Next Article in Journal
Diagnostic Efficacy of Plasma-Based Real-Time PCR for Schistosomiasis Japonica in Mice before and after Treatment with Praziquantel
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Breeds on the Content of Functional Nutrition in Eggs
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 13
Issue 19
10.3390/ani13193067
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of a Bacillus-Based Probiotic on Performance and Nutrient Digestibility When Substituting Soybean Meal with Rapeseed Meal in Grower–Finisher Diets

by
Marta I. Gracia
1,*,
Guillermo Cano
1,
Patricia Vázquez
1 and
Lea H. B. Hansen
2
1
Imasde Agroalimentaria, S.L. C/Nápoles 3, 28224 Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain
2
Chr. Hansen A/S, Animal and Plant Health and Nutrition, Boege Allé 10-12, 2970 Hoersholm, Denmark
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2023, 13(19), 3067; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13193067
Submission received: 29 August 2023 / Revised: 22 September 2023 / Accepted: 28 September 2023 / Published: 29 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Animal Nutrition)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that B. subtilis and B. licheniformis supplementation in a negative control diet (in comparison to a standard control diet) has the potential to improve performance and nutrient digestibility of growing–finishing pigs. Three fattening pig groups were used: standard diet, negative control diet (5% soybean meal replaced by 5% rapeseed meal), or the negative control diet supplemented with a probiotic. The use of a probiotic preparation containing specific Bacillus strains as a feed additive for growing–finishing pigs resulted in improved growth performance and faecal digestibility, and was able to counteract the lower nutritional level of a negative control diet.

Abstract

The objective of the present study was to test the hypothesis of B. subtilis and B. licheniformis supplementation to a negative control diet in comparison to a standard control diet, had the potential to improve the performance and nutrient digestibility of growing–finishing pigs. For this purpose, 384 fattening pigs of 85 d of age were allotted to three treatments: a standard diet, a negative control (NC) diet (5% soybean meal replaced by 5% rapeseed meal), or a NC diet + probiotic. After reaching a body weight of approximately 110 kg, all animals going to the slaughterhouse (87% of total pigs) were selected to measure carcass quality. Moreover, the apparent total tract digestibility of protein was evaluated at the end of the grower period. The results of this study indicate that supplementation of the tested Bacillus-based probiotic significantly improved average daily gain (ADG, +14.6%) and Feed:gain ratio (F:G, −9.9%) during the grower phase compared to the NC diet. The improvement observed during the grower phase was maintained for the whole fattening period (ADG, +3.9%). Probiotic supplementation significantly improved the total apparent faecal digestibility of dry matter and crude protein in pigs at the end of the grower period. The improvements observed with the additive tested could indicate that supplementation of the Bacillus-based probiotic was able to counteract the lower level of crude protein and standardised ileal digestible amino acids in the NC diet by means of improved protein digestibility.

1. Introduction

Bacillus-based probiotics have been reported previously to improve the performance of growing–finishing pigs by means of increasing the growth rate in growing pigs [1,2,3,4], in finishing pigs [5] and in growing–finishing pigs [6], improving the feed:gain (F:G) ratio in growing–finishing pigs [7] and improving the growth and F:G ratio in wean to finish pigs [8,9] and in growing–finishing pigs [10,11,12,13]. The activity of probiotics is influenced by the composition of the diet [14] and variations in dietary protein supply, possibly affecting microbial composition in the gut [15,16]. The performance of broiler chicks and turkey poults was improved via direct-fed microbial inclusion in reduced-fat diets, which was associated with increased energy digestibility [17]. In this sense, in addition to improved performance, several studies suggested that dietary addition of Bacillus spp. could lead to increased protein digestibility [1,11,18] and protein and energy digestibility in pigs [9,10,11,19].
Replacing soybean meal (SBM) with protein sources from European agricultural systems, such as as rapeseed meal (RSM), could potentially be a viable cheaper and eco-friendly alternative to imported SBM protein source in pig diets and could contribute to more sustainable pork production [20]. Furthermore, the use of RSM instead of SBM in pig diets could be a viable tool for markedly reducing the negative impact on climate change [21]. Previous studies have shown that SBM can be partially replaced with RSM without affecting the performance of growing–finishing pigs [22,23,24]. However, in those studies, a general adjustment in the composition and a supplementation of amino acids (AA) is normally performed. According to the results of previous studies [25,26], Bacillus spp. enhanced the development and activities of digestive enzymes in the gastrointestinal tract, which was associated with an increase in digestibility of some AA in weaning pigs [27].
Therefore, the objective of the present study was to test the hypothesis that B. subtilis and B. licheniformis supplementation in a negative control diet replacing SBM with RSM in comparison to a standard control diet had the potential to improve the performance and nutrient digestibility of growing–finishing pigs.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Animals, Diets and Housing

