Abstract
Feed efficiency is a crucial parameter in pig production due to its economic and environmental impact. This trial evaluated feed efficiency in pre-fattening pigs subjected to two diets. Diet 1 (D1) was a commercial pelleted feed supplemented with growth-promoting antibiotics and microencapsulated probiotics (Fortcell FeedTM). Diet 2 (D2) was a commercial pelleted feed supplemented with the microencapsulated probiotics. A total of 280 piglets were randomly assigned into two groups with different diets, using four replicated pens per treatment, with five pigs per pen. Seven independent trials (replications) were done. Each replication lasted for 49 days with two phases, 1 (day 1 to 21) and 2 (day 22 to 49). Pigs were individually weighed at the end of each phase. Food consumption and rejection were recorded weekly to determine weight gain, feed conversion and average feed intake per pen. There was no difference in body weight between pigs fed with the two diets during phases 1 and 2. The average daily gain in phase 1 was 11% lower in animals that received D2 (0.27 kg for D1 vs 0.24 kg for D2; P<0.05). The consumption in phase 2 and overall consumption was higher in pigs fed D1 (P<0.05). Overall feed conversion ratio was not statistically different, but was numerically 9.5% lower in animals that received D2 in Phase 2 (1.43 kg for D1 vs 1.35 kg for D2). It was concluded that supplementation with microencapsulated probiotics provides a suitable option to replace antibiotics in pig production.
1 Introduction
Zootechnical parameters play a fundamental role in animal performance and are crucial in livestock production. These parameters include factors, such as feed intake, weight gain and feed conversion ratio (FCR). These are important for profitable and sustainable production, as they facilitate decision-making and allow evaluation of the production system in terms of efficiency and profitability, based on reliable and timely data (Naves et al., 2021). Pig production needs to maximise the growth of pigs as efficiently as possible. This can be achieved through the use of growth-promoting substances which, when added to the feed, modify the digestive and metabolic processes to achieve an increase in feed utilisation efficiency and significant improvements in weight gain. Growth promoting antibiotics (AGP) have been one of the most widely used additives in pig production, and are still used in some countries (Lopez-Galvez et al., 2021). These are administered at subtherapeutic doses which modify the gut microbiota and have been proven effective at controlling diseases and improving productive performance in intensive conditions. However, their excessive and unregulated use has raised significant concerns regarding antibiotic resistance and potential negative effects on human health and the environment (Munk et al., 2018).
In the face of this issue, probiotics have been developed as an alternative to growth promoters in animal production. Probiotics are live microorganisms that, when administered in adequate amounts, can have positive impacts in the gut microbiome of animals (Domínguez-Bello et al., 2019). The gastrointestinal tract (GIT) contains the highest quantity and diversity of microorganisms of all body systems (Patil et al., 2012). The GIT microbiota has received considerable attention in recent times due to its essential role in many biological processes in animals, giving a better understanding of the functions and importance of the microbiota in the ‘intestinal health’ (Pluske et al., 2018). Links between the intestinal microbiota and pig performance (Dou et al., 2017; Mach et al., 2015) and the ability to manipulate it to improve FCR and weight gain have been demonstrated (McCormack et al., 2017). Hence, the use of probiotics in animal feeding can provide health benefits to the host, promote the balance of the intestinal microbiome and improve digestive function in animals. This can positively impact the zootechnical parameters in animal production and the economy of production.
Some of the current economical and safety-related challenges in the pig production industry can be overcome if optimal growth promoters are used in feed. Nevertheless, pig producers are often reluctant to replace the AGP in the animal diets (in countries where the use of antibiotics is not regulated or banned), mainly because of sanitary concerns and the lack of on-farm data to support their suitability. The use of probiotics can be promoted if conclusive data is presented regarding the zootechnical parameters that are be obtained when using them, either in combination with AGP (as a transition step to create trust among nutritionist in charge of pig production farms) or as the sole growth promoting additive (instead of antibiotics) in diets.
In the following study, the effect of microencapsulated commercial probiotics on weight gain, feed conversion and feed consumption, alone and in combination with antibiotics, was assessed.
2 Materials and methods
Animal ethics
The test was conducted in strict compliance with national legislation regulating the use, care and protection of animals in research activities stipulated by the Institutional Committee for the Care and Use of Animals (CICUA) established by the University CES Medellin, Antioquia, Colombia, under the act number 043 of the project Porcicesbialtecudea: A Precision Model For Pigs, project code: Ae-025.
