Indian Journal of Animal Research

  • Chief EditorK.M.L. Pathak

  • Print ISSN 0367-6722

  • Online ISSN 0976-0555

  • NAAS Rating 6.50

  • SJR 0.263

  • Impact Factor 0.5 (2023)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December)
Indexing Services :
Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Scopus, AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Research Article

Indian Journal of Animal Research, volume 53 issue 8 (august 2019) : 1059-1063

Efficacy of Bacillus subtilis RX7 and Bacillus methylotrophicus C14 as probiotics on growth performance, digestibility, blood profile and fecal microbiota in weaned pigs

Santi Devi Upadhaya, Xin Jian Lei, Subin Serpunja, In Ho Kim
1Department of Animal Resource and Science, Dankook University, Cheonan, 330-714, Chungnam, South Korea
Cite article:- Upadhaya Devi Santi, Lei Jian Xin, Serpunja Subin, Kim Ho In (2018). Efficacy of Bacillus subtilis RX7 and Bacillus methylotrophicus C14 as probiotics on growth performance, digestibility, blood profile and fecal microbiota in weaned pigs. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 53(8): 1059-1063. doi: 10.18805/ijar.B-838.

ABSTRACT

A total of 60 weaned piglets (28-day old; [Landrace ×Yorkshire]×Duroc) were used to evaluate the efficacy of Bacillus-based probiotic on performance, digestibility, blood profiles, and fecal microbiota in weaned pigs. The piglets were randomly allotted to three treatments with 4 pens per treatment and 5 pigs per pen. Dietary treatments consisted of: CON, basal diet; BS, basal diet + 0.1% of Bacillus subtilis RX7; BM, basal diet + 0.1% of Bacillus methylotrophicus C14. The average daily feed intake (ADFI) was reduced (P=0.01) in BS and BM treatments compared with CON. The apparent total tract digestibility of energy was increased (P<0.05) in BS and BM compared with CON on day 14. The supplementation of probiotics led to increase (P<0.05) in fecal lactic acid bacteria counts on day 42. In conclusion, probiotic supplementation reduced feed intake, increased energy digestibility and lactic acid bacteria counts and numerically reduced Salmonella counts in weaned pigs.