A total of 384 fattening pigs [(Landrace × Large White) × Pietrain, 85 d of age, average initial body weight (BW) 29.7 ± 4.7 kg] were randomly allotted to 3 treatments (Control (C) standard diet, Negative Control (NC) diet, and Probiotic (NC + Probiotic)), so that each treatment started with the same initial BW. There were 64 male and 64 female pigs per treatment, allocated in groups of 8 pigs in two adjacent rooms. Experimental diets were fed in 2 phases: grower (85–125 d of age) and finisher (125–187 d of age; Table 1). The C diets were formulated to represent standard commercial grower–finisher diets containing standard levels of energy and protein [28]. The NC diets were formulated by replacing 5% SBM with 5% RSM. The consequence of this replacement was a lower level of crude protein (CP, −4.3%) and standardised ileal digestible (SID) AA (−3%). The third experimental treatment consisted of the NC diet plus 400 mg/kg of a Bacillus-based probiotic. The Bacillus product comprised a mixture of spray-dried spore-forming Bacillus licheniformis (DSM5749) and Bacillus subtilis (DSM5750) at a minimum concentration of 3.25 × 109 viable spores/g of product. The experimental diets were fed in a pellet (4.5 mm) form from 85 d of age to slaughter at 187 d of age.
The analysed chemical composition of diets fed during the experiment is presented in Table 2. Pigs were housed in a fattening unit with 100% slatted concrete floor pens (2.6 × 2.6 m). All pens were equipped with a self-feeder and a nipple drinker to allow ad libitum access to feed and water.

2.2. Sample Preparation and Measurements

The pigs were weighed individually at the start of the trial and at days 40 and 102 (at the end of the trial). Growth performance in terms of average daily gain (ADG) was calculated individually. Total feed intake per pen was measured at the end of each feeding phase. Average daily feed intake (ADFI) was calculated per pen by dividing the total feed intake for each feeding phase and for the whole trial between the total days of pigs alive + the total days of pigs dead at the end of the period. The Feed:gain ratio was calculated per pen for each feeding phase and for the whole trial by dividing the mean ADG of the pen between the ADFI. Dressing yield was determined individually on the basis of final BW and hot carcass weight obtained from the Meat Processing Plant. After reaching a body weight of approximately 110 kg, all animals going to the slaughterhouse (87% of total pigs) were selected to measure carcass quality. The duration of fasting time before slaughter was 24 h. On the slaughter line, the lean meat percentage in the carcass, the loin thickness, backfat in the carcass and subcutaneous ham fat were non-invasively ultrasonically measured (AutoFom, SFK Technology, Herlev, Denmark). Before cooling, the hot carcass weight was determined with an accuracy of 100 g. To evaluate the effect of dietary treatments on the apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD), acid-insoluble ash (diatomaceous earth, Celatom Clarcel DIC/M, Manuel Riesgo, Madrid, Spain) was added to the grower diets at 5 g/kg as an inert, indigestible indicator. The pigs were fed the diets containing acid insoluble ash during the entire grower period, and fresh faecal grab samples were collected randomly from three pigs from each pen during the last three days of the grower period. The faecal samples were pooled within pen, dried in a forced air-drying oven at 60 °C for 72 h, and ground in Wiley mill (Thomas Model 4 Wiley Mill, Thomas Scientific, Swedesboro, NJ, USA) using a 1 mm screen and used for chemical analysis.
The ATTD of CP and dry matter (DM) in the assay diets was calculated according to the following equation:
ATTD = [1 − (NF/ND) × (AIAD/AIAF)] × 100
where ATTD is the ATTD of CP or DM in the assay diet (%), NF is the nutrient content in faeces (g/100 g DM), ND is the nutrient content in the assay diet (g/100 g DM), AIAD is the inert marker content in the assay diet (g/100 g DM), and AIAF is the inert marker content in faeces (g/100 g DM).

2.3. Laboratory Analysis

Feed samples of each experimental diet were collected from every batch, then pooled, and sub-samples were analysed for proximate chemical compositions (AOAC methods). Experimental diets were analysed in triplicate for ash (method 942.05), ether extract (method 920.39), crude fibre (method 962.09), calcium (method 968.08) and phosphorus (method 965.17) according to [29]. Dry matter (method 930.15), CP (method 990.03) and acid-insoluble ash [30] of diets and faecal matter were also determined in triplicate. Bacillus spores in feed were enumerated according to Chr. Hansen SOP-03532: “Bacillus Recovery Program: Enumeration of Bacillus strains used in animal feed, water and seed samples”, based on and in compliance with the European standard EN-15784:2020 (TC327 WI00327117:2021) “Animal feeding stuffs—Isolation and enumeration of Bacillus strains used as feed additive.”.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Data generated in this experiment were analysed via ANOVA, using the GLM procedure of IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows Version 29.0. (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) for a randomized complete block design evaluating the experimental treatment. Initial BW was used as a covariate for zootechnical performance and sex and room were included as fixed effects. The individual data were used as the experimental unit for BW, ADG and slaughterhouse measurements, while the pen was used as the experimental unit for ADFI, F:G ratio and ATTD. Tables show least square means. Single contrasts were used for pair-wise comparison of experimental treatments. Also, the 95% confidence intervals of the difference between the negative control group and the probiotic supplemented group were calculated. Probability values of p ≤ 0.05 were considered significant, whereas 0.05 < p ≤ 0.10 was considered as a tendency.

