Repercussion of microbial additive on the productive, Zoometric and diarrheal incidences of piglets

Repercussion of microbial additive on the productive, Zoometric and diarrheal incidences of piglets

Repercusin de aditivos microbianos en el comportamiento productivo, zoomtrico e incidencia diarreica de lechones

Jos E Miranda-Yuquilema
Universidad Central Marta Abreu de Las Villas., Cuba
Alfredo Marin-Crdenas
Universidad Central Marta Abreu de Las Villas, Cuba
Yaneisy Garca-Hernndez
Instituto Ciencia Animal, Cuba

Repercussion of microbial additive on the productive, Zoometric and diarrheal incidences of piglets

Revista MVZ Crdoba, vol. 23, no. 2, 2018

Universidad de Crdoba

Received: 02 October 2017

Accepted: 04 December 2017

Abstract: Objective. To evaluate the impact of two microbial additives on the productive behavior, zoometric, incidence of diarrhea and mortality of post-weaning piglets. Materials and methods. A total of 120 piglets (Duroc / Yorkshire / Landrace) were used, divided into three groups of 40 animals each, control (T1); microbial preparation A (T2) and microbial preparation B (T3). The T2 contained Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus bulgariccus y Streptoccus thermophilus. The T3 was composed of microorganisms of T2 plus Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Kluyveromyces fragilis (L-4 UCLV). We used a completely randomized design where we evaluated, live weight, daily mean gain, height: raised at the cross, raised to the rump, body length, for both sexes and diarrheal incidence and mortality. Results. Live weight in the offspring (males and females) consuming microbial additives were higher and of these were higher in T3. Regarding the average daily gain, the largest increases were found in T3 group. Elevated to the cross, raised to the rump and length of body was greater (p<0.05) in T2 and T3 at birth; while at the end of the study in T3 it was superior. The incidence of diarrhea was higher (p<0.05) in the control group. The animals of the groups that consumed microbial preparation had no deaths during the study. Conclusions. The use of the microbial additives evaluated had a positive effect on the productive and zoometric behavior of the piglets. In addition, the reduction of the incidence of diarrhea and mortality of the animals was achieved.

Keywords: Prebiotic, Probiotic, agroindustrial wastes, morphometry, swine production.

Resumen: Objetivo. Evaluar la repercusin de dos aditivos microbianos en el comportamiento productivo, zoomtricos, incidencia de diarreas y mortalidad de lechones post-destete. Materiales y mtodos. Se emplearon 120 lechones (Duroc/Yorkshire/Landrace), distribuidos en tres grupos de 40 animales cada uno, control (T1); preparado microbiano A (T2) y preparado microbiano B (T3). El T2 contena Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus bulgariccus y Streptoccus thermophilus. El T3 estuvo compuesto por microorganismos del T2 ms Saccharomyces cerevisiae y Kluyveromyces fragilis (L-4 UCLV). Se utiliz un diseo completamente aleatorizado donde se evalu, peso vivo, ganancia media diaria, talla: alzada a la cruz, alzada a la grupa, largo de cuerpo, para ambos sexos e incidencia diarreica y mortalidad. Resultados. Peso vivo en las cras (machos y hembras) que consumieron aditivos microbianos fueron superiores y de estos fueron mayores en el T3. En cuanto a la ganancia media diaria, los mayores incrementos se encontraron en el grupo T3. Alzada a la cruz, alzada a la grupa y largo de cuerpo fue mayor (p<0.05) en el T2 y T3 en el nacimiento; mientras que al final del estudio en el T3 fue superior. La incidencia de diarrea fue mayor (p<0.05) en el grupo control. Los animales de los grupos que consumieron preparado microbiano no presentaron muertes durante el estudio. Conclusiones. El uso de los aditivos microbianos evaluados produjo un efecto positivo en el comportamiento productivo y zoomtrico de los lechones. As mismo, se logr la reduccin de la incidencia de diarreas y mortalidad de los animales.

Palabras clave: Prebitico, probitico, residuos agroindustriales, morfometra, produccin porcina .

INTRODUCTION

Pork is considered to be one of the most complete foods to meet the protein needs of the population, as it is a stable source and has positive effects on human health, thus contributing to food security (1). In pig production, the incidence of environmental and management factors leads to constant situations of physiological disorder, unleashing an imbalance in its intestinal microbiota, which has a negative impact on health and productivity (2). An alternative to increase the productive yield in animals is the use of microbial additives such as probiotics (3); because they have the capacity to: a) improve health, as well as the digestive and absorbent processes in the gastrointestinal tract, b) increase resistance of the mucus layer to infections, c) modulate the immune system, d) resist adverse conditions and adapt to sudden changes in the intestinal environment (4). However, the availability and cost of these products in developing countries can limit their use and minimize profit for small and medium producers.

However, the use of microbial preparations in the daily intake could be an alternative to increase production yield in piglets (5). a) It participates in vitamin synthesis, mainly B complex (7), b) improves intestinal immunity by avoiding the action of certain pathogens, such as Rotavirus, Escherichia coli, Salmonella and others (8), c)reduces the plasma concentration of certain harmful metabolites such as ammonia and endotoxins (9). Considering all of the above, this study aimed to evaluate the impact of two microbial additives on production and zoometric behavior, incidence of diarrhea and post-weaning piglet mortality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Area of study. The experimental work was carried out at the pork production unit, Gahuijn Alto, Cantn Colta, Ecuador. The unit is located at 1 53 12.248 LS longitude 78 43 22.454 LW, 3 510 masl (meters above sea level), with annual rainfall between 500-1 000 mm, minimum temperature 3C, maximum 14C, average 10C, annual relative humidity 80% and annual evapotranspiration 69.03.

Experimental Design and treatment. A completely randomized design with four repetitions per treatment was used, where each experimental unit was composed of 40 piglets. The treatments evaluated were: control (T1); microbial preparation A (T2) and microbial preparation B (T3).

Animals and basal diet. 120 Duroc x Landrace/Yorshire cross piglets were used, descendants of 12 sows (Landrace/Yorkshire) with 135.62 kg live weight (LW) and 2353 d of age. Four primiparous sows were used per treatment and, after childbirth, the piglets were randomly distributed to form the experimental groups of 40 animals per treatment (20 females and 20 males). The mother pigs were housed in collective pens of 6 x 6.5 m and cement floor, with a density of 1.8 m2 per animal from 15 days before reproduction to 110 days of gestation. From there, until weaning, they were placed in the maternity ward. From weaning onwards, the piglets were regrouped (without altering the groups of origin) into groups of 20 piglets in collective pens of 4 x 4.50 m, cement floor. The feed used for all the animals was Bioalimentar (Ambato, Ecuador), which meets the nutritional requirements for pigs according to the animal category recommended by NRC, (10 ). It was offered to the mothers twice a day, at 7:00 am and 4:00 pm. and ad libitum to the piglets from 7 days of age until weaning and from then up to 42 days of age, they were fed at the same time as their mothers. Water was also supplied ad libitum in nipple-type drinkers.

Animal management system. Maternity was kept at 28C for the first two weeks after delivery, then reduced by 1.5C each week until weaning. The photoperiod was controlled with 12 hours of light and 12 hours of darkness. The litters in each treatment were placed distant from each other (with an intermediate quarter on both sides of the aisle) to avoid self-inoculation. The piglets were weaned at 33 days of age. Piglets from each study group received the appropriate veterinary care according to the Manual for the Management of Females and Newborns (11).

Microbial preparations. The strains used in the preparations were: Kluyveromyces fragilis (L-4 UCLV) from the Microorganism Bank of the Universidad Central Marta Abreu de Las Villas and four ATCC microorganisms (American Type Cultures Collection, USA): Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus bulgariccus, Streptococcus thermophilus and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. These were activated in skim milk at 37C for 24 hours. To obtain the microbial preparations, a mixture of sugar cane molasses and orange vinasse was used as a substrate and fermented at 37C for 24 hours, according to the technique described by Miranda et al (3). In preparation A, the bacteria L. acidophilus, L. bulgariccus and S. thermophilus were used, and in preparation B, the above bacteria plus yeasts S. cerevisiae and K. fragilis (L-4 UCLV) were used. The chemical composition and microbial concentration of each microbial preparation are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Composition of microbial preparations for piglet consumption
Indicators Microbial preparations
Preparation A (T2) Preparation B (T3)
Dry matter, % 17.5 18.5
Crude protein, % 17.2 17.7
True protein, % 12.3 12.5
Ethereal extract, % 2.83 2.43
Ash, % 2.12 2.26
pH 3.86 3.85
Lactic acid, mmol/L 0.72 0.74
Microbial concentration, UFC/mL 9.4 x 108 9.5 x 109

