Reptile & Amphibian Forums

For those regulars on here (Colchi and Kelly) I just wanted to share what I learned on probiotics today. I was at a seminar on nutrition and inflammatory bowel disease in dogs and cats when probiotics came up as part of the background information package.
The first thing that I learned was rather disturbing but there are no laws governing what exactly is in these products, or what they put on there labels. A study was cited and they found that many products tested had a)no viable bacteria available b) bacteria other then what was on the label, some of which are potentially pathogenic c)bacteria was not present in the numbers listed on the label.
Finally, the presenter's opinion (based on lab and emperical testing) is that the benefits of using probiotics is vertually non-existant. For instance, the bacteria first has to resist the vigours of digestion and the acids of the stomach before it even has a chance to make its way through the small intestines into the large intestine and colon where the few numbers remaining then have to compete with existing flora to colonize a niche. Also of importance is that if probiotics were to work, they would need to be taken 4 times daily and there effects would cease the day that they were no longer ingested.

For your interest, the presenter was
Stanley L. Marks BVSc PhD Dip.ACVIM, Dip.ACVN and Professor at U of Cal, Davis.

Interesting stuff. For some reason, the lack of regulation doesn't surprise me too much considering the lack of regulation in other areas. Did some types of probiotics out perform others, or did all of them fall into the questionable benefits category? I can definitely see the competition concern and could only image them being of any real benefit if the animals intestinal flora was virtually wiped out before treatment began. Thanks for the information.

Kelly

I didn't have the study itself in front of me but yogurt was also tested in addition to brand name probiotics. All of them clearly were under the same umbrella however. I doubt it's been done, but in animals with totally wiped out intestinal flora (is that possible?) an enema or endoscopic insertion would by-pass the stomach. It would also benefit if a sample was kept for culture so you could identify how much and what exactly you just gave to your animal.

Also of interest is that this referal practice recommends a fecal in any diarrhea case (of course, to identify any problems) but then to also deworm even if the fecal is negative. This takes care of common, latent infections or those that only intermitently shed. This recommendation may not be as notible for captive bred, always indoor reptiles but should be considered non-the-less. As per fecal flotation he also noted that centrifugal flotation is 10 times more likely to detect a positive than a gravitational flotation. With cultures, they often come back with identical results for both healthy and sick animals. Cultures are usefull, but diagnoses shouldn't be heavily based on their results. If available, a saline wet mount should also be done routinely if the stool is fresh.

A virtually wiped out intestinal flora would be impossible and was a little strong on my part, I guess greatly diminished would be more accurate. This has been be accomplished with the over zealous use of oral, broad-spectrum antibiotics. This seems to be one of the target uses for probiotics, but from what you have heard, apparently not as effective as was once thought. The stomach bypass insertion you mentioned is an interesting idea. Let me know if you ever get a chance to work with it.

A broad spectrum de-worming with a negative fecal on wild caught animals is probably warranted considering the fairly innocuous nature of the four main anti-parasitic drugs (Fenbendozole, Droncit, Albon, and Flagyl), and the high probability of a parasite load, and as you said, possibly undetected. I agree that I would not be as inclined to follow this course of action with a symptomatic captive born animal unless the fecal was positive. I almost always use the centrifugal concentration technique over the floatation because as was stated, it is far superior to the other concentration procedures in almost every case. Obviously, the main drawback is that most don't have access to a centrifuge. I do normally use the wet smear with physiological saline as a backup.

I very much agree with the comments made on cultures. In a thread on the boa forum, I remember we discussed the large percentage of captive boids that carry or are exposed to pathogenic bacteria and never become symptomatic. With these opportunistic bacterial species typically only becoming a problem in compromised snakes, and likely being present in healthy animals, it does make diagnosis difficult.
Sounds like it was an excellent seminar. Thanks for sharing the information.

Kelly

This only brings up a greater issue of sham herp products on the market. How about all those "sun in a bottle" tricks that makes people think they never have to buy a UV bulb? I rarely put faith in anything that is not widely proven to provide the results they claim.

This issue relates to the calcium/vitamin mixes. I try to tell people that they should never use just one brand. The ingredients, and even quality of ingredients vary greatly. Plus, most of the claims manufacturers make are unsubstantiated since there is no regulatory agency checking them. You should use multiple brands and switch frequently between them.

Thanks for bringing this up, I'm happy to throw probiotics in the bin with the rest of the sham products.
-----
"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully."
Governor George W. Bush, Jr.

"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us."
Calvin and Hobbes (Scientific Progress Goes 'Boink', 1991)