3. Results

3.1. Growth Performance and Carcass Evaluation

Replacing SBM with RSM (C vs. NC) had a negative impact on performance, reducing the BW of pigs after 40 days on trial (53.8 vs. 51.8 kg, p = 0.0340) and numerically at the end of the trial (113.9 vs. 111.5 kg, p = 0.1273) and reducing growth (ADG) during the grower phase (601 vs. 552 g/d, p = 0.0340) (Table 3). No significant differences were observed between C and NC pigs in terms of feed intake or F:G ratio.
Probiotic supplementation of the NC diets increased BW after 40 days of trial (p = 0.0004) and at the end of the trial (p = 0.0390) (Table 2). In addition, with 95% confidence, the BW after 40 days of trial of probiotic-supplemented pigs was between 1.5 and 5.2 kg heavier than BW of NC pigs. Also, with 95% confidence, the BW at the end of the fattening period of probiotic-supplemented pigs was between 0.2 and 6.3 kg heavier than the BW of NC pigs.
Probiotic supplementation to the NC diets increased the growth of pigs (ADG) during the grower period (p = 0.0004). With 95% confidence, the ADG of probiotic-supplemented pigs increased between 38.15 and 130.4 g/d over the NC pigs. Probiotic supplementation to the NC diets decreased the F:G ratio of pigs during the grower period (p = 0.0254). With 95% confidence, the F:G ratio of probiotic-supplemented pigs improved between 0.03 and 0.45 units over the NC pigs.
Zootechnical improvement with probiotic supplementation was not detected during the finisher phase. However, when evaluating the global performance period, the probiotic supplementation to the NC diets increased the ADG (p = 0.0390) and decreased the F:G ratio of pigs (p = 0.0280). In addition, with a 95% confidence, the ADG for the whole fattening period of probiotic-supplemented pigs was between 1.6 and 61.3 g/d higher than ADG of NC pigs and F:G ratio of probiotic-supplemented pigs was improved between 0.008 and 0.133 units over the NC pigs.
No significant differences in performance were observed when comparing the NC + Probiotic treatment and C treatment, indicating that probiotic-supplemented pigs performed to the same level as C pigs.
No significant differences between treatments were observed in global mortality, with a total of 2, 2 and 4 pigs dying while receiving C, NC and Probiotic treatments, respectively.
No significant differences between treatments were observed for the slaughterhouse measurements at the end of the trial: carcass weight, dressing percentage, back-fat thickness and lean meat percentage (Table 4).

3.2. Apparent Nutrient Digestibility

Probiotic supplementation of NC diets significantly improved the total tract digestibility of DM and CP, reaching the values showed by the C pigs (Table 5).

4. Discussion

When SBM is partially or totally replaced with RSM in the diet, a general adjustment in the composition and a supplementation (e.g., AA) may be necessary in order to maintain the performance. However, in our study, the diets were formulated only to keep the ratio between AA, but not to maintain the CP. Consequently, when SBM was partially substituted with RSM, the NC feed went below what is recommended (∼4.3% less in calculated CP) and the reduced level of AA was 3% lower in calculated SID AA. As expected, the performance of NC pigs was impaired compared to that of C animals, probably as a consequence of a generally lower protein digestibility, especially precaecal [31,32].
The tested probiotic improved growth and feed efficiency over the NC in the grower phase of growth. Rybarczyk et al. [13], reported lower F:G, higher ADG and shorter fattening period in pigs supplemented with the same Bacillus-based probiotic compared to pigs from the control group. Balasubramanian et al. [11] reported that supplementation with a commercially available Bacillus-based probiotic, containing B. coagulans, B. lichenformis and B. subtilis, effectively improved growth performance and F:G without affecting feed intake. Additionally, Chen et al. [2] found that dietary supplementation with a Bacillus-based probiotic (B. subtilis and B. coagulans) effectively improved the growth performance in growing pigs. Alexopoulos et al. [8] also observed a significant improvement in growth performance when feeding finishing pigs a diet supplemented with the same Bacillus-based probiotic as investigated in this study. Moreover, Cui et al. [33] concluded that the addition of B. subtilis improved ADG and ADFI and decreased F:G. In most of these studies, a positive effect of Bacillus-based probiotics on the performance of growing–finishing pigs was observed. Meng et al. [10] reported increased ADG during both the growing and finishing phases; however, F:G was not significantly improved in the finishing phase. Similar effects were observed in the present study, which may confirm the idea that older pigs are better able to resist intestinal disorders and thus obtain less benefit from probiotics.
The improved BW and growth observed in our trial due to dietary supplementation of Bacillus-based probiotic during the grower period might be associated, at least in part, with the improvement in CP and DM digestibility shown by the probiotic during the same period. These results could indicate that supplementation of the Bacillus-based probiotic counteracted the lower level of CP% and SID AA in the NC diet by means of improved CP digestibility. Jørgensen et al. [9] reported improvement in ATTD of CP following supplementation with the same Bacillus-based probiotic in grower pigs fed an energy-reduced diet, and Balasubramanian et al. [11] revealed that another Bacillus probiotic had a significant effect on the digestibility of DM. However, Kaewtapee et al. [34] did not find any improvement in apparent and standardized ileal digestibility of CP and AA in growing pigs fed diets supplemented with B. subtilis and B. licheniformis. Blavi et al. [19] showed a greater apparent ileal digestibility of total AA in the diet supplemented with B. amyloliquefaciens but no effect on digestibility with B. subtilis compared to the control diet. On the other hand, Lee et al. [35] reported improvement in ATTD of DM, CP and gross energy when pigs were fed diets supplemented with B. subtilis fermentation biomass. Meng et al. [10] suggested that energy and nutrient density influence the effects of probiotics on the gastrointestinal tract, the utilization of nutrients and subsequent pig performance. In our study, the NC diets were formulated by replacing 5% SBM with 5% RSM. A comparison of the protein content of SBM and RSM shows that the latter only contains 75% protein. In general, higher amounts of neutral detergent fibre and acid detergent fibre can be expected in RSM, which is also due to higher amounts of lignin-containing shells [32,36,37]. Thus, the amount and composition of crude fibre are known to have a direct effect on protein digestibility, especially in younger pigs [38,39]. Therefore, it must be expected that replacing SBM with RSM comes with generally lower protein digestibility. The increase in the digestibility of protein observed with the tested Bacillus-based probiotic over the NC diet may be a result of the fact that spore-forming Bacilli can synthetize extracellular enzymes, including α-amylase, cellulose, proteases and metalloproteases [40,41,42,43]. B. subtilis also secretes α-amylase [44] and it is also possible that B. subtilis synthesizes fibre hydrolysing enzymes, such as pectinase and xylanase [25], which may have contributed to increased fermentation of dietary fibre. In addition, the absorptive cells of the villi of broilers supplemented with B. subtilis revealed structural changes, including hyperplasia and increased goblet cell population and microvilli height [45].
In the present study, there were no differences between the probiotic-supplemented group and the negative control in terms of carcass weight, dressing percentage, lean meat and backfat thickness. Similar results in terms of carcass weight, dressing yield and lean meat were obtained following supplementation of the same probiotic product by Rybarczyk et al. [13]. However, Alexopoulos et al. [8] reported an improvement in the carcass quality of fatteners supplemented with Bacillus in feed. In addition, supplementation of Bacillus spp. probiotic improved carcass weight in several studies [11,46,47,48]. Balasubramanian et al. [11], on the other hand, reported no effect on backfat thickness with the supplementation of Bacillus spp. probiotic. However, Cui et al. [33] observed increased backfat and longissimus muscle area when pigs were supplemented with a probiotic containing B. subtilis. These inconsistent results found in carcass quality may be influenced by pig genotype with differences in lean growth and fat deposition, and by the age and BW of pigs at slaughter.
Overall, the probiotic further improved the utilization of protein in the NC diet, having a positive effect on production, lowering F:G ratio and increasing growth. Taking into consideration the reduction of N in the NC diet, as well as the positive effects found when the probiotic was supplemented in the NC diet, replacing SBM with RSM could potentially be a viable cheaper and eco-friendly alternative to imported SBM protein sources in pig diets. Furthermore, the use of RSM instead of SBM in pig diets could be a viable tool for markedly reducing these animals’ negative impact on climate change [21].