Supply of microbial additives to animals: The microbial preparations were supplied at 7:00 am every three days to the sows in groups T2 and T3. 15 mL of biopreparation was provided by mixing in 0.3 kg of dietary mixture plus 500 mL of water to the breeding sows from one day after gestation confirmation until weaning, according to the treatment assigned for each group and their offspring continued to receive the same additive. The first dose supplied to the piglets was 1 mL in single doses before taking colostrum. Dosage in oral form varied according to age: 1 mL in the first week; 1.5 mL in weeks two and three; 2 mL in weeks four and five and 2.5 mL in the following weeks until 42 days of age. The control group received initially physiological serum in the same quantity as the treated groups. Piglets over 7 days of age received the additive inoculated in 25 g of diet mixture.

Response variables. In order to evaluate the influence of microbial additives on piglets, the response variables determined were the productive indicators (live weight and average daily gain) and size of the animals at 0, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35 and 42 days of age. The incidence of diarrhea and mortality rates were also determined from weaning to 42 d. The experimental procedure for determining the indicators is presented below.

Production indicators. For the weighing of the piglets, a 20 kg capacity Roman manual scale (URKO M95460, Switzerland) was used, previously calibrated with a margin of error 0.25 g. With this information, live weight (LW) and average daily gain (GMD) by age and sex (male and female) were calculated.

Size measurement (cm). Using a measuring tape (SUNBOO, China), the zoometric parameters were determined: height at withers (AZ), height at croup (AP) and body length (DL), according to the methodology described by Castro et al (12). With this information, the size of the animals at different ages was evaluated.

Diarrhea and mortality control. All the animals under study underwent rigorous clinical monitoring to detect behavioral changes, diarrheal disorders and deaths, and each animal was tested independently because they had been individually identified. With this information, the daily incidence and percentage of mortality were determined.

Statistical analysis. The experimental data were processed with the statistical package Statgraphic plus 15.1 for Windows. Analysis of variance by completely randomized design was performed and where necessary, Duncans docile comparison (13) was applied to discriminate between mean differences at p<0.05.

RESULTS

Production indicators of piglets at different ages. Table 2 shows the behavior of live weight and average daily gain in the different stages of the animals life. The indicator values, for all ages, were higher in the groups treated compared to the control group. The offspring (males and females) from the mothers who consumed the microbial additives were born with a higher weight and were larger at T3. In this same treatment, the highest PV values of the animals were found at 14, 35 and 42 d of age. This was also observed for males at 7, 21 and 28 days, while for females no differences between T2 and T3 were detected.

