Insect-based diets (house crickets and mulberry silkworm pupae): A comparison of their effects on canine gut microbiota
-
Published:2023-08
Issue:
Volume:
Page:1627-1635
-
ISSN:2231-0916
-
Container-title:Veterinary World
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Vet World
Author:
Areerat Sathita1ORCID, Chundang Pipatpong2ORCID, Lekcharoensuk Chalermpol3ORCID, Patumcharoenpol Preecha4ORCID, Kovitvadhi Attawit2ORCID
Affiliation:
1. Graduate Student in Animal Health and Biomedical Science Program, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand. 2. Department of Physiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand. 3. Department of Companion Animals Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand. 4. Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Bioscience, Faculty of Science, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand.
Abstract
Background and Aim: The gut microbiome plays an important role in the overall health and well-being of dogs, influencing various physiological processes such as metabolism, nutrient absorption, and immune function. Edible insects are a sustainable and nutritious alternative protein source attracting increasing attention as a potential component of animal feeds, including pet food. However, little is known about the effects of insect-based diets on the gut microbiota of dogs. This study aimed to examine the fecal microbiota of dogs fed a diet that substituted common protein sources (poultry meal) with the house cricket (Acheta domesticus [AD]) or mulberry silkworm pupae (Bombyx mori pupae [BMp]) at different levels.
Materials and Methods: Fifteen healthy adult mixed-breed dogs were systemically randomized and assigned into each block under a completed randomized block design into the following five experimental dietary groups: control diet, 10% AD, 20% AD, 7% BMp, or 14% BMp for 29 days. The amounts fed to the dogs were based on the daily energy requirement. Fecal samples were collected on days 14 and 29 and analyzed for bacterial community structure using 16S ribosomal ribonucleic acid gene sequencing.
Results: At the phylum and genus levels, microbiota and their diversity were generally relatively similar among all treatments. The diets containing insects did not significantly alter the major phyla in the gut microbiome of dogs (p > 0.05). A few significant changes were found in the relative abundance of bacterial genera, with the levels of Allobaculum and Turicibacter being reduced in dogs fed a higher level of BMp. In contrast, only a decrease in Turicibacter was found in dogs fed the lower level of AD than the control diet (p < 0.05). Corynebacterium and Lactobacillus levels in the dogs fed 14% BMp were significantly increased compared with those in the control group (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: These findings suggest that insect-based diets may slightly alter the gut microbiota of dogs. Further research is needed to fully understand the mechanisms by which insect-based diets influence the gut microbiota of dogs and the long-term potential health implications.
Keywords: 16S ribosomal ribonucleic acid, canine, cricket, gut microbiota, insect, silkworm.
Funder
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kasetsart University
Publisher
Veterinary World
Subject
General Veterinary
Reference80 articles.
1. Swanson, K.S. and Schook, L.B. (2006) Canine nutritional model: Influence of age, diet, and genetics on health and well-being. Curr. Nutr. Food Sci., 2(2): 115–126. 2. Coelho, L.P., Kultima, J.R., Costea, P.I., Fournier, C., Pan, Y., Czarnecki-Maulden, G., Hayward, M.R., Forslund, S.K., Schmidt, T.S.B., Descombes, P. and 3. Jackson, J.R. (2018) Similarity of the dog and human gut microbiomes in gene content and response to diet. Microbiome, 6(1): 72. 4. Swanson, K.S., Dowd, S.E., Suchodolski, J.S., Middelbos, I.S., Vester, B.M., Barry, K.A., Nelson, K.E., Torralba, M., Henrissat, B., Coutinho, P.M. and Cann, I.K. 5. (2011) Phylogenetic and gene-centric metagenomics of the canine intestinal microbiome reveals similarities with humans and mice. ISME J., 5(4): 639–649.
|
|