Experimental design and animals
Two groups of 140 piglets Landrace × Large White × Duroc) were used. They were weaned at 21 days of age and housed in an experimental farm (Santuario, Antioquia, Colombia). The piglets were randomly assigned to the two diets. The pre-fattening trial lasted from day 21 to 70 of age and was divided into two feeding phases, 1 (day 1 to 21 post-weaning) and 2 (day 22 to 49 post-weaning). Seven independent trials were conducted. In each trial there were eight pens, with four replicates per diet. Each pen contained five pigs, giving 20 pigs per treatment, and the trial duration was 49 days.
Feeding program and diets
The pigs had ad libitum access to feed and water. The experiment used commercial feed supplied by a local mill which was formulated to meet the nutritional requirements (Bedford et al., 2016; PIC, 2022). The diets were; diet 1 (D1) a commercial pelleted feed manufactured by Compañia Industrial de productos Agropecuarios – CIPA, Medellín, Colombia; under the trade name of CIPA-Lechón, supplemented with antibiotics and microencapsulated probiotics (Fortcell FeedTM, Bialtec, San Pedro de los Milagros, Colombia; containing Saccharomyces, Bacillus, Enterococcus and Lactobacillus spp.) within a heat-resistant matrix. Diet 2 (D2) was the same feed supplemented with only the microencapsulated probiotics (no antibiotics). The average initial body weight of the animals assigned to both diets was 5.774±1.708 kg for D1 and 5.634±1.529 kg for D2. The composition of both diets is shown in Table 1.
Composition of the trial diets
Citation: Journal of Applied Animal Nutrition 12, 1 (2024) ; 10.1163/2049257x-20230005
Evaluation of zootechnical parameters and statistical analysis
Pigs were weighed individually at birth, at the beginning of the pre-fattening stage (weaning) and at the end of each feeding phase. The feed intake and refusals per pen was recorded weekly, and FCR was calculated. A systematic review of normality was conducted for each variable in each phase through standardised skewness and kurtosis, making the suggested adjustments for this type of experiment. A two-tailed paired Student’s t-test was performed using 95% confidence limits. In phase 1, D1 group (n=140) and D2 group (n=137). In phase 2 and subsequent phases, D1 (n=120) and D2 (n=118). Mean comparisons were made when attaining a significance level of P<0.05 by the post-hoc Tukey HSD test.
3 Results
Four animals were found to significantly deviate with higher weights and were excluded from the analysis. Table 2 shows the performance results from the pigs fed the two diets. There were no significant differences for the initial weight of pigs at birth (1.44±0.418 kg and 1.351±0.380 kg for D1 and D2, respectively) or weaning weight (5.774±1.708 kg and 5.634±1.529 kg for D1 and D2, respectively) which was the start of the feeding trial period. The body weight of pigs after phase 1 was 11.475±3.169 kg and 10.749±3.028 kg for D1 and D2, respectively. For phase 2, pigs weighed 30.947±5.694 kg and 30.252±4.927 kg for D1 and D2, respectively.
Performance response of pigs fed probiotic-supplemented diets with and without antibiotics (Means ± standard deviation (standard error of mean)).
Citation: Journal of Applied Animal Nutrition 12, 1 (2024) ; 10.1163/2049257x-20230005
In phase 1, a significant difference (P<0.05) was seen between average daily gain (ADG) of pigs fed D1 and D2. In the case of phase 2, no significant differences. Feed intake was statistically the same for both diets in phase 1, but was lower (P<0.05) in D2 fed pigs during phase 2. Over the whole pre-fattening period, feed intake was significantly different between both diets, being lower in pigs fed D2 (P<0.05).
No significant difference was observed in FCR during phase 1. In phase 2, FCR was significantly different (P<0.05) between both diets, being lower for D2 (1.347±0.185) than for D1. The cumulative feed conversion in the whole pre-fattening stage did not show any significant differences between the diets.
