News

In modern swine, poultry, and aquaculture nutrition, microbial-based additives have become essential tools to improve animal health, performance, and resilience. For many years, probiotics have been widely used in animal feed. More recently, postbiotics have emerged as a complementary approach. Although probiotics and postbiotics both originate from microorganisms, they operate through very different mechanisms and therefore have different optimal applications. A probiotic is defined as a live microorganism that, when administered in adequate amounts, confers a health benefit to the host. In animal nutrition today, most probiotics used in feed belong to the Bacillus family because these bacteria can form spores that allow them to better tolerate feed processing conditions. However, it is important to recognize that the Bacillus family contains thousands, possibly millions, of different strains, and only a very small proportion of them demonstrate measurable benefits for animal performance. The positive effects described for probiotics in this article therefore apply only to strains that have been thoroughly selected, characterized, and validated through research and field trials. Not all Bacillus strains provide beneficial effects, and the efficacy of a probiotic depends strongly on the specific strain used. A postbiotic, in contrast, does not contain living bacteria. It consists of microbial metabolites, cell-wall fragments, peptides, and other bioactive molecules generated during controlled fermentation. These compounds interact directly with the animal’s physiology without requiring bacterial survival or replication. Understanding these differences helps nutritionists select the right tool depending on the production objective. When Postbiotics Offer Clear Advantages Postbiotics provide several benefits that probiotics cannot easily replicate because they do not rely on living microorganisms. The first advantage is speed of action. Postbiotics already contain the functional molecules produced by microbes, such as peptides, organic acids, or immune-modulating compounds. Once ingested, these molecules interact immediately with the intestinal environment. Probiotics must first

Swine and poultry are both monogastric species, yet their digestive systems function under distinct physiological constraints. These differences are not minor anatomical variations. They determine how nutrients are processed, how robust digestion is under stress, and how nutritional strategies must be designed. Understanding these divergences allows nutritionists to anticipate performance responses instead of interpreting them after problems arise. Gastric Architecture The gastric phase operates very differently in pigs and poultry, and this difference is central to digestive efficiency. In pigs, the stomach is a single glandular compartment where acid secretion, mixing and retention occur together. Feed remains in the stomach long enough for progressive acidification and controlled protein denaturation. Exposure time to low pH is relatively stable because gastric emptying is regulated and not primarily dependent on particle resistance. In this system, the duration of acid contact is fairly predictable. What varies most is the extent of pH reduction, which depends largely on the buffering capacity of the diet. High protein levels, mineral content or certain raw materials increase buffering and slow the decline in pH. Therefore, in pigs, gastric efficiency is mainly a question of how effectively the diet allows pH to drop rather than how long feed is exposed to acid In poultry, acid is secreted in the proventriculus, but true exposure to acid takes place in the gizzard. The proventriculus produces hydrochloric acid and pepsinogen, yet feed passes through this compartment rapidly. It is in the gizzard that feed particles are retained, mixed with acidic secretions and subjected to mechanical grinding. The gizzard therefore determines how long feed remains in an acidic environment. Retention time in the gizzard is not fixed. It depends strongly on particle size and on the muscular development of the gizzard itself. Coarse and resistant particles stimulate stronger contractions and prolong retention, allowing

The reduction of antibiotic growth promoters in swine and poultry production has led nutritionists to rely on a wide range of non-antibiotic antibacterial ingredients. Organic acids, zinc oxide, botanicals, fatty acids and biopolymers are now used routinely to manage gut bacterial pressure. However, these ingredients do not work in the same way. Their efficacy depends on whether they act in a bacteriostatic or bactericidal manner, and on how they are used within a broader feeding strategy. Understanding these differences is essential to design effective, consistent and economical gut health programs. Bacteriostatic versus bactericidal actions Bacteriostatic ingredients slow down bacterial growth and replication without killing bacteria directly. By limiting multiplication, they reduce the speed at which bacterial populations expand and allow the animal and its commensal microbiota to maintain control. Their efficacy depends primarily on time of exposure. They must be present continuously to exert meaningful pressure. In a typical bacteriostatic mechanism, the active molecule penetrates the bacterial cell in a neutral form and dissociates inside the cytoplasm. This intracellular dissociation disturbs metabolic balance and forces the bacterium to activate energy-consuming systems to restore internal stability. ATP is redirected from growth toward survival. As energy reserves decline, protein synthesis slows, DNA replication is delayed, and cell division is postponed. The cell remains structurally intact, but its capacity to multiply is reduced. As long as exposure continues, proliferation remains limited. Once exposure stops, surviving bacteria may resume growth. This example illustrates the core principle of bacteriostatic action: metabolic restraint over time rather than structural destruction. Beyond this metabolic ATP-stress model, bacteriostatic effects can also arise from inhibition of protein synthesis, interference with DNA replication, disruption of quorum sensing and bacterial communication systems, limitation of nutrient availability, or binding of key bacterial enzymes. In all these cases, the defining characteristic remains the same:

