1. bookVolume 60 (2016): Issue 3 (September 2016)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2453-7837
First Published
30 Mar 2016
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

The Influence of Probiotics on Reproductive Parameters of Sows and Health of Their Sucklings

Published Online: 17 Oct 2016
Volume & Issue: Volume 60 (2016) - Issue 3 (September 2016)
Page range: 43 - 46
Received: 27 Jun 2016
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2453-7837
First Published
30 Mar 2016
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

Thirtytwo sows were included in the trial. They were divided into the experimental group (n = 16) and a control group (n = 16). The experimental group received 1.28 × 106Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus licheniformis per gram of feed (400 ppm BioPlus 2B, Chr. Hansen, Denmark). The trial started 2 weeks before farrowing and lasted until weaning. No significant differences were revealed in the number of piglets born alive, stillborn or the number of weaned pigs between the two groups of sows. The wean-to-first service interval was not significantly different between the groups, but sows in the experimental group had earlier first services. The conception rate did not differ. Sows in the experimental group suffered from postpartum dysgalactia syndrome (PDS) less than sows in the control group. The suckling piglets in the experimental group of sows reached better weight on day 14 of the trial and this state persisted up to the end of the experiment. The differences in the weights of the experimental group and the control group were significant at the end of the trial (P < 0.01). The experimental piglets had significantly lower incidence of diarrhoea than those in the control group (P < 0.05).

Keywords

1. Alexopoulos, C., Georgoulakis, I., Tzivara, A., Kritas, S., Siochu, A., Kyriakis, S., 2004: Field evaluation of the efficacy of a probiotic containing Bacillus licheniformis and Bacillus subtilis spores, on the health status and performance of sows and their litters. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr., 88, 381—392.10.1111/j.1439-0396.2004.00492.xSearch in Google Scholar

2. Gracia, M., Hansen, S., Sanchez, J., Medel, P., Imasde Agropecuaria, S., 2004: Efficacy of addition of B. licheniformis and B. subtilis in pig diets from weaning to slaughter. J. Anim. Sci., 82 (Suppl. 1), 26.Search in Google Scholar

3. Kenny, M., Smidt, H., Mengheri, E., Miller, B., 2011: Probiotics — do they have a role in the pig industry ? Animal, 5, 462—470.10.1017/S175173111000193XSearch in Google Scholar

4. Konstantinov, S. R., Awati, A. A., Williams, B. A., Miller, B. G., Jones, P., Stokes, C. R. et al., 2006: Post-natal development of the porcine microbiota composition and activities. Environmental Microbiology, 8, 1191—1199.10.1111/j.1462-2920.2006.01009.xSearch in Google Scholar

5. Kritas, S. K., Morrison, R. B., 2005: Evaluation of probiotics as a substitute for antibiotics in a large pig nursery. Vet. Rec., 156, 447—448.10.1136/vr.156.14.447Search in Google Scholar

6. Kyriakis, S., Tsiloyiannis, V., Vlemmas, J., Sarris, K., Tsinas, A., Alexopoulos, C., Jansegers, L., 1999: The effect of probiotic LSP 122 on the control of postweaning diarrhoea syndrome of piglets. Res. Vet. Sci., 67, 223—228.10.1053/rvsc.1999.0308Search in Google Scholar

7. Madsen, K. L., 2001: The use of probiotics in gastrointestinal disease. Can. J. Gastroenterol., 15, 817—822.10.1155/2001/690741Search in Google Scholar

8. Munoz, V. D., Lanz, A. G. E., Lucero, P. M., Soria, F. A., Renteria, F. J. A., Cuaron, I. J. A. et al., 2007: Strategies for enhancing microbiological gut’s barrier: BMD BioPlus 2B. J. Anim. Sci., 85 (Suppl. 1), 150.Search in Google Scholar

9. Samanya, M., Yamauchi, K. E., 2002: Histological alterations of intestinal villi in chickens fed dried Bacillus subtilis var. natto. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A Mol. Integr. Physiol., 133, 95—104.10.1016/S1095-6433(02)00121-6Search in Google Scholar

10. Scharek, L., Guth, J., Filter, M., Schmidt, M. F. G., 2007: Impact of the probiotic bacteria Enterococcus faecium NCIMB 10415 (SF68) and Bacillus cereus var. toyoi NCIMB 40112 on the development of serum IgG and faecal IgA of sows and their pig-lets. Archives of Animal Nutrition, 61, 223—234.10.1080/1745039070143154017760301Search in Google Scholar

11. Taras, D., Vahjen, W., Macha, M., Simon, O., 2005: Response of performance characteristics and faecal consistency to long-lasting dietary supplementation with the probiotic strain Bacillus cereus var. toyoi to sows and piglets. Archives of Animal Nutrition, 59, 405—417.10.1080/1745039050035316816429826Search in Google Scholar

12. Yan, L., Kim, I. H., 2011: The apparent total tract digestibility, apparent ileal digestibility and faecal noxious gas content of growing pigs fed probiotics in diets. Wayamba Journal of Animal Science, 3, 121—123.Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo