Evaluation of diets containing probiotic and antibiotic as additives
in growing pigs
Evaluación de dietas conteniendo probiótico y antibiótico como aditivos en cerdos en fase
de desarrollo
Article resulting from a research project financed by
the University de Guayaquil
María de Lourdes Salazar Mazamba
Ph.D. in Animal Science, www.ug.edu.ec,
Guayaquil, Ecuador,
maría.salazarma@ug.edu.ec, ORCID: 0000-
0002-3402-8058
Pedro Antonio Cedeño Salazar
Msc. in Finance, www.ug.edu.ec, Guayaquil,
Ecuador, eco-pedro@hotmail.com,
ORCID: 0000-0002-0696-7947
Roberto Coello Peralta
MSc., Microbiology with mention in
Biomedicine, www.ug.edu.ec, Guayaquil,
Ecuador, roberto.coellope@ug.edu.ec,
ORCID: 0000-0001-5152-2843
http://centrosuragraria.com/index.php/revista
Published by: Edwards Deming Institute
Quito - Ecuador
April - June vol. 1. Num. 9 2021
Page 1-14
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
License
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
sa/4.0/deed.es
RECEIVED: JUNE 14, 2020
ACCEPTED: DECEMBER 29, 2020
PUBLISHED: APRIL 4, 2021
Centrosur: e-ISSN 2706-6800 - April - June 2021
ABSTRACT
The objective of the study was to compare the effect of a probiotic and an antibiotic as
additives in the productive behavior of pigs in the growth phase. 20 pigs were used, male and
female, Landrace-Belgian, Pietrain, Yorkshire and Duroc-Jersey crossbreed, 60 days old,
distributed in two experimental groups. The probiotic Lacto-Sacc® and the antibiotic
Avoporcin were used. The group that was given the Lacto-Sacc® probiotic was the one that
obtained the highest final live weight, the best total and daily weight gain, the best feed
conversion, and the benefit-cost ratio. It is concluded that probiotic additives improve the
productive and sanitary behavior of pigs in the growth phase.
Keywords: probiotic; antibiotic; diets; growth promoter
RESUMEN RESUMEN
El objetivo del estudio fue comparar el efecto de un probiótico y un antibiótico como aditivos
en el comportamiento productivo de cerdos en la fase de crecimiento. Se utilizaron 20 cerdos,
machos y hembras, mestizos Landrace-Belga, Pietrain, Yorkshire y Duroc-Jersey, de 60 días de
edad, distribuidos en dos grupos experimentales. Se utilizó el probiótico Lacto-Sacc® y
antibiótico Avoporcina. El grupo que se le suministró el probiótico Lacto-Sacc® fue el que
obtuvo mayor peso vivo final, mejor ganancia de peso total y diaria, mejor conversión
alimenticia y relación beneficio-costo. Se concluye que los aditivos probióticos mejoran el
comportamiento productivo y sanitario de los cerdos en la fase de crecimiento.
Palabras clave: probiótico; antibiótico; dietas; promotor de crecimiento
El objetivo del estudio fue comparar el efecto de un probiótico y un antibiótico como aditivos
en el comportamiento productivo de cerdos en la fase de crecimiento. Se utilizaron 20 cerdos,
machos y hembras, mestizos Landrace-Belga, Pietrain, Yorkshire y Duroc-Jersey, de 60 días de
edad, distribuidos en dos grupos experimentales. Se utilizó el probiótico Lacto-Sacc® y
antibiótico Avoporcina. El grupo que se le suministró el probiótico Lacto-Sacc® fue el que
obtuvo mayor peso vivo final, mejor ganancia de peso total y diaria, mejor conversión
alimenticia y relación beneficio-costo. Se concluye que los aditivos probióticos mejoran el
comportamiento productivo y sanitario de los cerdos en la fase de crecimiento.
Palabras clave: probiótico; antibiótico; dietas; promotor de crecimiento
INTRODUCTION
Due to the need to improve livestock enterprises, reduce production costs and maximize
productivity, it is necessary to use antibiotics as growth promoters at sub-therapeutic levels
to reduce the incidence of certain diseases and improve nutrient utilization.
María de Lourdes Salazar Mazamba, Pedro Antonio Cedeño Salazar, Roberto Coello Peralta
In recent decades, much research has focused on the development of alternative antibiotics
to maintain pig health and performance. The main alternatives studied include the use of
probiotics.