4 Discussion
Recent publications have addressed the beneficial role of probiotics in pig nutrition regarding health modulation and performance improvement (Anee et al., 2021; Barba-Vidal et al., 2019). In this study, a trend for improved feed conversion and weight gain was observed throughout the growth period of pigs fed the D2 diet, specifically during phase 2. This was considered due to the modulatory effects of probiotics on the intestinal microbiota and suggested that time was needed for adaptation of the microbiome to this supplementation (Kim and Isaacson, 2015). The results showed that supplementing feed with microencapsulated probiotics can lead to significant improvements in performance in pigs. This trend was supported by findings from other studies (Garcia Curbelo et al., 2005). The results showed that performance was better in pigs supplemented with probiotics alone, compared to those fed with a combination of probiotics and AGP. When feeding AGP-free diets containing probiotics (D2), the establishment of beneficial microorganisms is promoted in the gut (Lan et al., 2016). This is achieved by competitive exclusion of pathogens by the beneficial microbes present in the commercial probiotic (Castellanos and Murguía, 1999; Collins and Gibson, 1999). As maintaining the correct gut microbiome and its interaction with the gut associated immune system has a nutritional and metabolic cost, promoting a stable microbiome frees up energy and nutrients for growth. It has been shown that the main determinants in the establishment of the microbiota, and modulating products, are feeding and age (Brousseau et al., 2015). The current results bore this out, with a larger response in phase 2 after the establishment of the product within the GIT during phase 1.
Conventional feeding systems for monogastric animals rely on the use of grains, mainly corn and soy. Improving FCR with the addition of probiotics can reduce the use of grain and the cost of feed per pig to attain slaughter weight (Lezcano et al., 2017). This has been shown in a vast array of trials conducted in the last thirty years or more with the development of commercial in-feed products. However, the source organisms and the products thermostability (via microencapsulation) is important to ensure delivery of viable microbes at the gut level. Considering that feed costs represent the main expense in pig production, improvements in FCR are important as this has a positive impact on the farm’s economic performance. This is especially relevant when freight, fuel and raw materials costs have escalated during the COVID pandemic.
5 Conclusions
Microencapsulated probiotics (Fortcell FeedTM) can be used, alone or in combination with AGP, to maintain or improve pig growth performance. The inclusion of probiotics in the feed of pigs allows better utilisation of nutrients and energy from the diet which generates higher profits from saving on feed.
Conflict of interest
Bialtec S.A.S supplied the probiotic foods and provided financial support to conduct this research. At the time when the research reported in this document was carried out, C.M. Bedoya Ortiz, J.E. Vasquez, J.M. Uran Velásquez, A.J. Acevedo Montoya and J.M. Agudelo Rendón were employed by Bialtec S.A.S and received compensation. L.C. Veloza Angulo, J.C. Pareja Arcila, O.A. Sáenz Ruíz, J.F. Naranjo Ramírez and R. Ramírez García declare that there is no conflict of interest related to the publication of this research.
References
Anee, I.J., Alam, S., Begum, R.A., Shahjahan, R.M. and Khandaker, A.M., 2021. The role of probiotics on animal health and nutrition. Journal of Basic and Applied Zoology 82: 52. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41936-021-00250-x
Barba-Vidal, E., Martín-Orúe, S.M. and Castillejos, L., 2019. Practical aspects of the use of probiotics in pig production: A review. Livestock Science 223: 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2019.02.017
Bedford, M.R., Choct, M. and Masey, H.V., 2016. Nutrition experiments in pigs and poultry a practical guide. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, 180 pp.
Brousseau, J.P., Talbot, G., Beaudoin, F., Lauzon, K., Roy, D. and Lessard, M., 2015. Effects of probiotics Pediococcus acidilactici strain MA18/5M and Saccharomyces cerevisiae subsp. boulardii strain SB-CNCM I-1079 on faecal and intestinal microbiota of nursing and weanling piglets. Journal of Animal Science 93: 5313–5326. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2015-9190
Castellanos, A.F. and Murguía, M.O., 1999. Evaluación de un probiótico para el control de Salmonella en pollos de engorde en Yucatán [In Spanish]. Veterinaria México 30: 243–248.
Collins, M.D. and Gibson, G.R., 1999. Probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics: approaches for modulating the microbial ecology of the gut. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 69: 1052S–1057S. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/69.5.1052s
Domínguez-Bello, M.G., Godoy-Vitorino, F., Knight, R. and Blaser, M.J., 2019. Role of the microbiome in human development. Gut 68: 1108–1114. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2018-317503
Dou, S., Gadonna-Widehem, P., Rome, V., Hamoudi, D., Rhazi, L., Lakhal, L., Larcher, T., Bahi-Jaber, N., Pinon-Quintana, A., Guyonvarch, A., Huërou-Luron, I.L.E. and Abdennebi-Najar, L., 2017. Characterisation of early-life faecal microbiota in susceptible and healthy pigs to post-weaning diarrhoea. PLoS ONE 12: e0169851. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169851
García Curbelo, Y., García, Y., López, A. and Boucourt, R., 2005. Probióticos: una alternativa para mejorar el comportamiento animal [In Spanish]. Revista Cubana de Ciencia Agrícola 39: 1–13.