Table 2. Behaviour of live weight and average daily gain in the different production stages of the piglets when supplemented with two microbial preparations.
Age (d) Indicators Sex Treatment SEM P
T1 T2 T3
0 LW, kg Male 0.98c 1.20b 1.35a 0.12 0.0101
Female 0.95c 1.10b 1.22a 0.01 0.0125
7 LW, kg Male 1.79c 2.77b 3.01a 1.21 <.0001
Female 1.54c 2.52a 2.94a 0.12 0.0242
ADG, g Male 256c 396b 430a 1.10 0.0122
Female 220c 332b 420a 0.02 0.0012
14 LW, kg Male 2.70c 3.84b 4.71a 1.12 <.0001
Female 2.43c 3.26b 4.35a 0.02 0.0125
ADG, g Male 195c 275b 336a 0.01 <.0001
Female 174c 233b 311a 0.21 0.0012
21 LW, kg Male 4.55c 5.75b 6.04a 0.06 0.0011
Female 4.38b 5.43 5.94a 0.01 <.0001
ADG, g Male 217b 274a 288a 0.02 0.0010
Female 209b 259a 283a 0.01 0.0211
28 LW, kg Male 6.75b 8.29a 8.28a 0.12 0.0023
Female 6.32b 7.98a 8.01a 1.12 0.0012
ADG, g Male 241b 296a 296a 0.11 <.0001
Female 226b 285a 286a 0.11 0.0242
35 LW, kg Male 8.35c 9.98b 11.54a 1.25 0.0122
Female 7.52c 9.75b 11.21a 1.22 <.0001
ADG, g Male 239c 285b 330a 1.11 0.0242
Female 215c 279b 320a 0.01 <.0001
42 LW, kg Male 9.82c 12.12b 13.22a 0.10 0.0312
Female 9.05c 11.95b 12.82a 0.12 0.0125
ADG, g Male 234c 289b 315a 1.11 0.0011
Female 216b 285 305a 0.15 0.0310
a,b,c different letters in the same row differ p<0.05 (Duncan, 1955). LW, live weight. ADG Average daily gain. d, days. T1, Basal diet without additive. T2, L. acidophilus+ L. bulgariccus + S. thermophilus. T3, L. acidophilus + L. bulgariccus + S. thermophilus + S. cerevisiae + K. fragilis (L-4 UCLV)

For ADG, the largest increases were found at 7, 14 and 35 d of age in the piglets (both sexes) in the T3 group. At 21, 28 and 42 days, no differences between T2 and T3 were detected for females.

Zoometric values of piglets at different ages. Tables 3 and 4 show the behavior of the size of male and female piglets from birth to 42 days of age in the different stages of the animals life. The offspring (males and females) of the mothers who consumed the T2 and T3 microbial additives were born with higher zoometric indicators, except for DL, females were larger in T3.

Table 3. Sizes of male piglets supplemented with preparation A and B, in different stages.
Age (d) Indicators Treatments SEM P
T1 T2 T3
0 AZ 7.68b 8.28a 8.32a 0.03 0.0121
AP 9.68b 10.18a 10.31a 0.10 <.0001
DL 10.68b 11.08a 11.32a 0.32 0.0185
7 AZ 9.86b 10.35 10.23 0.12 0.0023
AP 11.21b 12.54 12.31 0.02 0.0152
DL 13.23b 14.85 14.93 0.01 0.0342
14 AZ 12.81b 13.67a 13.92a 1.12 <.0001
AP 15.31c 16.37b 16.84a 0.02 0.0110
DL 18.51c 19.67b 20.03a 0.12 0.0125
21 AZ 14.25C 14.98b 15.21 0.11 0.0321
AP 17.23b 18.45 18.97 0.05 0.0111
DL 20.23c 21.23b 22.34 0.03 0.0254
28 AZ 16.85b 17.45b 18.13 1.32 <.0001
AP 19.34c 20.32b 21.15 1.23 0.0012
DL 22.43b 23.56 23.98 0.01 0.0245
35 AZ 19.35c 20.84b 21.25a 1.11 0.0125
AP 21.33c 22.45b 23.15a 0.10 <.0001
DL 25.62c 26.24b 27.14a 1.02 <.0001
42 AZ 21.62c 23.84b 25.25a 1.32 <.0001
AP 25.88b 26.85a 27.35a 0.01 0.0132
DL 26.53c 30.64b 31.34a 0.02 0.0126
a, b, c different letters in the same row differ p<0.05 (Duncan, 1955). d, days, AZ, height atwithers. AP, croup height . DL, body length. T1, Basal diet without additive. T2, L. acidophilus + L. bulgariccus + S. thermophilus. T3, L. acidophilus + L. bulgariccus + S. thermophilus + S. cerevisiae + K. fragilis (L-4 UCLV).