Zinc oxide has been used for decades as one of the most effective tools to prevent post-weaning diarrhea in piglets. Its efficacy is well recognized in the field, yet its mode of action remains complex and often oversimplified. Zinc oxide is frequently described as a simple antibacterial agent, but this view does not reflect the multiplicity of biological and physicochemical mechanisms involved. In reality, zinc oxide acts through several complementary pathways that depend on gut physiology, microbial dynamics, and the intrinsic properties of the zinc oxide source itself.Let’s review that together!! To understand how zinc oxide works, it is essential to clarify the origin of pathogenic Escherichia coli. There are two main sources of contamination. The first is endogenous. E. coli strains are naturally present in the piglet gut, including in the jejunum, where they usually remain at low and controlled levels. After weaning, abrupt dietary changes, stress, immature immunity, and altered gut motility create favorable conditions for these resident bacteria to proliferate locally and express virulence factors. The second source is exogenous. Feed can introduce E. coli into the digestive tract, and these bacteria may multiply in the stomach, particularly in young piglets. At weaning, gastric acid production is still limited, and this situation is often aggravated by high inclusion levels of buffering ingredients such as calcium carbonate. When gastric pH increases, the stomach loses part of its antibacterial barrier function, allowing more viable bacteria to reach the small intestine and increase infection pressure.Zinc oxide acts at two complementary levels. The first level is upstream, in the stomach. Zinc oxide limits bacterial proliferation by reducing the survival of E. coli under acidic conditions. By lowering the number of viable bacteria exiting the stomach, zinc oxide reduces the continuous reseeding of the small intestine. This effect is particularly important in

The intestinal tract of monogastric animals is a living interface constantly renewing and protecting itself. Along its wall, specialized goblet cells secrete mucus that forms a thin protective film over the epithelium. This mucus layer lubricates the passage of digesta, shields the intestinal cells from mechanical friction and pathogens, and provides a habitat for beneficial bacteria. It acts as the gut’s first line of defense while allowing nutrients to diffuse through to the absorptive cells. But when it becomes excessive or overly viscous, mucus starts to interfere with normal digestive function. A thick mucus film creates a physical barrier between nutrients and the enterocytes, reducing the efficiency of absorption and increasing the apparent loss of amino acids and fat in the feces. It can also trap pathogenic bacteria and their toxins, allowing them to persist longer in the lumen instead of being cleared with the digesta. In young animals, excess mucus often leads to slower epithelial turnover, resulting in shorter villi and reduced digestive capacity. Another consequence is an increase in endogenous losses, because the animal must continuously produce and shed more mucus, which consumes energy and amino acids that would otherwise support growth. Over time, this creates a cycle where the gut remains protected but less functional, highlighting the importance of maintaining mucus at the right thickness rather than simply maximizing its production. Maintaining the right thickness of the mucus layer is therefore essential to keep protection without compromising absorption. This is where insoluble fibers play a strategic role by helping regulate mucus turnover through gentle mechanical stimulation. It is called scraping. Physical interaction between fibers and the intestinal wall Insoluble fibers, particularly those with coarse particle size and rigid structure, exert a gentle mechanical friction on the intestinal mucosa during peristalsis. This friction detaches portions of the superficial

When we talk about sustainability, meat production is often accused of being inefficient or resource intensive. Yet, recent work from Professor Paul Moughan at the Riddet Institute shows a different story. When we evaluate pork and poultry production through modern nutritional and environmental metrics, these species appear as some of the most effective protein converters in agriculture Efficient Protein Conversion The core of the argument is nutritional efficiency. Traditional systems such as PDCAAS  (Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score) have long underestimated the value of animal proteins. The more recent FAO endorsed DIAAS (Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score) method gives a clearer view by measuring the digestibility of each amino acid at the end of the small intestine. Using the pig as a model, DIAAS shows that pork, chicken, and eggs provide amino acids with a bioavailability much closer to human needs than cereals or legumes. In simple terms, pork and poultry transform feed into high quality amino acids with very little loss. Each kilogram of protein from these meats contributes more usable amino acids for human nutrition than plant protein. That efficiency becomes even more evident when we realize that most of the feed they consume, such as bran, brewers grains, meat meal, dried blood, or rice byproducts, are ingredients not used in human food. If we remove these noncompeting raw materials from the equation, the efficiency of swine and poultry production improves dramatically. These animals convert what humans cannot eat into highly digestible essential amino acids. The sector is also moving fast toward ingredients such as synthetic amino acids, microbial protein, or insect meal, further reducing the competition with human food chains. Environmental Footprint Animal production is often judged by land use or carbon emissions per kilogram of meat, but that approach misses the key point: not all

The International Feed Ingredients Course (iFIC) 2025 is a global platform dedicated to advancing knowledge in animal nutrition and feed ingredient utilization. iFIC is more than a course – it’s a community of forward-thinking professionals who are shaping the future of the livestock and feed industries. With content grounded in the latest research, real-world data, and hands-on experience, iFIC equips participants with the tools they need to make informed decisions in an ever-evolving global feed landscape. Nutrispices and Animine are honored to take part in iFIC 2025. Throughout Days 1 and 2, our esteemed customers have had the opportunity to engage with leading global experts in animal nutrition and gain valuable insights from distinguished speakers from around the world. The iFIC 2025 convenes over 600 distinguished participants, including animal nutritionists, animal feed formulators, and feed mill leaders across the globe.The conference serves not only as a platform for the dissemination of the latest scientific knowledge and emerging industry trends, but also as a valuable occasion for enterprises to network and exchange professional insights. In particular, before the iFIC conference on the afternoon of October 13, 2025, Nutrispices customers have had the opportunity to meet and exchange directly with the iFIC experts at the Speed ​​Dating Session. With the support of world-leading experts such as: In 2025, iFIC returns with updated sessions, a focus on gut health, and renewed energy to connect minds and move the industry forward – together. SESSION 1: Current topics facing the global livestock industry SESSION 2: Procedures for determining the nutritional value of feed ingredients and impact of feed processing. SESSION 3 : Towards increased precision in mineral nutrition. SESSION 4 : New developments in energy determinations of feed ingredients and diets. SESSION 5: Oilseeds and Oilseed meal. Overview over global production; nutritional composition, energy content, anti-nutritional factors,