REFERENCES

  1. AOAC (2000) Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International. 17th edn. Association of Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.
  2. Chaudhary, D., Kumar, R., Sihag, K. and Kumari, A. (2017). Phyllospheric microflora and its impact on plant growth: A review. Agr. Rev., 38: 51-59.
  3. Choi, J.Y., Shinde, P.L., Ingale, S.L., Kim, J.S., Kim, Y.W., Kim, K.H., Kwon, I.K. and Chae, B.J. (2011). Evaluation of multi-microbe probiotics prepared by submerged liquid or solid substrate fermentation and antibiotics in weaning pigs. Livest. Sci., 138: 144-151.
  4. Davis, M.E., Parrott, T., Brown, D.C., de Rodas, B.Z., Johnson, Z.B., Maxwell, C.V. and Rehberger, T. (2008). Effect of a Bacillus based direct fed microbial feed supplement on growth performance and pen cleaning characteristics of growing finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci., 86: 1459-1467. 
  5. Dong, X., Zhang, N., Zhou, M., Tu, Y., Deng, K. and Diao, Q. (2014). Effects of dietary probiotics on growth performance, faecal microbiota and serum profiles in weaned piglets. Anim. Prod. Sci., 54: 616-621.
  6. Fuller, R. (2001). The chicken gut microflora and probiotic supplements. J. Poult. Sci., 38: 189-196.
  7. Guo, X, Li, D, Lu, W, Piao, X, and Chen, X. (2006). Screening of Bacillus strains as potential probiotics and subsequent confirmation of the in vivo effectiveness of Bacillus subtilis MA139 in pigs. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, 90: 139-146.
  8. Hassan, M.R. and Ryu, K.S. (2012). Naturally derived probiotic supplementation effects on physiological properties and manure gas emission of broiler chickens. J. Agric. Life Sci., 46: 119-127.
  9. Hong, H.A., Le, H.D. and Cutting, S.M. (2005). The use of bacterial spore formers as probiotics. FEMS Microbiol. Rev., 29: 813-835.
  10. Jorgensen, J.N., Laguna, J.S., Millan, C., Casabuena, O. and Gracia, M.I. (2016). Effects of a Bacillus-based probiotic and dietary energycontent on the performance and nutrient digestibility of wean to finish pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 221: 54-61.    Kenny, M., Smidt, H., Mengheri, E. and Miller, B. (2011). Probiotics - do they have a role in the pig industry? Animal, 5: 462-470.
  11. Khan, S.H., Atif, M., Mukhtar, N., Rehman, A. and Farid, G. (2011). Effects of supplementation of multi-enzyme and multi-species probiotic on production performance, egg quality, cholesterol level and immune system in laying hens. J. Appl. Anim. Res., 39: 386-398.
  12. Kim, E.Y., Kim, Y.H., Rhee, M.H., Song, J.C., Lee, K.W., Kim, K.S., Lee, S.P., Lee, I.S. and Park, S.C. (2007). Selection of Lactobacillus sp PSC101 that produces active dietary enzymes such as amylase, lipase, phytase and protease in pigs. J. Gen. Appl. Microbiol., 53: 111-117.
  13. Kunavue, N. and Lien, T.F. (2012). Effects of fulvic acid and probiotic on growth performance nutrient digestibility, blood parameters and immunity of pigs. J. Anim. Sci. Adv., 2: 711-721.
  14. Lee, K.W., Lee, S.H., Lillehoj, H.S., Li, G.X., Jang, S.I., Babu, U.S., Park, M.S., Kim, D.K et al (2010). Effects of direct-fed microbials on growth performance, gut morphometry, and immune characteristics in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci., 89: 203-216.
  15. Lee, S.H., Ingale, S.L., Kim, J.S., Kim, K.H., Lokhande, A., Kim, E.K., Kwon, I.K., Kim, Y.H. and Chae, B.J. (2014). Effects of dietary supplementation with Bacillus subtilis LS 1-2 fermentation biomass on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, cecal microbiota and intestinal morphology of weanling pig. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 188: 102-110.
  16. Nguyen, D.H., Lan, R.X. and Kim, I. H. (2017) Bacillus subtilis, essential oil, chromium and glucose as sow pack alters the performance, immune and stress on pregnant sows and piglets. Indian J. Anim. Res., doi: 10.18805/ijar.v0iOF.8450.
  17. NRC, National Research Council. (2012). Nutrient Requirements of Swine, 11th ed. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
  18. Ouwehand, A.C., Salminen, S. and Isolauri, E. (2002). Probitics: An overview of beneficial effects. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, 82: 279-289.
  19. Patterson, J.A. and Burkholder, K.M. (2003). Application of prebiotics and probiotics in poultry production. Poult. Sci., 82: 627-631.
  20. Seyidoglu, N. and Peker, S. (2015). Effects of different doses of probiotic yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae on the duodenal mucosa in rabbits. Indian J. Anim. Res., 49: 602-606.
  21. Upadhaya S.D., Kim S.C., Rolando A.V. and Kim I.H. (2015). The effect of Bacillus - based feed additive on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, fecal gas emission, and pen cleanup characteristics of growing-finishing pigs. Asian-Austral. J. Anim. Sci., 28: 999-1005.
  22. Upadhaya S.D., Shanmugam, S.K., Kang, D.K. and Kim, I.H. (2017). Preliminary assessment on potentials of probiotic B. subtilis RX7 and B. methylotrophicus C14 strains as an immune modulator in Salmonella-challenged weaned pigs. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 45: 1065-1070.
  23. Wang, S.P., Lingyuan, Y., Xiang, S.T., Li, C.C., Gang, L., Xiang, F.K., Francois, B. and Yu, L.Y. (2011). Dietary supplementation with high-dose Bacillus subtilis or Lactobacillus reuteri modulates cellular and humoral immunities and improves performance in weaned piglets. J. Food Agric. Environ., 9: 181-187.
  24. Wang, Y., Cho, J.H., Chen, Y.J., Yoo, J.S., Huang, Y., Kim, H.J. and Kim, I.H. (2009). The effect of probiotic BioPlus 2B® on growth performance, dry matter and nitrogen digestibility and slurry noxious gas emission in growing pigs. Livest. Sci., 120: 35-42.
  25. Williams, C.H., David, D.J. and Iismaa, O. (1962). The determination of chromic oxide in faeces samples by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. J. Agric. Sci., 59: 381-385.
  26. Yun, J.H., Lee, K.B., Sung, Y.K., Kim, E.B., Lee, H.G. and Choi, Y.J. (2009). Isolation and characterization of potential probiotic lactobacilli from pig feces. J. Basic. Microbiol., 49: 220-226. 
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)