Table 4. Size of the female offspring supplemented with the preparation A and B, at different stages.
Age (d) Indicators Treatments SEM P
T1 T2 T3
0 AZ 7.76b 8.15a 8.26a 0.03 0.0121
AP 9.32b 10.12a 10.01a 0.10 <.0001
DL 10.48c 10.88b 11.02a 0.32 0.0185
7 AZ 9.32b 10.74a 10.88a 1.10 0.0125
AP 11.23b 12.33a 12.86a 0.02 0.0011
DL 14.21c 15.34b 16.12a 1.12 0.0321
14 AZ 12.21b 13.11a 13.52a 1.02 <.0001
AP 14.81b 15.47a 15.84a 0.02 0.0025
DL 17.81c 18.72b 19.23a 0.02 <.0001
21 AZ 14.85c 16.21b 17.12a 1.32 <.0001
AP 16.81b 17.21a 17.34a 0.06 0.0211
DL 19.22c 20.32b 21.88a 0.01 0.0012
28 AZ 17.52b 18.37a 18.97a 0.11 <.0001
AP 18.23b 19.34a 19.85a 1.12 0.0125
DL 21.23c 22.87b 23.46a 0.02 0.0312
35 AZ 19.12c 21.24a 22.85a 2.11 0.0321
AP 20.82b 22.75a 22.89a 0.05 0.0111
DL 24.87c 25.24b 26.84a 0.02 0.0054
42 AZ 21.92c 24.14b 24.95a 0.22 0.0132
AP 24.18b 25.05a 25.98a 0.03 0.0254
DL 25.84c 29.84b 30.74a 1.32 <.0001
a, b, c different letters in the same row differ p<0.05 (Duncan, 1955). d, days. AZ, height at the withers. AP, croup height. DL, body length. T1, Basal diet without additive. T2, L. acidophilus + L. bulgariccus + S. thermophilus. T3, L. acidophilus + L. bulgariccus + S. thermophilus + S. cerevisiae + K. fragilis (L-4 UCLV).

The values for the AZ indicator, for all ages 7 and 14, were higher in the treated groups compared to the control groups. In the measurement made at 21 and 42 d of age, a variation between groups was evident, being greater (p<0.05) in T3 compared to the others; it was greater (p<0.05) in T3 compared to T1 and T2, at 28 and 35 d of age in male piglets, while in females it was less (p<0.05) in T1 compared to T2 and T3, with no difference between the latter.

Concerning the AP values, at 7 d of age it was lower (p<0.05) in T1 compared to T2 and T3, with no differences between the latter. The female offspring treated with the microbial preparations were found to have greater values at 14, 28 and 35 d of age. This effect was also observed for males at 21 and 42 days, with no difference between T2 and T3.

For DL, the highest values were found at 14, 21, 35 and 42 d of age for the piglets (both sexes) in the T3 group. At 7 and 28 days after birth, there was no difference between T2 and T3 for males (Table 3 and 4).

Diarrhea rates and percentage of post-weaning piglet mortality. Table 5 shows the incidence of diarrhea and the percentage of mortality from weaning (33 days) to 42 days of age. At baseline, the incidence of diarrhea was lower (p<0.05) in T3 (0.11) than in T2 and T3, while the mortality rate did not vary between treatments. From day 34 to 40, the incidence of diarrhea was higher (p<0.05) in the control group compared to treated animals (T2 and T3). When comparing the piglets that consumed the microbial additives, it was lower (p<0.05) in Q3 than in Q2. With respect to the percentage of mortality, on days 34 to 37, it was higher (p<0.05) in T1 with respect to T2 and T3, without differing between those treated with microbial preparations. On days 41 and 42, there were no diarrheal disorders or deaths from diarrhea in any of the treatments studied.

Table 5. Incidence of diarrhea and mortality in piglets from weaning to 42 days of age, when supplemented with microbial preparations.
Age (d) Indicators Treatments SEM P
T1 T2 T3
Start, 33 Incidence of diarrhea 12.21a 0.81b 0.11c 0.12 0.0125
Mortality, % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.9251
34 Incidence of diarrhea 15.33a 4.12b 1.24c 1.23 <.0001
Mortality, % 2.51a 0.00b 0.00b 1.21 0.0012
35 Incidence of diarrhea 24.22 5.22b 3.42c 0.31 <.0001
Mortality, % 7.51 0.00b 0.00b 0.34 0.0251
36 Incidence of diarrhea 22.43 7.12b 3.34c 0.23 0.0021
Mortality, % 5.01 0.00b 0.00b 0.12 0.0123
37 Incidence of diarrhea 21.52 7.34b 3.42c 1.20 <.0001
Mortality, % 2.54 0.00b 0.00b 0.12 0.0125
38 Incidence of diarrhea 11.12 6.52b 2.12c 1.12 0.0051
Mortality, % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.8112
39 Incidence of diarrhea 9.24 5.21b 1.02c 0.13 <.0001
Mortality, % 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.23 0.5475
40 Incidence of diarrhea 4.12 1.80b 0.51c 0.11 0.0273
Mortality, % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 1.0123
41 Incidence of diarrhea 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.7122
Mortality, % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 2.7512
42 Incidence of diarrhea 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.8121
Mortality, % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 1.7224
a, b, c different letters in the same row differ p<0.05 (Duncan, 1955). d, days. T1, Basal diet without additive. T2, L. acidophillus + L. bulgaricus + S. thermophillus. T3, L. acidophilus + L. bulgariccus + S. thermophilus + S. cerevisiae + K. fragilis (L-4 UCLV).

DISCUSSION

The results in terms of production parameters (Table 2) were given possibly due to the use of microbial strains, simultaneously, this could be related to orange vinasse and sugar cane molasses (2). Increased birth weight and weight gain at different stages may be due to improved digestion and nutrient absorption, which may have manifested in productive behavior (14). Rondn et al (15) supplemented Lactobacillus salivarius C-65 in lactating pigs with increased weaning weight, which corroborates the hypothesis that the use of mixed cultures (lactic bacteria and yeasts) positively influences live weight and average daily gain. Similar results were also reported by Zhao et al (5) when supplementing microbial preparations to young pigs. Patil et al (6) observed improved expression of growth potential and reduced pathogen burden in the gastrointestinal tract by supplementing probiotics in the diet of newborn piglets. This could corroborate that microbial preparations are directly related to the factors that influence weight gain and average daily gain in the first few days of life (8).

The values of the zoometric parameters obtained in piglets could be related to the microbial preparations used in the different production stages of the piglets (Table 4 and 5). The contribution of probiotics to animal health and productivity is attributed to the micro-organisms used, and they may manifest themselves in the expression of morphometric characteristics in young pigs (16). On the other hand, Castro et al (12) preliminarily deduce that piglets with a larger withers height, croup height and body length have large, muscular hams when comparing commercial hybrid pigs with Ibero-American pigs. In this same sense, Sun et al (1) observed the changes in zoometric characteristics in relation to breed, handling and feeding, which leads us to believe that microbial preparations could have a positive effect on the values obtained. Ihara et al (7) reported the effect of probiotics in pigs independently of geographical area and variability within livestock production systems.

The decrease in diarrheal disorders and mortality in the piglets that consumed the microbial preparations (Table 5) were probably directly related to the microorganisms used, due to their capacity to adhere to the intestinal epithelium, colonize the lumen and exercise their function in the duodenum, was able to contribute to the reduction of diarrheal disorders caused by the stress of changing the diet. Simultaneously, the micro-organisms used helped regenerate atrophied microvilli and, as a consequence improved the health of the piglets at the critical stage of the animal (4, 8). In addition, Pajarrilla et al (9) reported beneficial effects of probiotic microorganisms, which include the ability to colonize the gastrointestinal tract, production of short-chain organic acids, production of secondary metabolites such as bacteriocins and thus preserve protective functions and inhibit cellular functions of E. coli and Salmonella spp., agents that promote diarrhea in young animals. In addition to this, Begum et al (17) also observed a reduction in digestive problems and mortality, improved digestion and nutrient absorption, as well as a notable improvement in the productive response, similar to the results obtained in this study (5,9).

In conclusion, the use of the microbial additives evaluated had a positive effect on the productive and zoometric behavior of the piglets. In addition, the incidence of diarrhea and animal mortality was reduced. Preparation B (a mixture of lactic bacteria and yeast) had a greater beneficial effect on piglets.

Acknowledgements

The main author thanks the Instituto de Fomento a Talento Humano (IFTH), Secretaria Nacional de Educacin Superior Ciencia Tecnologa e Innovacin (SENESCYT) for the doctoral training grant (Ph.D.). Also, to the Faculty of Sciences, Superior Polytechnic School of Chimborazo (ESPOCH), Riobamba, (Ecuador) for enabling the use of the equipment and laboratories.

REFERENCES

1. Sun Y, Park I, Guo J, Weaver A, Woo S. Impacts of low level aflatoxin in feed and the use of modified yeast cell wall extract on growth and health of nursery pigs. J Anim Nutr. 2015; 1(3):177-183.

2. Datt C, Malik S., Datta M. Effect of probiotics supplementation on feed consumption, nutrient digestibility and growth performance in crossbred pigs under Tripura climate. Indian J Anim Nutr. 2011; 28(3):331-335.

3. Miranda JE, Marin A, Snchez D, Garca Y. Obtencin, caracterizacin y evaluacin de dos preparados candidatos a probiticos desarrollados con residuos agroindustriales. Rev MVZ Crdoba. 2018; 23(1):6487-6499.

4. Haffner F, Diab R, Pasc A. Encapsulation of probiotics: insights into academic and industrial approaches. AIMS Materials Science. 2016; 3(1):114-136.

5. Zhao PY, Jung JH, Kim IH. Effect of mannan oligosaccharides and fructan on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, blood profile, and diarrhea score in weanling pigs. J Anim Sci. 2015; 90(3):833-839.

6. Patil AK, Kumar S, Verma AK, Baghel PS. Probiotics as feed additives in weaned pigs. LRI 2015; 3(2):31-39.

7. Ihara Y, Hyodo H, Sukegawa S, Murakami H, Morimatsu F. Isolation, characterization, and effect of administration in vivo, a novel probiotic strain from pig feces. Anim Sci J. 2013; 84(5):434-441.

8. Li J, Kim IH. Effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae cell wall extract and poplar propolis ethanol extract supplementation on growth performance, digestibility, blood profile, fecal microbiota and fecal noxious gas emissions in growing pigs. Anim Sci J. 2014; 85(6):698705.

9. Pajarillo E, Chae J, Balolong M, Kim H, Kang D. Assessment of fecal bacterial diversity among healthy piglets during the weaning transition. J Gen Appl Microbiol. 2014; 60(4):140‒146.

10. National Research Council (NRC). Nutrient Requirements of Swine: Eleventh Revised Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies. 2012

11. Coates J, Corns PJ, Juarez A, MacDonald R, McCulley N, Melody B, Minton A, Molinari R, Montes De Oca H, Mosqueira P, Neill C, Pinilla JC, Piva J, Teuber R. Manual PIC de Manejo de Hembras y Primerizas. 100 Bluegrass Commons Blvd: Suite 2200: Hendersonville, EEUU; 2013.

12. Castro G, Montenegro M, Barlocco N, Vadell A, Gagliardi R, Llamb S. Caracterizacin zoomtrica en el cerdo pampa rocha de Uruguay (descriptiva primaria). AICA. 2012; 2:83-86.

13. Duncan DB. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 1955;11:1.

14. Ayala L, Bocourt R, Castro M, Milian G, Oliva D, Herrera M. Suministro de un cultivo de Bacillus subtilis a cerdas gestantes. Respuesta productiva en su descendencia. Rev Comput Prod Porc. 2012; 19(4):260-263.

15. Rondn A, Ojito Y, Arteaga F, Laurencio M, Milin G, Prez Y. Efecto probitico de Lactobacillus salivarius C 65 en indicadores productivos y de salud de cerdos lactantes. Rev Cub Cien Agr. 2013; 74(4):401-407.

16. Lhteinen T, Rinttil T, Koort MK, Kant R, Levonen K, Jakava-Viljanen M, Bjrkroth J, Palva A. Effect of a multi species lactobacillus formulation as a feeding supplement on the performance and immune function of piglets. Livest Sci. 2015; 180:164171.

17. Begum M, Li HL, Hossain MM, Kim IH. Dietary bromelain-C.3.4.22.32 supplementation improves performance and gut health in sows and piglets. Livest Sci. 2015; 180:177-182.

Métricas de artículo

Cargando métricas ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM

Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.


Copyright (c) 2018 Revista MVZ Córdoba

Licencia de Creative Commons
Este obra está bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional.