English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The aim of our study was to evaluate the contents and labelling of five commercial probiotics marketed for veterinary administration. The information on the product was obtained from the inserted leaflet or the data on the package. Quantitative bacteriological culture was performed in all products, and isolates were identified via biochemical characteristics. Comparison of actual contents versus label claims was performed. Four products correctly provided information on expiry dates, species and quantity of bacteria per gram or kilogram of product. In one product, there was no probiotic species mentioned in the Czech text on the package. Culture examinations of all the three products containing Enterococcus faecium resulted in finding the declared quantity of bacteria. They also contained Lactobacillus sp. not mentioned in the leaflet. Culturing the mixture of Bacillus subtilis and Lactobacillus paracasei, we found only Bacillus subtilis in a quantity by one order lower than declared. In an incorrectly labelled product, Lactobacillus sp. was found instead of yeast species. Most commercial veterinary probiotic preparations are not accurately represented by label claims.

Labelling and Content Evaluation of Commercial Veterinary Probiotics