FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Veterinary medicine and science2026; 12(2); e70854; doi: 10.1002/vms3.70854

Survey on Faecal Microbiota Transplantation and Probiotic Use in Equine Practice in France and Belgium.

Abstract: Faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) and probiotics are used in equine practice. Understanding veterinarians' perceptions and practices is crucial for effective implementation. Objective: (1) Evaluate the prevalence, usage patterns and perceived effectiveness of probiotics and FMT among equine veterinarians in France and Belgium. (2) Assess their knowledge, practices and influencing factors across demographics and settings. (3) Explore links between FMT protocols and treatment satisfaction. Methods: Cross-sectional survey. Methods: An online survey collected demographic data and responses on the use of probiotics and FMT. Analyses included descriptive statistics, chi-square tests and logistic regression models. Results: Ninety-six equine veterinarians participated, practicing in Belgium (52.1%), France (39.6%) or both (8.3%). Probiotic use was reported by 82.1%, more frequent in field than clinical practice (odds ratio [OR] = 3.61, 95% CI [1.09, 12.02], p = 0.036) and in France than Belgium (OR = 5.08, 95% CI [1.44, 17.94], p = 0.012). Probiotics were used for chronic diarrhoea (88.0%), acute diarrhoea (67.6%) and inflammatory bowel diseases (45.9%). Most veterinarians (83.3%) defined probiotics well, but 16.7% misidentified non-probiotic products. FMT was used by 76.0%, mainly occasionally and therapeutically, more in clinical than field practice (OR = 4.79, 95% CI [1.03, 22.27], p = 0.046). In theory, 58.3% prioritized infection-free donors, but only 22.5% tested donors before FMT, mostly using coprology (93.8%). Those who tested donors reported higher perceived efficacy (p = 0.0029). Conclusions: Potential selection bias, as participation was voluntary. Generalizability might be limited by focus on France and Belgium. Sample size, while informative, should be expanded. Conclusions: Probiotics and FMT were commonly used therapeutically by equine veterinarians in France and Belgium. Although probiotic use was widespread, some misunderstandings remained. FMT protocols varied, with donor faeces often untested. Treatment satisfaction was generally positive but estimated success rates varied. Standardized FMT protocols are needed to improve outcomes and consistency.
© 2026 The Author(s). Veterinary Medicine and Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2026-03-05 PubMed ID: 41782495PubMed Central: PMC12961356DOI: 10.1002/vms3.70854Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

Overview

  • This study surveyed equine veterinarians in France and Belgium to understand the usage, perceptions, and effectiveness of faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) and probiotics in horse healthcare.
  • The research aimed to highlight how commonly these treatments are used, veterinarians’ knowledge about them, and factors influencing their practices.

Background and Objectives

  • Faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) and probiotics are treatments aimed at improving gut health by modifying the intestinal microbiota in horses.
  • Understanding how equine veterinarians perceive and use these treatments is crucial for optimizing their practical implementation and outcomes.
  • The study had three main objectives:
    • To assess the prevalence, usage patterns, and perceived effectiveness of probiotics and FMT among equine veterinarians in France and Belgium.
    • To analyze the veterinarians’ knowledge, practices, and factors influencing these, including differences based on demographics and practice settings.
    • To explore possible relationships between different FMT protocols and overall treatment satisfaction.

Methods

  • The research was conducted through a cross-sectional online survey targeting equine veterinarians.
  • Survey questions collected demographic information, experience with probiotics and FMT, and perceptions of their effectiveness.
  • Statistical analyses applied included:
    • Descriptive statistics to summarize responses.
    • Chi-square tests to examine associations between categorical variables.
    • Logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios (OR) for certain practices based on country or type of practice.

