Effects of Dietary Bacillus-based Probiotic on Growth Performance, Nutrients Digestibility, Blood Characteristics and Fecal Noxious Gas Content in Finishing Pigs

Abstract

This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of supplementation with bacillus-based probiotic (Bacillus subtilis, 1.0×10 7 CFU/g; Bacillus coagulans, 2.0×10 6 CFU/g and Lactobacillus acidophilus, 5.0×10 6 CFU/g) on finishing pigs growth performance, nutrients digestibility, blood characteristics and fecal noxious gas content and to determine the optimal addition level of this probiotic preparation. A total of forty eight pigs with an initial body weight (BW) of 90.60±2.94 kg were allotted to three dietary treatments (four pigs per pen with four pens per treatment) according to a randomized complete block design. Dietary treatment included: 1) CON (basal diet); 2) BP1 (basal diet+bacillus-based probiotic 0.1%) and 3) BP2 (basal diet+bacillus-based probiotic 0.2%). The experiment lasted 6 weeks. Through the entire experimental period, ADG was improved by 11% (p<0.05) in pigs fed diets supplemented with 0.2% bacillus-based probiotic compared to pigs fed the basal diet. ADFI and gain/feed were not affected by the treatments (p>0.05). Supplementation of bacillus-based probiotic did not affect either DM and N digestibilities or blood characteristics (p>0.05) of pigs. Fecal ammonia nitrogen (NH 3 -N) measured at the end of experiment was reduced (p<0.05) when pigs were fed the diet with 0.2% bacillus-based probiotic. Fecal butyric acid concentration also decreased significantly (p<0.05) whereas acetic acid and propionic acid concentrations were not affected (p>0.05) when pigs were fed diets with added bacillus-based probiotic. In conclusion, dietary supplementation of bacillus-based probiotic can increase growth performance and decrease fecal noxious gas content concentration.

Effect of probiotics supplementation in diets with different nutrient densities on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, blood characteristics, faecal microbial population and faecal noxious gas content in growing pigs

“…This hypothesis is strength by Ferket et al (2002), who suggested that probiotics could indirectly reduce environmental pollutants from animal manure by improving feed efficiency, nutrient retention and the intestinal microbiotia ecosystem. However, no difference was observed on the blood characteristic in the current study, which is in agreement with our previous study (Chen et al 2006), which suggested that no difference was observed with probiotic supplementation in pigs. In contrast, Cho et al (2005) suggested that red blood cell was improved with probiotics supplementation.…”

“…Recently, the application of probiotics had received considerable attention in the discussion about developing suitable alternative for antibiotic growth promoters in the pig industry (Chen et al 2006;Meng et al 2010;. However, the effect of probiotics supplementation in practice is highly inconsistent because of the different diet composition, strain differences, dose level, age of the animal, as well as its interactions with environmental factors (Loh et al, 2008;Khan, Yousaf, et al 2011;Khan, Atif, et al 2011).…”

Effects of probiotics on growth performance, blood parameters, and antibody stimulation in piglets

“…In their findings, they reported that piglets fed probiotics showed higher concentration of IgG than piglets fed treatment without probiotics. On contrary, Chen et al (2005) reported different result when studied the effect of dietary probiotics on growth performances, nutrient digestibility, blood characteristics and fecal noxious gas content in growing pigs. In their findings, they reported IgG concentration was not affected by dietary treatment of complex probiotics.…”

Evaluation of Lactobacillus and Bacillus-based probiotics as alternatives to antibiotics in enteric microbial challenged weaned piglets

“…They cannot colonize in the gastrointestinal tract; but stimulate the growth of Lactobacilli through production of catalase and subtilisin (Hosoi et al, 2000). Several studies reported improvements in growth performance (Huang et al, 2004;Alexopoulos et al, 2004), nutrient digestibility (Shon et al, 2005;Chen et al, 2006), humoral and cell-mediated Ahmed et al 97 immune responses (Fernandes and Shahani, 1990; European food safety authority, 2010), and the microbial ecosystem (Huang et al, 2004;Baker et al, 2013) upon dietary supplementation with Lactobacillus or Bacillusbased probiotics, although inconsistencies in result have also been reported (Cromwell, 2001). The discrepancies observed can be attributed to different strains, dose levels, diet compositions, feeding strategies, age of animals, etc (Chesson, 1994).…”

“…Langlois et al (1988) demonstrated that complete removal of antibiotics from animal production diminished resistance of lactose-fermenting fecal coliform bacteria. However, that has put tremendous pressure on the livestock industry to identify viable therapeutic alternatives against food borne pathogens, such as probiotics, which have used successfully in livestock feeds (Alexopoulos et al, 2004;Chen et al, 2005Chen et al, , 2006. Probiotics refer to a group of non-pathogenic organisms that, when ingested in sufficient number, have beneficial effects on the health of the host (Reid et al, 2003).…”