5. Conclusions

The results of this study indicate that supplementation with the tested Bacillus-based probiotic significantly improved growth (ADG, +14.6%) and F:G ratio (F:G, −9.9%) during the grower phase compared to the NC diet. The improvement observed during the grower phase was maintained for the whole fattening period (ADG, +3.9%). Probiotic supplementation significantly improved the ATTD of DM and CP in pigs at the end of the grower fattening period. The improvements observed with the additive tested could indicate that supplementation of the Bacillus-based probiotic was able to counteract the lower level of CP% and SID AA in the NC diet by means of improved CP digestibility.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.H.B.H., G.C. and M.I.G.; methodology, M.I.G. and G.C.; software, M.I.G.; validation, G.C. and L.H.B.H.; formal analysis, M.I.G.; investigation, M.I.G., G.C. and P.V.; writing—original draft preparation, M.I.G.; writing—review and editing, M.I.G., L.H.B.H., G.C. and P.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Chr. Hansen A/S.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in compliance with European laws on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. No procedure producing pain was used during the assay. The Ethical Review Board of the Institution concluded in a letter of exception that no further Ethical evaluations were required for the trial.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy concerns.

Acknowledgments

We thank Chr. Hansen A/S for providing the probiotic.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The company Chr. Hansen played no role in the study design nor in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, nor in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