Key Findings: Probiotics

  • Out of 96 participating equine veterinarians, 82.1% reported using probiotics in their practice.
  • Probiotic use was higher in field practice compared to clinical settings, with veterinarians in the field being 3.61 times more likely to use probiotics.
  • Across countries, French veterinarians used probiotics more frequently than Belgian counterparts, with an odds ratio of 5.08.
  • The main indications for probiotic use included:
    • Chronic diarrhoea (88.0%)
    • Acute diarrhoea (67.6%)
    • Inflammatory bowel diseases (45.9%)
  • Most veterinarians (83.3%) correctly defined what probiotics are, but a significant minority (16.7%) misidentified other non-probiotic products as probiotics, indicating some gap in knowledge.

Key Findings: Faecal Microbiota Transplantation (FMT)

  • FMT use was reported by 76.0% of respondents; however, most used it occasionally and predominantly for therapeutic purposes rather than routine use.
  • FMT was more frequently used in clinical practice compared to field work, with clinical vets being 4.79 times more likely to perform FMT.
  • Regarding donor selection protocols:
    • 58.3% of veterinarians expressed that selecting infection-free donors is important in theory.
    • However, only 22.5% actually tested donor horses prior to transplantation, mostly using coprology (faecal parasite testing) – 93.8% of those who tested.
  • Veterinarians who performed donor testing reported significantly higher perceived effectiveness of FMT treatments (p = 0.0029), suggesting a link between protocol rigor and treatment satisfaction.

Interpretation and Implications

  • Probiotics and FMT are widely used therapeutic tools in equine veterinary practice in France and Belgium, demonstrating their acceptance among practitioners.
  • Despite frequent probiotic use, some misunderstandings about what constitutes a probiotic remain, highlighting the need for better education and clarity.
  • FMT practices varied greatly; standardized protocols were lacking, especially regarding donor screening.
  • Testing donors prior to FMT correlated with better perceived outcomes, underscoring the importance of establishing and following rigorous protocols.
  • Overall treatment satisfaction was generally positive, but variability in reported success rates indicates room for improvement in treatment consistency and efficacy.

Limitations

  • The study involved a relatively small sample size (96 veterinarians), which may reduce the statistical power and representation of wider equine practice.
  • Participation was voluntary, possibly introducing selection bias as those interested or familiar with probiotics/FMT may have been more likely to respond.
  • Findings may have limited generalizability outside France and Belgium, as veterinary practices and regulatory contexts vary by country.

Conclusions and Recommendations

  • Probiotics and FMT are integral parts of equine health management in the surveyed regions but require further standardization and education.
  • Standardized protocols for FMT, especially regarding donor selection and testing, should be developed to improve treatment effectiveness and safety.
  • Educational initiatives could address knowledge gaps about probiotic definitions and appropriate use.
  • Future larger-scale studies across different countries and with a broader sample could help refine best practices for microbiota-based therapies in equine medicine.

Cite This Article

APA
Loublier C, Taminiau B, Seidel L, Moula N, Tano C, Cesarini C, Costa M, Lecoq L, Daube G, Amory H. (2026). Survey on Faecal Microbiota Transplantation and Probiotic Use in Equine Practice in France and Belgium. Vet Med Sci, 12(2), e70854. https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.70854

Publication

Veterinary medicine and science
ISSN: 2053-1095
NlmUniqueID: 101678837
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 12
Issue: 2
Pages: e70854
PII: e70854

Researcher Affiliations

Loublier, Clémence
  • Equine Clinical Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
  • Fundamental and Applied Research for Animals & Health (FARAH), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Taminiau, Bernard
  • Fundamental and Applied Research for Animals & Health (FARAH), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
  • Department of Food Sciences-Microbiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liege, Liège, Belgium.
Seidel, Laurence
  • Biostatistics and Research Method Center (B-STAT), CHU-ULiège, Liège, Belgium.
Moula, Nassim
  • GIGA Animal Facilities, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Tano, Colombe
  • Equine Clinical Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Cesarini, Carla
  • Equine Clinical Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
  • Fundamental and Applied Research for Animals & Health (FARAH), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Costa, Marcio
  • Department of Veterinary Biomedicine, University of Montreal, Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec, Canada.
Lecoq, Laureline
  • Equine Clinical Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
  • Fundamental and Applied Research for Animals & Health (FARAH), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Daube, Georges
  • Fundamental and Applied Research for Animals & Health (FARAH), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
  • Department of Food Sciences-Microbiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liege, Liège, Belgium.
Amory, Hélène
  • Equine Clinical Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
  • Fundamental and Applied Research for Animals & Health (FARAH), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.

MeSH Terms

  • Belgium
  • Probiotics / therapeutic use
  • Horses
  • France
  • Animals
  • Fecal Microbiota Transplantation / veterinary
  • Fecal Microbiota Transplantation / statistics & numerical data
  • Cross-Sectional Studies
  • Horse Diseases / therapy
  • Veterinarians / statistics & numerical data
  • Veterinarians / psychology
  • Female
  • Male
  • Surveys and Questionnaires
  • Humans

Grant Funding

  • 40005849 / Fonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRS

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

This article includes 53 references
  1. Arantes JA, Di Pietro R, Ratté M, Arroyo LG, Leclère M, Costa MC. Changes in Bacterial Viability After Preparation and Storage of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Solution Using Equine Feces. Peer Journal 13:e18860.
    pmc: PMC11847485pubmed: 39989751
  2. Baunwall SMD, Terveer EM, Dahlerup JF. The Use of Faecal Microbiota Transplantation (FMT) in Europe: A Europe‐Wide Survey. Lancet Regional Health—Europe 9:100181.
    pmc: PMC8513118pubmed: 34693388
  3. Bell J, Raidal SL, Cuming RS, Trope G, Hughes KJ. Effects of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation on Clinical Outcomes and Fecal Microbiota of Foals With Diarrhea. Veterinary Internal Medicine 38,no.5:2718–2728.
    pmc: PMC11423448pubmed: 39266472
  4. Benech N, Legendre P, Radoszycki L, Varriale P, Sokol H. Patient Knowledge of Gut Microbiota and Acceptability of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation in Various Diseases. Neurogastroenterology & Motility 34:e14320.
    pubmed: 35037353
  5. Berreta A, Burbick CR, Alexander T, Kogan C, Kopper JJ. Microbial Variability of Commercial Equine Probiotics. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 106:103728.
    pubmed: 34670695
  6. Boscan P, Van Hoogmoed LM, Farver TB, Snyder JR. Evaluation of the Effects of the Opioid Agonist Morphine on Gastrointestinal Tract Function in Horses. American Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences 67,no.6:992–997.
    pubmed: 16740092
  7. Boucher L, Leduc L, Leclère M, Costa MC. Current Understanding of Equine Gut Dysbiosis and Microbiota Manipulation Techniques: Comparison With Current Knowledge in Other Species. Animals 14,no.5:758.
    pmc: PMC10931082pubmed: 38473143
  8. Boyle AG. Respiratory Distress in the Adult and Foal. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Equine Practice 37,no.2:311–325.
    pubmed: 34119402
  9. Brandt LJ, Aroniadis OC. An Overview of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation: Techniques, Indications, and Outcomes. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 78,no.2:240–249.
    pubmed: 23642791
  10. Cammarota G, Ianiro G, Kelly CR. International Consensus Conference on Stool Banking for Faecal Microbiota Transplantation in Clinical Practice. Gut 68,no.12:2111–2121.
    pmc: PMC6872442pubmed: 31563878
  11. Costa MC, Arroyo LG, Allen‐Vercoe E. Comparison of the Fecal Microbiota of Healthy Horses and Horses With Colitis by High Throughput Sequencing of the V3–V5 Region of the 16S rRNA Gene. PLoS ONE 7,no.7:e41484.
    pmc: PMC3409227pubmed: 22859989
  12. Costa MC, Stämpfli HR, Arroyo LG, Allen‐Vercoe E, Gomes RG, Weese J. Changes in the Equine Fecal Microbiota Associated With the Use of Systemic Antimicrobial Drugs. BMC Veterinary Research 11,no.1:19.