Gatlin, D.M., Barrows, F.T., Brown, P., Dabrowski, K., Gaylord, T.G., Hardy, R.W., Herman, E., Hu, G., Krogdahl, Å., Nelson, R., Overturf, K., Rust, M., Sealey, W., Skonberg, D., Souza, E. J., Stone, D., Wilson, R. and Wurtele, E., 2007. Expanding the utilization of sustainable plant products in aquafeeds: a review. Aquaculture Research 37: 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2007.01704.x
Kim, H.B. and Isaacson, R.E., 2015. The pig gut microbial diversity: Understanding the pig gut microbial ecology through the next generation high throughput sequencing. Veterinary Microbiology 177: 242–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2015.03.014
Lan, R.X., Lee, S.I. and Kim, I.H., 2016. Effects of multistrain probiotics on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, blood profiles, faecal microbial shedding, faecal score and noxious gas emission in weaning pigs. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 100: 1130–1138. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.12501
Lezcano, P., Martínez, M., Vázquez, A. and Pérez, O., 2017. Main methods of processing and preserving alternative feeds in tropical areas. Cuban experience. Cuban Journal of Agricultural Science 51: 1–9.
López-Gálvez, G., López-Alonso, M., Pechova, A., Mayo, B., Dierick, N. and Gropp, J., 2021. Alternatives to antibiotics and trace elements (copper and zinc) to improve gut health and zootechnical parameters in piglets: A review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 271: 114727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2020.114727
Mach, N., Berri, M., Estellé, J., Levenez, F., Lemonnier, G., Denis, C., Leplat, J. J., Chevaleyre, C., Billon, Y., Doré, J., Rogel-Gaillard, C. and Lepage, P., 2015. Early-life establishment of the swine gut microbiome and impact on host phenotypes. Environmental Microbiology Reports 7: 554–569. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-2229.12285
McCormack, U.M., Curião, T., Buzoianu, S.G., Prieto, M.L., Ryan, T., Varley, P., Crispie, F., Magowan, E., Metzler-Zebeli, B.U., Berry, D., O’Sullivan, O., Cotter, P.D., Gardiner, G.E. and Lawlor, P.G., 2017. Exploring a possible link between the intestinal microbiota and feed efficiency in pigs. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 83: e00380-e00317. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00380-17
Munk, P., Knudsen, B.E., Lukjancenko, O., Duarte, A.S.R., Van Gompel, L., Luiken, R.E.C., Smit, L.A.M., Schmitt, H., Garcia, A.D., Hansen, R.B., Petersen, T.N., Bossers, A., Ruppé, E., Effort Group, Lund, O., Hald, T., Pamp, S.J., Vigre, H., Heederik, D., Wagenaar, J.A., Mevius, D. and Aarestrup, F.M., 2018. Abundance and diversity of the faecal resistome in slaughter pigs and broilers in nine European countries. Nature Microbiology 3: 898–908. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-018-0192-9
Naves, A.C., Vivian Feddern, Gressler, V., Contreras-Castillo, C.F. and Hopkins, D.L., 2021. A review on growth promoters still allowed in cattle and pig production. Livestock Science 247: 104464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2021.104464
Patil, D.P., Dhotre, D.P., Chavan, S.G., Sultan, A., Jain, D.S., Lanjekar, V.B., Gangawani, J., Shah, P.S., Todkar, J.S., Shah, S., Ranade, D.R., Patole, M.S. and Shouche, Y.S., 2012. Molecular analysis of gut microbiota in obesity among Indian individuals. Journal of Biosciences 37: 647–657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12038-012-9244-0
PIC, 2022. Nutrition and feeding guidelines. Handersonville, North Carolina, USA. PIC® North America. Available at: https://www.pic.com/resources/pic-nutrition-and-feeding-guidelines-imperial/
Pluske, J R., Turpin, D.L. and Kim, J.C., 2018. Gastrointestinal tract (gut) health in the young pig. Animal Nutrition (Zhongguo Xu Mu Shou Yi Xue Hui) 4: 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2017.12.004
