria. In: Staley, J. T. ed. Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology. Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins. 3: 1658-1682.
17. Ishibashi, N. and Yamazaki, S. 2001. Probiotics and Safety. Am. J. Clin Nutr. 73(suppl): 465S – 470S.
18. Kalliomaki, M., Salminen, S., Arvilommi, H., Kero, P., Koskinen, P., Isolauri, E. 2001. Probiotics in primary prevention of atopic disease: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 357: 1076 –1079.
19. Lee, Y. K., Nomoto, K., Salminen, S., and Gorbach, S. L. 1999. Handbook of probiotics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
20. Lindquist, J. 2001. Bacteriology 102: Enrichment & Isolation of Purple Non-Sulfur Photosynthetic Bacteria. [Available online at: http://www.splammo.net/bact102/102pnsb.html ].
21. Madigan, M. T., Gest, H., 1988. Selective enrichment and isolation of Rhodopseudomonas palustris using trans-cinamic acid as sole carbon source. FEMS Microbiol and Ecology 53: 53-58.
22. Majamaa, H., Isolauri, E. 1997. Probiotics: a novel approach in the management of food allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 99: 179 –185.
23. Mann, G. V. 1977. A factor in yogurt which lowers cholesteremia in man. Atherosclerosis. 26: 335-340.
24. Noparatnaraporn, N. 1986. Phottosynthetic bacteria from agroindustrial waste: a multi-pirpose animal feed. ASEP Newsletter. 2(3): 1-2
25. Noparatnaraporn, N. and Nagai, S. 1986. Selection of Rhodobactor sphaeroides P47 as a useful source of single cell protein. J. Appl. Gen. Microbiol. 32(6): 351-359.
26. NSF International. 2006. About NSF. Available online at: http://www.nsf.org/business/about_NSF/
27. NSF International. 2006. Dietary Supplements Functional Food and Beverages. Available online at: http://www.nsf.org/business/dietary_supplements/index.asp?program:DietarySups
28. NSF International. 2006. Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP). Available online at: http://www.nsf.org/business/gmp/index.asp?program=GoodManPra
29. Organic Materials Review Institute. 2006. Available online at: www.omri.org
30. Ponsano, E. H. G.; Lacava, P. M. and Pinto, M. F. 2002. Isolation of Rhodocyclus gelatinosus from poultry slaughterhouse wastewater. Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology. 45 (4):1-8.
31. Prasertsan, P., Jaturapornpipat, M. and Siripatana, C. 1997. Utilization and treatment of tuna condensate by photosynthetic bacteria. Pure and Applied Chemistry. 69(11): 2439-2445.
32. Safalaoh, A.C.L. and Smith, G.A. Effective microorganisms (EM) as an alternative to antibiotics in broiler diets: effect on broiler growth performance, feed utilization and serum cholesterol. Kyusei Nature Farming Proceeding, 6th, Pretoria, South Africa, 150-155.
33. Saggioro, A. 2004. Probiotics in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. J Clin Gastroenterol. 38(6 suppl): S104 –S106.
34. Sasikala, G. H. and Ramana, C. H. V. 1995. Biotechnological potentials of anoxygenic phototrophic bacteria. I. production of Single-Cell Protein, vitamins, ubiquinones, hormones, and enzymes and use in waste treatment. Advances in Applied Microbiology. 41:173-226.
35. Schultz, M., Timmer, A., Herfarth, H. H., Sartor, R. B., Vanderhoof, J. A., Rath, H. C. 2004. Lactobacillus GG in inducing and maintaining remission of Crohn’s disease. BMC Gastroenterol. 4: 5.
36. Sugita, H., Miyajima, C., Deguchi, Y., 1991. The vitamin B12-producing ability of the intestinal
    microflora of freshwater fish. Aquaculture 92: 267-276.
37. Sun, S., Byungjin, A., Kyuho, M. and Kwanghyun, K. Swine waste management through nature farming and EM. EM technology database. 2006.
38. Svensson, U. 1999. Industrial perspectives. In: Tannock, G.W. (Ed.), Probiotics: A Critical Review: Horizon Scientific Press, Wymondham, pp. 57-64.
39. Szajewska, H., Mrukowicz, J. Z. 2001. Probiotics in the treatment and prevention of acute infectious diarrhea in infants and children: a systematic review of published randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 33(suppl 2): S17 –S25.
40. Todar, Kenneth. 2002. University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Bacteriology. Pathogenic E. coli. Available online at: http://textbookofbacteriology.net/e.coli.html
41. United States Food and Drug Administration. 2006. Health claims: Summary of All GRAS Notices. [Available at: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~rdb/opa-gras.html ].
42. Van Niel, C. W., Feudtner, C., Garrison, M.M., Christakis, D. A. 2002. Lactobacillus therapy for acute infectious diarrhea in children: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 109: 678 –684.
43. Vanderhoof J. A., 2001. Probiotics: Future directions. Am J Clin Nutr. 73: 1152S- 1155S.
44. Wikipedia. 2006. Pathogen. Available online at: http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathogens
45. Xiao, S. D., Zhang de, Z., Lu, H., et al. 2003. Multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of heat-killed Lactobacillus acidophilus LB in patients with chronic diarrhea. Adv Ther. 20: 253 –260.
46. Xu, Hui-lian, Parr, James F., Umemura, Hiroshi. 2000. Nature Farming and Microbial Applications, p.142.
47. Young, J. 1998. European Market developments in prebiotic and probiotic containing foodstuffs. Br. J. Nutr. 80: S231-S233.