    pmc: PMC4323147pubmed: 25644524
  13. Costa M, Di Pietro R, Bessegatto JA. Evaluation of Changes in Microbiota After Fecal Microbiota Transplantation in 6 Diarrheic Horses. Canadian Veterinary Journal 62,no.10:1123–1130.
    pmc: PMC8439339pubmed: 34602643
  14. Desrochers AM, Dolente BA, Roy MF, Boston R, Carlisle S. Efficacy of for Treatment of Horses With Acute Enterocolitis. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 227,no.6:954–959.
    pubmed: 16190596
  15. Destrez A, Grimm P, Cézilly F, Julliand V. Changes of the Hindgut Microbiota Due to High‐Starch Diet Can be Associated With Behavioral Stress Response in Horses. Physiology & Behavior 149:159–164.
    pubmed: 26048306
  16. Dougal K, de la Fuente G, Harris PA. Characterisation of the Faecal Bacterial Community in Adult and Elderly Horses Fed a High Fibre, High Oil or High Starch Diet Using 454 Pyrosequencing. PLoS ONE 9, no. 2: e87424.
    pmc: PMC3913607pubmed: 24504261
  17. Feary DJ, Hassel DM. Enteritis and Colitis in Horses. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Equine Practice 22, no. 2: 437–479.
    pubmed: 16882483
  18. Fernandes KA, Kittelmann S, Rogers CW. Faecal Microbiota of Forage‐Fed Horses in New Zealand and the Population Dynamics of Microbial Communities Following Dietary Change. PLoS ONE 9 no. 11: e112846.
    pmc: PMC4226576pubmed: 25383707
  19. Hill C, Guarner F, Reid G. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics Consensus Statement on the Scope and Appropriate Use of the Term Probiotic. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology 11, no. 8: 506–514.
    pubmed: 24912386
  20. Ianiro G, Maida M, Burisch J. Efficacy of Different Faecal Microbiota Transplantation Protocols for Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis. UEG Journal 6, no. 8: 1232–1244.
    pmc: PMC6169051pubmed: 30288286
  21. John J, Roediger K, Schroedl W, Aldaher N, Vervuert I. Development of Intestinal Microflora and Occurrence of Diarrhoea in Sucking Foals: Effects of Var. Toyoi Supplementation. BMC Veterinary Research 11, no. 1: 34.
    pmc: PMC4333172pubmed: 25889817
  22. Kamada N, Seo SU, Chen GY, Núñez G. Role of the Gut Microbiota in Immunity and Inflammatory Disease. Nature Reviews Immunology 13, no. 5: 321–335.
    pubmed: 23618829
  23. Kinoshita Y, Niwa H, Uchida‐Fujii E, Nukada T, Ueno T. Simultaneous Daily Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Fails to Prevent Metronidazole‐Induced Dysbiosis of Equine Gut Microbiota. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 114: 104004.
    pubmed: 35526726
  24. Laustsen L, Edwards JE, Hermes GDA. Free Faecal Water: Analysis of Horse Faecal Microbiota and the Impact of Faecal Microbial Transplantation on Symptom Severity. Animals : An Open Access Journal From MDPI 11, no. 10: 2776.
    pmc: PMC8533009pubmed: 34679798
  25. Loublier C, Costa M, Taminiau B. Longitudinal Changes in Fecal Microbiota during Hospitalization in Horses With Different Types of Colic. Veterinary Internal Medicine 39, no. 2: e70039.
    pmc: PMC11884602pubmed: 40048584
  26. Loublier C, Taminiau B, Heinen J. Evaluation of Bacterial Composition and Viability of Equine Feces After Processing for Transplantation. Microorganisms 11, no. 2: 231.
    pmc: PMC9966902pubmed: 36838196
  27. Mach N, Ruet A, Clark A. Priming for Welfare: Gut Microbiota Is Associated With Equitation Conditions and Behavior in Horse Athletes. Scientific Reports 10, no. 1: 8311.
    pmc: PMC7239938pubmed: 32433513
  28. McKinney CA, Bedenice D, Pacheco AP. Assessment of Clinical and Microbiota Responses to Fecal Microbial Transplantation in Adult Horses With Diarrhea. PLoS ONE 16, no. 1: e0244381.
    pmc: PMC7808643pubmed: 33444319
  29. McKinney CA, Oliveira BCM, Bedenice D. The Fecal Microbiota of Healthy Donor Horses and Geriatric Recipients Undergoing Fecal Microbial Transplantation for the Treatment of Diarrhea. PLoS ONE 15, no. 3: e0230148.
    pmc: PMC7064224pubmed: 32155205
  30. Mullen KR, Yasuda K, Divers TJ, Weese JS. Equine Faecal Microbiota Transplant: Current Knowledge, Proposed Guidelines and Future Directions. Equine Veterinary Education 30, no. 3: 151–160.
    pmc: PMC7159401pubmed: 32313396
  31. Parraga M E, Spier S J, Thurmond M, Hirsh D. A Clinical Trial of Probiotic Administration for Prevention of Shedding in the Postoperative Period in Horses With Colic. Veterinary Internal Medicine 11, no. 1: 36–41.
    pubmed: 9132482
  32. Pietro R D, Arroyo L G, Leclere M, Costa M. Effects of Concentrated Fecal Microbiota Transplant on the Equine Fecal Microbiota After Antibiotic‐Induced Dysbiosis. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research 87, no. 2: 85–96.
    pmc: PMC10069150pubmed: 37020579
  33. Quraishi M N, Widlak M, Bhala N. Systematic Review With Meta‐Analysis: The Efficacy of Faecal Microbiota Transplantation for the Treatment of Recurrent and Refractory Infection. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 46, no. 5: 479–493.
    pubmed: 28707337
  34. Ribeiro G, Ferri A, Clarke G, Cryan J F. Diet and the Microbiota–Gut–Brain‐Axis: A Primer for Clinical Nutrition. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care 25, no. 6: 443–450.
    pmc: PMC9553262pubmed: 36102353
  35. Salem S E, Maddox T W, Antczak P, Ketley J M, Williams N J, Archer D C. Acute Changes in the Colonic Microbiota Are Associated With Large Intestinal Forms of Surgical Colic. BMC Veterinary Research 15, no. 1: 468.
    pmc: PMC6925886pubmed: 31864369
  36. Schoster A, Staempfli H R, Guardabassi L G, Jalali M, Weese J S. Comparison of the Fecal Bacterial Microbiota of Healthy and Diarrheic Foals at Two and Four Weeks of Life. BMC Veterinary Research 13, no. 1: 144.
    pmc: PMC5450145pubmed: 28558788
  37. Schoster A, Weese J S, Guardabassi L. Probiotic Use in Horses—What Is the Evidence for Their Clinical Efficacy?. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine 28, no. 6: 1640–1652.
    pmc: PMC4895607pubmed: 25231539
  38. Shaw S D, Stämpfli H. Diagnosis and Treatment of Undifferentiated and Infectious Acute Diarrhea in the Adult Horse. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Equine Practice 34, no. 1: 39–53.
    pmc: PMC7134835pubmed: 29426709
  39. Slykerman R F, Hood F, Wickens K. Effect of HN001 in Pregnancy on Postpartum Symptoms of Depression and Anxiety: a Randomised Double‐Blind Placebo‐Controlled Trial. EBioMedicine 24: 159–165.
    pmc: PMC5652021pubmed: 28943228
  40. Steelman S M, Chowdhary B P, Dowd S, Suchodolski J, Janečka J E. Pyrosequencing of 16S rRNA Genes in Fecal Samples Reveals High Diversity of Hindgut Microflora in Horses and Potential Links to Chronic Laminitis. BMC Veterinary Research 8, no. 1: 231.
