Effects of Lactobacillus reuteri-based Direct-fed Microbial Supplementation for Growing-Finishing Pigs

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the effects of direct-fed microbial supplementation on the growth performance and nutrient digestibility in pigs. In experiment 1, forty eight pigs were used in a 42-d growth assay. There were four pigs per pen and three pens per treatment. Dietary treatments included 1) NC (without antibiotic basal diet), 2) PC (NC diet+0.1% antibiotic, 100 g/kg chlortetracycline), 3) DFM-1 (NC diet+0.2% Lactobacillus reuteri and Lactobacillus salivarius complex) and 4) DFM-2 (NC diet+0.2% Lactobacillus reuteri, Lactobacillus salivarius, Lactobacillus plantarum and Yeast complex). For the overall period, no treatment had significant effects in growth performance. In the nutrition digestibility, the pigs fed DFM diets were improved in DM and N digestibility compared with the pigs fed NC and PC diets but it was not significantly different. In experiment 2, sixty four crossbred pigs were used in a 98-d growth assay. There were four pigs per pen and four pens per treatment. Dietary treatments included 1) HND (high nutrient diet), 2) LND (low nutrient diet), 3) HND+DFM (HND diet+0.2% Lactobacillus reuteri and Lactobacillus plantarum complex) and 4) LND+DFM (LND diet+0.2% Lactobacillus reuteri and Lactobacillus plantarum complex). For overall period of growing phase, the pigs fed LND diets had improved gain/feed (p=0.01) and for overall period in the finishing phase, the pigs fed LND with DFM diets had higher ADG, ADFI and gain/feed than the others but there were no significant differences (p>0.13). In total period of growing-finishing phase, the pigs fed LND diet had higher gain/feed than the pigs fed HND diets (p<0.05). In growing phase, there were not significant differences among the treatments means for DM and N digestibility. However, the pigs fed diets with DFM had improved N digestibility (p<0.02) compared to the pigs fed diets without DFM in finishing phase. In conclusion, DFM slightly improved the growth performance in growing-finishing pigs.

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

“…These beneficial effects of antibiotic and probiotic supplementation on growth performance are consistent with the results of Cromwell (2001), Shon et al (2005), and Wang et al (2011). Lactobacilli bacteria are natural inhabitants of the gastrointestinal tracts of piglets.…”

“…Min et al (2004) reported the positive effects of 0.04% Bioplus 2B in the DM and N digestibilities of nursery pigs. Conversely, Shon et al (2005) and Wang et al (2009) reported no improvement in nutrient digestibility of growing pigs by dietary Lactobacillus or Bacillus-based probiotic supplementation, respectively. Improvement of apparent digestibility of nutrients by probiotics and antibioitcs could be attributed to increased nutrient availability for absorption via suppression of growth and metabolic activities of harmful gut microbiota along with simultaneous alteration of the intestinal morphology (Shim et al, 2010).…”

“…Probiotics are mainly used to reinforce or reestablish the gut microbial balance, especially when hosts are confronted with challenges or stress (Vanbelle, 2001), generally associated with poor growth rate and immunity. Probiotic bacteria such as Lactobacilli and Bacilli have been shown to improve growth performance of pigs by maintaining the intestinal microbial balance (Alexopoulos et al, 2004;Shon et al, 2005). In the current study, we examined the efficacy of Lactobacillusor Bacillus-based probiotics for improving the growth performance, nutrient digestibility, microbial ecosystem, and immune response of weaned piglets challenged with the enteric pathogens Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium and E. coli.…”

“…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).…”

Effect of Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus licheniformis supplementation in diets with low- and high-protein content on ileal crude protein and amino acid digestibility and intestinal microbiota composition of growing pigs

“…Notably, probiotic supplements may be more effective under stress such as practical field conditions [45, 46]. This might be one reason for the missing effect of Bacillus spp.…”