Research of safety and toxicity of drug “Biozapin”
Modern animal husbandry and poultry farming is developing very rapidly compared to the possibilities of previous years. Obtaining high economic indicators is possible with balanced feeding and strict observance of veterinary and sanitary measures. Failure to comply with the technology of cultivation leads to the activation of opportunistic pathogens. During the industrial rearing of animals, microflora accumulates both indoors and in the environment. Fattening animals with pelleted feed indoors and the lack of contact with donors of typical microorganisms available in nature (soil, insects, plants) lead to the intestine's colonization by enterobacteria. As a result, probiotics have become very popular in animal husbandry and poultry to normalize the intestinal microflora and disinfect humus, treat animal housing, and eliminate odors: probiotics – microbial drugs which are stabilized cultures of microorganisms that have antagonistic activity against pathogenic microflora. Today, the sources of probiotic strains are nine species of microorganisms. However, probiotics' antimicrobial and stimulating potential based on safe and effective strains of B. subtilis and B. amyloliquefaciens bacilli is much higher than probiotics based on Lacto- and bifidobacteria. The study aimed to investigate the safety and cute toxicity of the probiotic drug “Biozapin” based on a mixture of probiotic bacteria Bacillus sybtilis, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens and aluminosilicate with a single injection into animals and to establish the maximum therapeutic, toxic and lethal doses. The article presents information on the study results of acute toxicity and safety of the drug “Biozapin”. At intragastric administration of this drug to white mice at a dose of 5000 mg/kg of body weight, it does not cause their death; therefore, it is possible to draw a conclusion that this drug is nontoxic. Dilution of the drug “Biozapin” in various concentrations are harmless to the simplest tetrachimene piriformis. The increase in live weight of one head of mice with forced administration of the drug “Biozapin” intragastrically in different concentrations was: sample № 1 – 11.5 %, sample № 2 – 10.0 %, sample № 3 – 13.5 %, sample № 4 – 11.7 %, sample № 5 – 11.1 %, in the control group – 13.9 %. At pathological autopsy of animals, no visible pathological changes were found. The results of toxicological studies have shown that the drug “Biozapin” is harmless and non-toxic.
Du, Y., Lv, X.-T., Wu, Q. Y., Zhang, D.-Y., Zhou, Y.-T., Peng, L., & Hu, H.-Y. (2017). Formation and control of disinfection byproducts and toxicity during reclaimed water chlorination: A review. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 58, 51–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jes.2017.01.013.
Efimova, L. V., & Udalova, T. A. (2011). Jeffektivnye mikroorganizmy v kormlenii krupnogo rogatogo skota i svinej. Krasnojarskij NIIZh Rossel'hozakademii. Krasnojarsk. URL: http://ksc.krasn.ru/upload/iblock/b52/ b524c73d3984a379943596c19a1a06d8.pdf (in Rus-sian).
Hungin, A. P. S., Mitchell, C. R., Whorwell, P. et al. (2018). Probiotics in the management of lower gastrointestinal symptoms – an updated evidence-based international consensus. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 47(8), 1054–1070. doi: 10.1111/apt.14539.
Kotsiumbas, I. Ya., Malyk, O. H., Patereha, I. P. (2006). Doklinichni doslidzhennia veterynarnykh likarskykh zasobiv. Lviv (in Ukrainian).
Kovalenko, V. L., Hnatenko, A. V., & Ponomarenko, H. V. (2012). Porivnialne vyznachennia toksychnosti bakterytsydnykh zasobiv za pokaznykamy hos-troi toksychnosti ta alternatyvnykh metodiv. Problemy zooinzhenerii ta veterynarnoi medytsyny, 25(2), 169–173 (in Ukrainian).
Kucheruk, M. D., & Zasiekin, D. A. (2018). Klinichni y hematolohichni pokaznyky kurchat-broileriv za orhanichnoho vyroshchuvannia. Visnyk Poltavskoi derzhavnoi ahrarnoi akademii, 4, 163–167. doi: 10.31210/visnyk2018.04.25 (in Ukrainian).
Kucheruk, M. D., Bilyk, R. I., & Ihnatovska, M. V. (2018). Eksperymentalne zastosuvannia probiotych-noho preparatu dlia orhanichnoho vyro-shchuvannia kurei. Teoretical and Applied Veterinary Medicine, 6(3), 12–17. doi: 10.32819/2018.63003 (in Ukraini-an).
Lubbers, B. V., & Turnidge, J. (2015). Antimicrobial sus-ceptibility testing for bovine respiratory disease: get-ting more from diagnostic results. Vet. J., 203(2), 149–154. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2014.12.009.
Nikolaenko, V. P. (2016). Profilaktika i lechenie in-fekcionnyh boleznej v pticevodstve. Pticevodstvo, 9, 53–56 (in Russian).
Polozjuk, O. N., & Ushakova, T. M. (2019). Gematologi-ja: uchebnoe posobie. Donskoj GAU. pos. Per-sianovskij: Donskoj GAU (in Russian).
SOU 85.2-37-736:2011 (2011). Preparaty veterynarni. Vyznachennia hostroi toksychnosti [Chynnyi vid 2011-05-01]. K: Minahropolityky Ukrainy (in Ukrain-ian).
Tarakanov, B. V. (2000). Mehanizm dejstvija probiotik-ov na mikrofloru pishhevaritel'nogo trakta i organizm zhivotnogo. Veterinarija, 1, 36–37 (in Russian).
Abstract views: 55 PDF Downloads: 31