J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J. Anim Sci. 1980. 51:638-644.
© 1980 American Society of Animal Science

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pollmann, D. S.
Right arrow Articles by Peo, E. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pollmann, D. S.
Right arrow Articles by Peo, E. R., Jr.

Effect of Lactobacillus Acidophilus on Starter Pigs Fed a Diet Supplemented with Lactose1

D. S. Pollmann, D. M. Danielson and E. R. Peo, Jr.

University of Nebraska2, Lincoln 68583

Abstract

Seventy-two crossbred pigs (average initial weight 6 kg) were used to study the effect of L. acidophilus (lactic acid-producing bacteria common in probiotics) in starter diets on gain, feed conversion, fecal lactobacillus and coliform counts, hematology and serum proteins. The nonmedicated experimental diets were corn-soybean meal (18% crude protein) diets with two levels of lactose (0 and 10%). It has been theorized that lactose is necessary for lactobacilli to colonize in the digestive tract. One-half of the pigs received a 10-ml inoculum daily for 2 weeks via stomach tubes. Two inocula were used: water (control) and L. acidophilus (LA) culture strain DDS 1 (2 x 1011 viable cells/ml). The pigs that did not receive an inoculum were assigned to a diet with or without Probios (4 x 106 viable cells/g), a LA feed additive. The experimental treatments were: (1) control, (2) Probios, (3) water inoculum, (4) acidophilus inoculum, (5) lactose + Probios, (7) lactose + water inoculum and (8) lactose + acidophilus inoculum. Gain and feed conversion were not significantly affected by treatments. There was a trend toward improved average daily gain (ADG) with lactose and Probios. The water inoculation reduced ADG by 14.4% in relation to the performance of pigs receiving the other diets. This reduction in ADG appeared to be related to the extrinsic stress caused by the inoculation process. Also, the stress of the inoculation affected fecal flora by reducing lactobacilli (P<.05) and increasing coliforms (P<.05). L. acidophilus inoculum improved ADG (11.0%) and feed conversion (1.5%). Although the probiotic products tended to improve ADG (7.2%), LA therapy may have been a function of the dietary carbohydrate source. The LA inoculum increased (P<.05) fecal lactobacillus counts. After the daily inocula were discontinued, an increase in lactobacilli was observed for the water-inoculated group, and a decrease in lactobacilli was noted for the microbe-inoculated group. Pigs receiving lactose in combination with the lactobacillus inoculum had the highest lactobacillus counts and the best ADG. Probios did not affect (P>.05) fecal lactobacillus counts. Neither L. acidophilus inoculum nor Probios was effective (P>.05) in suppressing E. coli. Lactobacillus treatments did not affect (P>.05) red or white blood cell counts, serum proteins (albumin and globulin) or blood urea nitrogen.


Footnotes

1 Published as paper no. 5879, Journal Ser., Nebraska Agri. Exp. Sta.

2 Dep. of Anim. Sci. Acknowledgement is made to Debbie Koester and Alice Teter for their assistance in preparation of the manuscript.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1980 by the American Society of Animal Science.