    pmc: PMC3538718pubmed: 23186268
  41. Sun S, Chang G, Zhang L. The Prevention Effect of Probiotics Against Eczema in Children: An Update Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis. Journal of Dermatological Treatment 33, no. 4: 1844–1854.
    pubmed: 34006167
  42. Tanabe S, Suzuki T, Wasano Y. Anti‐Inflammatory and Intestinal Barrier–Protective Activities of Commensal Lactobacilli and Bifidobacteria in Thoroughbreds: Role of Probiotics in Diarrhea Prevention in Neonatal Thoroughbreds. Journal of Equine Science 25, no. 2: 37–43.
    pmc: PMC4090357pubmed: 25013357
  43. Theelen M J P, Luiken R E C, Wagenaar J A, van Oldruitenborgh‐Oosterbaan M M S, Rossen J W A, Zomer A L. The Equine Faecal Microbiota of Healthy Horses and Ponies in The Netherlands: Impact of Host and Environmental Factors. Animals 11, no. 6: 1762.
    pmc: PMC8231505pubmed: 34204691
  44. Tuniyazi M, Wang W, Fu Y, Hu X, Zhang N. A Systematic Review of Current Applications of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation in Horses. Animals 13, no. 8: 1304.
    pmc: PMC10141098pubmed: 37104445
  45. Van Den Abbeele P, Gérard P, Rabot S. Arabinoxylans and Inulin Differentially Modulate the Mucosal and Luminal Gut Microbiota and Mucin‐Degradation in Humanized Rats. Environmental Microbiology 13, no. 10: 2667–2680.
    pubmed: 21883787
  46. Ward M P, Alinovi C A, Couëtil L L, Glickman L T, Wu C C. A Randomized Clinical Trial Using Probiotics to Prevent Salmonella Fecal Shedding in Hospitalized Horses. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 24, no. 6: 242–247.
  47. Weese J S. Microbiologic Evaluation of Commercial Probiotics. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 220, no. 6: 794–797.
    pubmed: 11918274
  48. Weese J S. Evaluation of Publication Bias in the Assessment of Probiotic Treatment for Gastrointestinal Disease in Dogs and Cats. Canadian Veterinary Journal 66, no. 3: 250–254.
    pmc: PMC11897921pubmed: 40084240
  49. Weese J S, Holcombe S J, Embertson R M. Changes in the Faecal Microbiota of Mares Precede the Development of Post Partum Colic. Equine Veterinary Journal 47, no. 6: 641–649.
    pubmed: 25257320
  50. Weese J S, Rousseau J. Evaluation of Lactobacillus Pentosus WE7 for Prevention of Diarrhea in Neonatal Foals. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 226, no. 12: 2031–2034.
    pubmed: 15989186
  51. Williams S, Horner J, Orton E. Water Intake, Faecal Output and Intestinal Motility in Horses Moved From Pasture to a Stabled Management Regime With Controlled Exercise. Equine Veterinary Journal 47, no. 1: 96–100.
    pmc: PMC4303976pubmed: 24528106
  52. Willing B, Vörös A, Roos S, Jones C, Jansson A, Lindberg J E. Changes in Faecal Bacteria Associated With Concentrate and Forage‐Only Diets Fed to Horses in Training. Equine Veterinary Journal 41, no. 9: 908–914.
    pubmed: 20383990
  53. Yuyama T, Yusa S, Takai S, Tsubaki S, Kado Y, Morotomi M. Evaluation of a Host‐Specific Lactobacillus Probiotic in Neonatal Foals. The International Journal of Applied Research in Veterinary Medicine 2, no. 1: 26–33.

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,850 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.