References

  1. Scheuermann, S.E. Effect of the probiotic Paciflor® (CIP 5832) on energy and protein metabolism in growing pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1993, 41, 181–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Chen, Y.J.; Son, K.S.; Min, B.J.; Cho, J.H.; Kwon, O.S.; Kim, I.H. Effects of Dietary Probiotic on Growth Performance, Nutrients Digestibility, Blood Characteristics and Fecal Noxious Gas Content in Growing Pigs. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2005, 18, 1464–1468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wang, Y.; Cho, J.H.; Chen, Y.J.; Yoo, J.S.; Huang, Y.; Kim, H.J.; Kim, I.H. The effect of probiotic BioPlus 2B® on growth performance, dry matter and nitrogen digestibility and slurry noxious gas emission in growing pigs. Livest. Sci. 2009, 120, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kim, Y.W.; Ingale, S.L.; Kim, J.S.; Lee, S.H.; Lee, J.H.; Kwon, I.K.; Chae, B.J. Bacteriophage and probiotics both enhance the performance of growing pigs but bacteriophage are more effective. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2014, 196, 88–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Chen, Y.J.; Min, B.J.; Cho, J.H.; Kwon, O.S.; Son, K.S.; Kim, H.J.; Kim, I.H. Effects of Dietary Bacillus-based Probiotic on Growth Performance, Nutrients Digestibility, Blood Characteristics and Fecal Noxious Gas Content in Finishing Pigs. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2006, 19, 587–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Upadhaya, S.D.; Kim, S.C.; Valientes, R.A.; Kim, I.H. The effect of Bacillus-based feed additive on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, fecal gas emission, and pen cleanup characteristics of growing-finishing pigs. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 28, 999–1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Davis, M.E.; Parrott, T.; Brown, D.C.; de Rodas, B.Z.; Johnson, Z.B.; Maxwell, C.V.; Rehberger, T. Effect of a Bacillus-based direct-fed microbial feed supplement on growth performance and pen cleaning characteristics of growing-finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 2008, 86, 1459–1467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Alexopoulos, C.; Georgoulakis, I.E.; Tzivara, A.; Kyriakis, C.S.; Govaris, A.; Kyriakis, S.C. Field evaluation of the effect of a probiotic-containing Bacillus licheniformis and Bacillus subtilis spores on the health status, performance, and carcass quality of grower and finisher pigs. J. Vet. Med. A. 2004, 51, 306–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jørgensen, J.N.; Sánchez-Laguna, J.; Millán, C.; Casabuena, O.; Gracia, M.I. Effects of a Bacillus-based probiotic and dietary energy content on the performance and nutrient digestibility of wean to finish pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2016, 221, 54–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Meng, Q.W.; Yan, L.; Ao, X.; Zhou, T.X.; Wang, J.P.; Lee, J.H.; Kim, I.H. Influence of probiotics in different energy and nutrient density diets on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, meat quality, and blood characteristics in growing-finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 2010, 88, 3320–3326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Balasubramanian, B.; Li, T.; Kim, I.H. Effect of supplementing growing-finishing pig diets with Bacillus spp. probiotic on growth performance and meat-carcass grade quality traits. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2016, 45, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bouwhuis, M.; Jørgensen, J.N.; Jørgensen, L.; Van der Aar, P.; Molist, F. The use of 284 probiotics containing spores of Bacillus licheniformis and Bacillus subtilis or Bacillus amyloliquefaciens improves the growth performance of grower-finisher pigs. In Proceedings of IPC2017, Budapest, Hungary, 20–22 June 2017; p. 20. [Google Scholar]
  13. Rybarczyk, A.; Bogusławska-Was, E.; Dłubała, A. Effect of BioPlus YC Probiotic Supplementation on Gut Microbiota, Production Performance, Carcass and Meat Quality of Pigs. Animals 2021, 11, 1581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mosenthin, R.; Hambrecht, E.; Sauer, W.C. Utilisation of different fibres in piglet feeds. In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition; Garnsworthy, P.C., Wiseman, J., Eds.; Nottingham University Press: Nottingham, UK, 1999; pp. 227–256. [Google Scholar]
  15. Wellock, I.J.; Fortomaris, P.D.; Houdijk, J.G.M.; Kyriazakis, I. The effect of dietary protein supply on the performance and risk of post-weaning enteric disorders in newly weaned pigs. Anim. Sci. 2006, 82, 327–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Libao-Mercado, A.J.O.; Zhu, C.L.; Cant, J.P.; Lapierre, H.; Thibault, J.N.; Sève, B. Dietary and endogenous amino acids are the main contributors to microbial protein in the upper gut of normally nourished pigs. J. Nutr. 2009, 139, 1088–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Black, S.; Fahrenholz, A.C.; Grimes, J.L. The effect of a direct-fed microbial and dietary fat inclusion on performance and energy metabolism in broiler chicks and turkey poults. Ger. J. Vet. Res. 2021, 1, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kim, Y.J.; Cho, S.B.; Song, M.H.; Lee, S.I.; Hong, S.M.; Yun, W.; Lee, J.H.; Oh, H.J.; Chang, S.Y.; An, J.W.; et al. Effects of different Bacillus licheniformis and Bacillus subtilis ratios on nutrient digestibility, fecal microflora, and gas emissions of growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 2022, 64, 291–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Blavi, L.; Jørgensen, J.N.; Stein, H.H. Effects of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens and Bacillus subtilis on ileal digestibility of AA and total tract digestibility of CP and gross energy in diets fed to growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 97, 727–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Van Zanten, H.; Bikker, P.; Mollenhorst, H.; Meerburg, B.; De Boer, I. Environmental impact of replacing soybean meal with rapeseed meal in diets of finishing pigs. Animal 2015, 9, 1866–1874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wilke, V.; Gickel, J.; Visscher, C. Monitoring of Performance-Based Environmental Impacts of Substituting Soybean Meal with Rapeseed Meal in the Rye-Based Diet of Weaned Pigs. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yun, H.M.; Lei, X.J.; Lee, S.I.; Kim, I.H. Rapeseed Meal and Canola Meal Can Partially Replace Soybean Meal as a Protein Source in Finishing Pigs. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2017, 46, 195–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Grabež, V.; Egelandsdal, B.; Kjos, N.P.; Håkenåsen, I.M.; Mydland, L.T.; Vik, J.O.; Hallenstvedt, E.; Devle, H.; Øverland, M. Replacing Soybean Meal with Rapeseed Meal and Faba Beans in a Growing-Finishing Pig Diet: Effect on Growth Performance, Meat Quality and Metabolite Changes. Meat Sci. 2020, 166, 108–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hanczakowska, E.; Świątkiewicz, M. Legume Seeds and Rapeseed Press Cake as Replaces of Soybean Meal in Feed for Fattening Pigs. Annals Anim. Sci. 2014, 14, 921–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Priest, F.G. Extracellular enzyme synthesis in the genus Bacillus. Bacteriol. Rev. 1977, 41, 711–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Carlisle, G.E.; Falkinham III, J.O. Enzyme activities and antibiotic susceptibility of colonial variants of Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus licheniformis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1989, 55, 3026–3028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kim, D.H.; Heo, P.S.; Jang, J.C.; Jin, S.S.; Hong, J.S.; Kim, Y.Y. Effect of different soybean meal type on ileal digestibility of amino acid in weaning pigs. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 2015, 57, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. FEDNA. Necesidades Nutricionales Para Ganado Porcino Normas FEDNA, 2nd ed.; de Blas, C., Gasa, J., Mateos, G.G., Eds.; Fundación Española para el Desarrollo de la Nutrición Animal, E.T.S.I.A. Madrid Polytechnical University: Madrid, Spain, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  29. AOAC. Official Method of Analysis, 17th ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Washington, DC, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  30. McCarthy, J.F.; Aherne, F.X.; Okai, D.B. Use of HCl insoluble ash as an index material for determining apparent digestibility with pigs. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 1974, 54, 107–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Albar, J.; Chauvel, J.; Granier, R. Effects of the Level of Rapeseed Meal on Performance in the Post-Weaning and the Growing/Finishing Periods. J. Rech. Porc. Fr. 2001, 33, 197–203. [Google Scholar]
  32. Ellner, C.; Martínez-Vallespín, B.; Saliu, E.M.; Zentek, J.; Röhe, I. Effects of Cereal and Protein Source on Performance, Apparent Ileal Protein Digestibility and Intestinal Characteristics in Weaner Piglets. Arch. Anim. Nutr. 2021, 75, 263–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Cui, C.; Shen, C.J.; Jia, G.; Wang, K.N. Effect of dietary Bacillus subtilis on proportion of Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes in swine intestine and lipid metabolism. Genet. Mol. Res. 2013, 12, 1766–1776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kaewtapee, C.; Burbach, K.; Tomforde, G.; Hartinger, T.; Camarinha-Silva, A.; Heinritz, S.; Seifert, J.; Wiltafsky, M.; Mosenthin, R.; Rosenfelder-Kuon, P. 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. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2017, 8, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lee, S.H.; Ingale, S.L.; Kim, J.S.; Kim, K.H.; Lokhande, A.; Kim, E.K.; Kwon, I.K.; Kim, Y.H.; Chae, B.J. 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. 2014, 188, 102–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bell, J.M.; Shires, A. Composition and Digestibility by Pigs of Hull Fraction from Rapeseed Cultivars with Yellow or Brown Seed Coats. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2011, 62, 557–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wiltafsky, M.; Fickler, J.; Hess, V.; Reimann, I.; Zimmer, U.; Reising, H.W.; Heimbeck, W. AminoDat®5.0, Animal Nutritionist’s Information Edge. Evonik Nutr. Care 2010, 3, 370. [Google Scholar]
  38. Lindberg, J.E. Fiber Effects in Nutrition and Gut Health in Pigs. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2014, 5, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Schulze, H.; van Leeuwen, P.; Verstegen, M.W.; Huisman, J.; Souffrant, W.B.; Ahrens, F. Effect of Level of Dietary Neutral Detergent Fiber on Ileal Apparent Digestibility and Ileal Nitrogen Losses in Pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 1994, 72, 2362–2368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gould, A.R.; May, B.K.; Elliott, W.H. Release of extracellular enzymes from Bacillus amyloliquefaciens. J. Bacteriol. 1975, 122, 34–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gangadharan, D.; Sivaramakrishnan, S.; Nampoothiri, K.M.; Sukumaran, R.K.; Pandey, A. Response surface methodology for the optimization of alpha amylase production by Bacillus amyloliquefaciens. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 4597–4602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lee, Y.J.; Kim, B.K.; Lee, B.H.; Jo, K.I.; Lee, N.K.; Chung, C.H.; Lee, Y.C.; Lee, J.W. Purification and characterization of cellulose produced by Bacillus amyloliquefaciens DL-3 utilizing rice hull. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 378–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bajagai, Y.S.; Klieve, A.V.; Dart, P.J.; Bryden, W.L. Probiotics in animal nutrition e production, impact and regulation. In FAO Animal Production and Health Paper No. 179; Makkar, H.P.S., Ed.; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation: Rome, Italy, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  44. Duran-Paramo, E.; Garcia-Kirchner, O.; Hervagault, J.F.; Thomas, D.; Barbotin, J.N. Alpha-amylase production by free and immobilized Bacillus subtilis. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2000, 84–86, 479–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Abed, A.H.; Radwan, I.A.; Orabi, A.; Abdelaziz, K. The combined effects of probiotic CLOSTAT® and Aviboost® supplement on growth performance, intestinal morphology, and immune response of broiler chickens. Ger. J. Vet. Res. 2023, 3, 7–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kim, J.H. Effects of dietary Bacillus spp. inoculated feather meal on the performance and carcass characteristics in finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 2005, 47, 525–536. [Google Scholar]
  47. Ceslovas, J.; Vigilijus, J.; Almantas, S. The effect of probiotics and phytobiotics on meat properties and quality in pigs. Vet. Zootech. 2005, 29, 80–84. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ganeshkumar, S.; Tensingh Gnanaraj, P.; Sivakumar, T.; Karthickeyan, S.M.K.; Murugan, M. Effect of probiotic supplementation on the carcass traits and sensory qualities of swill fed pork. Tamilnadu J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 2009, 5, 157–160. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Ingredients and calculated composition of the experimental diets.
Table 1. Ingredients and calculated composition of the experimental diets.
Ingredients, g/100 gGrower, 29–55 kgFinisher, 55–110 kg
Control (C)Negative Control (NC)Control (C)Negative Control (NC)
Barley46.99546.59550.99150.622
Corn15.00015.00015.00015.000
Wheat12.00012.00012.00012.000
Rapeseed meal--5.000--5.000
Soybean meal19.57814.57816.03811.038
Animal fat2.9563.3112.6513.006
Calcium carbonate 10.9430.9020.8760.835
Monocalcium phosphate0.9120.8980.8850.871
Salt0.4460.4430.4200.416
Methionine-OH0.1320.1160.0990.086
L-lysine (50)0.5380.6020.5180.587
L-threonine (98)0.1310.1400.1170.128
L-tryptophan0.0090.0150.0050.012
Acid Insoluble Ash 20.5000.500----
Vitamin and mineral Premix 30.4000.4000.4000.400
Calculated analysis, g/100 g
Net energy, kcal/kg2440244024402440
Crude protein16.4015.71 (−4.21%)15.1014.41 (−4.55%)
Ether extract4.755.144.454.85
Crude fibre3.714.093.744.12
Calcium0.720.720.680.68
Total phosphorus0.560.580.540.56
Digestible phosphorus0.290.290.280.28
Total Lys1.061.040.970.95
SID Lys0.960.9312 (−3.0%)0.870.8439 (−3.0%)
SID Met0.330.320.290.27
SID Met + Cys0.580.5626 (−3.0%)0.520.5044 (−3.0%)
SID Thr0.620.6014 (−3.0%)0.560.5432 (−3.0%)
SID Trp0.180.1746 (−3.0%)0.160.1552 (−3.0%)
1 A total of 400 g/t of calcium carbonate was replaced by the probiotic product in the Probiotic supplemented group. 2 Acid-insoluble ash: diatomaceous earth. 3 Provided per kilogram of diet: Vitamin A (3a672a): 6500 IU; Vitamin D3 (3a671): 1500 IU; Vitamin E (3a700): 20.0 mg; Vitamin B2: 3.0 mg; Calcium pantothenate (3a841): 10.0 mg; Vitamin B6 (3a831): 1.0 mg; Vitamin B12: 15.0 µg; Nicotinic acid (3a314): 15.0 mg; Betain (3a925): 23 mg; Choline chloride: 50.0 mg; Fe (FeSO4·H2O 3b101): 100.0 mg; Cu (CuSO4·5H2O 3b405): 10.0 mg; Mn (MnO 3b502): 60.0 mg; Zn (ZnO 3b603): 100.0 mg; I (KI 3b201): 1.0 mg; Se (Na2SeO3 3b801): 0.2 mg. The C diets were formulated to represent standard commercial grower–finisher diets containing standard levels of energy and protein. The NC diets were formulated by replacing 5% soybean meal with 5% rapeseed meal. SID = standardised ileal digestible.
Table 2. Analysed composition of the experimental diets.
Table 2. Analysed composition of the experimental diets.
Analysed Composition, g/100 gGrower, 29–55 kgFinisher, 55–110 kg
Control (C)Negative Control (NC)NC + ProbioticControl (C)Negative Control (NC)NC + Probiotic
Moisture9.048.638.279.399.108.92
Ash4.574.404.474.584.464.40
Crude protein16.3415.8615.7515.2114.1514.25
Crude fat4.375.075.244.334.924.99
Crude fibre4.144.494.474.084.244.33
Starch42.3642.2342.6543.3044.3044.01
Probiotic, CFU/g Expected<1.00 × 105<1.00 × 1051.30 × 106<1.00 × 105<1.00 × 1051.30 × 106
Analysed<1.00 × 105<1.00 × 1051.16 × 106<1.00 × 105<1.00 × 1051.09 × 106
The C diets were formulated to represent standard commercial grower–finisher diets containing standard levels of energy and protein. The NC diets were formulated by replacing 5% soybean meal with 5% rapeseed meal. The third experimental treatment consisted of the NC diet plus 400 mg/kg of a Bacillus-based probiotic. CFU = colony-forming units.
Table 3. Effect of replacing soybean meal with rapeseed meal and of probiotic supplementation on zootechnical performance of pigs.
Table 3. Effect of replacing soybean meal with rapeseed meal and of probiotic supplementation on zootechnical performance of pigs.
ParameterControl
(C)		Negative Control (NC)NC + ProbioticSEMp-ValueSingle Contrasts95% CI of the
Difference
NC-Probiotic
C vs.
Probiotic		NC vs. ProbioticC vs. NC
Body weight, kg
   Trial start29.729.729.80.380.97230.82250.85850.9633−1.160.97
   After 40 days on trial53.851.855.20.660.00160.14120.00040.0340−5.21−1.52
   Trial end113.9111.5114.71.080.10070.58310.03900.1273−6.26−0.16
Average daily gain (ADG), g
   Grower phase60155263616.40.00160.14120.00040.0340−130.37−38.11
   Finisher phase96996396112.40.89220.64750.91060.7290−32.8336.81
   Global trial82580183310.60.10070.58310.03900.1273−61.35−1.59
Average daily feed intake (ADFI), g
   Grower phase13321274134533.20.28830.78080.13980.2274−165.1824.06
   Finisher phase23802336233337.60.62030.38670.96080.4138−104.81110.08
   Global trial19661916194030.60.51820.54000.59420.2547−110.6864.17
Feed:gain (F:G) ratio
   Grower phase2.302.412.170.0730.07980.23650.02540.27060.0310.450
   Finisher phase2.462.442.430.0320.71430.44360.88810.5309−0.0840.096
   Global trial2.402.412.340.0220.07040.08990.02800.59200.0080.133
The C diets were formulated to represent standard commercial grower–finisher diets containing standard levels of energy and protein. The NC diets were formulated replacing 5% soybean meal by 5% rapeseed meal. The third experimental treatment consisted of the NC diet plus 400 mg/kg of a Bacillus-based probiotic. CI = confidence interval; ADG = average daily gain measured individually; ADFI = average daily feed intake; F:G ratio = feed conversion rate. SEM = standard error of the mean. Table shows LSMeans.
Table 4. Effect of replacing soybean meal with rapeseed meal and of probiotic supplementation on slaughterhouse measurements.
Table 4. Effect of replacing soybean meal with rapeseed meal and of probiotic supplementation on slaughterhouse measurements.
ParameterControl
(C)		Negative
Control (NC)		NC + ProbioticSEMp-ValueSingle Contrasts95% CI of the
Difference
NC-Probiotic
C vs. ProbioticNC vs. ProbioticC vs. NC
n114110113
BW at end trial, kg117.1115.0117.41.100.26180.85090.13270.1859−5.440.72
Carcass weight, kg92.790.692.30.930.23010.75700.19050.1055−4.310.86
Dressing percentage, %79.178.979.00.250.86020.76960.80230.5840−0.810.63
Lean meat *, %62.062.362.30.190.44110.24800.91840.2957−0.560.50
Loin thickness *, mm63.063.562.20.550.24770.31870.09750.5019−0.242.85
Back fat carcass *, mm15.315.215.10.240.84210.57710.66470.9059−0.520.82
Min. ham fat *, mm10.09.79.80.190.54700.49530.68370.2782−0.630.42
Subcutaneous ham fat *, mm20.419.620.10.300.17190.57690.20080.0670−1.380.29
The C diets were formulated to represent standard commercial grower–finisher diets containing standard levels of energy and protein. The NC diets were formulated by replacing 5% soybean meal with 5% rapeseed meal. The third experimental treatment consisted of the NC diet plus 400 mg/kg of a Bacillus-based probiotic. CI = confidence interval; n = number of observations; BW = body weight. * Parameters estimated by AutoFom.
Table 5. Effect of replacing soybean meal with rapeseed meal and of probiotic supplementation on the apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD, %) at the end of the grower period.
Table 5. Effect of replacing soybean meal with rapeseed meal and of probiotic supplementation on the apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD, %) at the end of the grower period.
ParameterControl (C)Negative Control (NC)NC + ProbioticSEM (n = 16)p-Value
ATTD of DM82.5 ab82.0 b83.3 a0.250.0018
ATTD of CP81.5 a79.9 b81.4 a0.410.0137
The C diets were formulated to represent standard commercial grower–finisher diets containing standard levels of energy and protein. The NC diets were formulated by replacing 5% soybean meal with 5% rapeseed meal. The third experimental treatment consisted of the NC diet plus 400 mg/kg of a Bacillus-based probiotic. DM = dry matter; CP = crude protein; SEM = standard error of the mean (n: number of observations). LSMeans with different superscripts within the same row are significantly different (a,b p ≤ 0.05); Tukey’s test.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gracia, M.I.; Cano, G.; Vázquez, P.; Hansen, L.H.B. Effect of a Bacillus-Based Probiotic on Performance and Nutrient Digestibility When Substituting Soybean Meal with Rapeseed Meal in Grower–Finisher Diets. Animals 2023, 13, 3067. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13193067

AMA Style

Gracia MI, Cano G, Vázquez P, Hansen LHB. Effect of a Bacillus-Based Probiotic on Performance and Nutrient Digestibility When Substituting Soybean Meal with Rapeseed Meal in Grower–Finisher Diets. Animals. 2023; 13(19):3067. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13193067

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gracia, Marta I., Guillermo Cano, Patricia Vázquez, and Lea H. B. Hansen. 2023. "Effect of a Bacillus-Based Probiotic on Performance and Nutrient Digestibility When Substituting Soybean Meal with Rapeseed Meal in Grower–Finisher Diets" Animals 13, no. 19: 3067. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13193067

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop