**7.1 Experiment: impact of probiotic yeast on blood fecal biomarkers in dairy heifers and growing animals**

Based upon the above discussion, we have conducted two research experiments on dairy animals by using the IPY concept to improve the gut health. In experiment 1, eight dairy heifers (87 ± 5 kg and 6–7 months) were divided into two equal groups (control n = 4 and probiotic n = 4)[80]. Control group animals fed on NRC recommended diet and probiotic group animals fed control diet FPY (Yea-Sac1026 ; 5 g/animal). After 120 days results showed that the FPY significantly affected the serum glucose, and urea levels in dairy heifers [24].


*1 n = 4 per treatment.*

*2 Control feed without yeast.*

*3 Probiotic feed compose of control feed supplemented with 2.5×10 07 cfu/g commercially available probiotic yeast (Yac-Sac1026) at the rate of 5 g per animal/day \* ± Standard error of the mean.*

*4 Before treatment (day 0).*

*5 After treatment (day 120).*

#### **Table 1.**

*Blood serum metabolites (Means ± SEM) in dairy heifers fed on control and foreign probiotic yeast.*


*a , b Values on the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05).1 n = 3 per treatment. 2 Control feed without yeast.*

*3 LAB-Probiotic feed compose of control feed supplemented with 3.13 × 1007 cfu/g laboratory produces probiotic yeast (QAUSC03) at the rate of 8 g/day/animal.*

*4 COM-Probiotic feed compose of control feed supplemented with 2.5×10 07 cfu/g commercially probiotic yeast (Yac-Sac1026) at the rate of 10g/day/animal.*

*5 Before treatment (day 0).*

*6 After treatment (day 120) \* ± SEM = standard error of the mean.*

#### **Table 2.**

*Effect of indigenous Vs foreign probiotic yeast on blood parameters (Means ± SEM) in lactating dairy cattle.*

**47**

**Figure 7.**

**Figure 8.**

*Understanding the Mechanism of Action of Indigenous Target Probiotic Yeast: Linking…*

That means, we had a proof of positive impact of PFY on animal health. We had isolated the yeast from dairy animals fed on yeast. After careful assessment of the probiotic potential, we conducted another experiment to determine the impact of FPY Vs IPY on the health of lactating dairy cattle. Mix breed (*Sahiwal* and *Sahiwal×Jersey,* n = 9*,* with 4-5-liter milk per day) animal were selected for blood and fecal flora study. Animals were divided into three groups. Group 1 fed on 8 g IPY with 3.13 × 1007 CFU/g; group 2 fed on 10 g FPY with 2.5 ×1 007 CFU/g FPY, group 3 fed only control diet with no probiotic (Figure). After 90 days, results showed that the gut associated microbial flora and blood biochemical parameters were improved in the presence IPY as compare to the FPY (**Tables 1** and **2**). We highlighted that improved animal health condition might be due to improved digestive enzymes produced from well propagated IPY. The VFAs have a capability to reduce the triglycerol and cholesterol in liver cells and might be change the animal lipid profile. Results of the ruminal gut microflora showed that the average*,* beneficial *Pediococcus* and *Weisella* species (CFU/g) counts increased while pathogenic E.coli species (CFU/g) counts decreased in IPY fed

*Total Enterococcus count (CFU/g) in the ruminal gut of dairy heifers fed on control feed (control, ♦; no yeast)* 

*or commercial probiotic feed (COM-P, ■; control feed plus commercial yeast) (n = 4).*

*Total Lactococcus count (CFU/g) in the ruminal gut of dairy heifers fed on control feed (control, ♦; no yeast) or* 

*commercial probiotic feed (COM-P, ■; control feed plus commercial yeast) (n = 4).*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95822*

*Understanding the Mechanism of Action of Indigenous Target Probiotic Yeast: Linking… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95822*

#### **Figure 7.**

*Saccharomyces*

**animal probiotic?**

**heifers and growing animals**

serum glucose, and urea levels in dairy heifers [24].

**Parameters Feeding regime**

*Blood serum metabolites (Means ± SEM) in dairy heifers fed on control and foreign probiotic yeast.*

*(Yac-Sac1026) at the rate of 5 g per animal/day \* ± Standard error of the mean.*

 *Values on the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05).1*

Before treatment5 14.55 ± \*0.57 14.18 ± 0.21 15.54 ± 0.32

Before treatment 75.70 ± 1.24 73.99 ± 2.51 75.08 ± 2.30

*LAB-Probiotic feed compose of control feed supplemented with 3.13 × 1007 cfu/g laboratory produces probiotic yeast* 

*COM-Probiotic feed compose of control feed supplemented with 2.5×10 07 cfu/g commercially probiotic yeast* 

*Effect of indigenous Vs foreign probiotic yeast on blood parameters (Means ± SEM) in lactating dairy cattle.*

± 0.58 12.31b

± 0.71 77.42a

**Control2 IPY3 FPY4**

± 0.22 13.68ab ± 0.90

± 0.54

± 1.28 78.97a

*n = 3 per treatment.*

**7. Experimental proofs: who is better; indigenous or foreign microbe as** 

**7.1 Experiment: impact of probiotic yeast on blood fecal biomarkers in dairy** 

Based upon the above discussion, we have conducted two research experiments on dairy animals by using the IPY concept to improve the gut health. In experiment 1, eight dairy heifers (87 ± 5 kg and 6–7 months) were divided into two equal groups (control n = 4 and probiotic n = 4)[80]. Control group animals fed on NRC recommended diet and probiotic group animals fed control diet FPY (Yea-Sac1026

5 g/animal). After 120 days results showed that the FPY significantly affected the

**Items Feeding regime p-Value**

Before treatment4 30.10 ± \*0.711 31.14 ± 0.974 0.012 After treatment5 33.34 ± 0.432 29.23 ± 0.494 0.01

Before treatment 62.67 ± 4.04 60.86 ± 2.80 0.605 After treatment 63.31 ± 2.60 65.47 ± 2.84 0.600

*Probiotic feed compose of control feed supplemented with 2.5×10 07 cfu/g commercially available probiotic yeast* 

**Control2 FPY3**

;

**46**

*a , b*

*1*

*2*

*3*

*4*

*5*

**Table 1.**

*2*

*3*

*4*

*5*

*6*

**Table 2.**

**Urea (mg/100 ml)1**

**Urea (mg/100 ml)**<sup>1</sup>

**Glucose (mg/100 ml)**

*n = 4 per treatment.*

*Control feed without yeast.*

*Before treatment (day 0).*

*After treatment (day 120).*

**Glucose (mg/100 ml)**

*Control feed without yeast.*

*Before treatment (day 0).*

*(QAUSC03) at the rate of 8 g/day/animal.*

*(Yac-Sac1026) at the rate of 10g/day/animal.*

After treatment6 14.18a

After treatment 73.84b

*After treatment (day 120) \* ± SEM = standard error of the mean.*

*Total Lactococcus count (CFU/g) in the ruminal gut of dairy heifers fed on control feed (control, ♦; no yeast) or commercial probiotic feed (COM-P, ■; control feed plus commercial yeast) (n = 4).*

#### **Figure 8.**

*Total Enterococcus count (CFU/g) in the ruminal gut of dairy heifers fed on control feed (control, ♦; no yeast) or commercial probiotic feed (COM-P, ■; control feed plus commercial yeast) (n = 4).*

That means, we had a proof of positive impact of PFY on animal health. We had isolated the yeast from dairy animals fed on yeast. After careful assessment of the probiotic potential, we conducted another experiment to determine the impact of FPY Vs IPY on the health of lactating dairy cattle. Mix breed (*Sahiwal* and *Sahiwal×Jersey,* n = 9*,* with 4-5-liter milk per day) animal were selected for blood and fecal flora study. Animals were divided into three groups. Group 1 fed on 8 g IPY with 3.13 × 1007 CFU/g; group 2 fed on 10 g FPY with 2.5 ×1 007 CFU/g FPY, group 3 fed only control diet with no probiotic (Figure). After 90 days, results showed that the gut associated microbial flora and blood biochemical parameters were improved in the presence IPY as compare to the FPY (**Tables 1** and **2**).

We highlighted that improved animal health condition might be due to improved digestive enzymes produced from well propagated IPY. The VFAs have a capability to reduce the triglycerol and cholesterol in liver cells and might be change the animal lipid profile. Results of the ruminal gut microflora showed that the average*,* beneficial *Pediococcus* and *Weisella* species (CFU/g) counts increased while pathogenic E.coli species (CFU/g) counts decreased in IPY fed

lactating cows than other groups which leads to improve GIT microbial balance (**Figures 7** and **8**).

It can be concluded IPY improves the, gut health, and wellbeing of lactating dairy cattle in cost effective manner. IPY strain may adopt well in the cattle gut than FPY [80].