APC Antibiotic Growth Promoters are one of the most widely used additives in animal feed:
According to a study by the European Federation for Animal Health, 4,700 tons of
antibiotics were consumed by farm animals in the European Union in 1999, representing
35% of all antibiotics used. APCs cause modifications of the digestive and metabolic
processes of animals, which result in increases in feed utilization efficiency and significant
improvements in weight gain. Some metabolic processes modified by APCs are nitrogen
excretion, efficiency of phosphorylation reactions in cells and protein synthesis. (Carro,
Ranilla, 2002, pp. 1-6)
Based on the comments of Corrasa, Lopes, Bellaver (2012), feed additives allow improving
animal response by modifying the metabolism or digestive process, increasing the efficiency
of nutrient utilization (pp. 467-476).
Thus Manzano, Estupiñán, Poveda (2012), have described that probiotics can regulate the
immune response of animals and humans not only at the intestinal mucosal level but also at
the systemic level (p. 99).
Antimicrobials "have been used for many years as growth promoters in swine diets to
decrease the incidence of diarrhea and improve animal performance" (Corasa et al., 2012, pp.
467-476).
Moreover, according to Bosscher, Breynaert, Pieters, and Hermans (2009), the intestinal flora
can be considered as an organ of the body that can adapt to metabolism and renew itself
rapidly (p. 5).
Likewise, according to Santos et al. (2005), the indiscriminate use of antibiotics has produced
resistance to antibiotics, so recent research analyzes the modulation of the normal intestinal
microbiota through the application of probiotics in food, which do not generate resistance
(pp. 1-15).
An alternative to the use of antibiotics is "the use of live microorganisms with probiotic
characteristics in the diet" (Jurado Gámez, Ramírez, Martínez, 2013, pp.3648-3657).
García Curbelo, García, López, Boucourt, (2005), points out the difference between the term
probiotic[ for life] the effect is not immediate, but for a longer period, the antibiotic means
against life, and its action on microorganisms is immediate.
In the suppression of pathogenic microorganisms:
Probiotic bacteria produce a number of antimicrobial substances, including hydrogen
peroxide, diacetyl, reuterin, organic acids such as lactic and acetic acids and substances
of a protein nature, known as bacteriocins. (García et al., 2005, p. 131).
Centrosur: e-ISSN 2706-6800 - April - June 2021
Prats, Boucourt, Rodriguez (2005), the use of probiotics is a way to combat diseases without
introducing foreign bodies into the body.
Probiotics are:
Those that modulate the immune response at local and systemic level; they are food
supplements composed of live microorganisms such as microencapsulated lactic acid
bacteria, Streptococcus faecium and Lactobacillus acidophilus, which benefit the health
of the host through the balance of intestinal macrobiotics (García Hernández, Pérez,
Boucourt, Balcázar, Nicoli, Moreira Silva, Rodríguez, Fuertes, Nuñez, Albelo, Halaihel,
2007, pp. 125-132).
Probiotics, "their use in production animals is intended to improve feed conversion, promote
growth and inhibit the development of pathogenic bacteria" (Blajman, Zbrun, Astesana,
Berisvil, Scharpen, Fusan, Soto, Signorini, Rosmini, Frizzo, 2015, 360-367).
Of equal importance in what Garcia, Boucourt, Acosta, Albelo, Nuñez (2007) points out, the
mode of action of probiotics is related to the inhibition of pathogenic microorganisms, the
effect of lowering hypocholesterolemic action, changes of microorganisms and host
metabolism and stimulation of the immune response (p. 71).
In order to reduce the indiscriminate use of antibiotics in animal production, the use of
various alternatives has been explored, among which are:
Probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics, which represent a potentially significant and safe
therapeutic advance, are live microorganisms that, when added as a dietary supplement,
promote digestion and help maintain the balance of the microbial flora in the intestine.
These products when fed directly to animals improve their metabolism, health and
production. Among the probiotics are yeasts that induce positive effects in terms of
productive performance in monogastric species, but they cannot colonize the digestive
tract. (Castro, Rodríguez, 2005, pp. 26-38).
For Fuller, R. (in Journal of Applied Bacteriology, January 1989, pp. 365-378) probiotics are "...
a live microbial supplement, which beneficially affects the host animal by improving the
intestinal microbial balance".
Probiotics are "additives that improve the digestive process by maintaining a healthy
intestinal environment as they modify the composition or activity of the intestinal microflora"
(Reyes, Figueroa, Cobos, Sánchez Torres, Zamora and Cordero, 2012, p. 90).
For Rafael Villanueva (in Probiotics: an alternative for the food industry, January - December,
2015, pp. 265-275) "...probiotics are defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) as living organisms, which
when administered to a host in adequate amounts provide health benefits."
Accordingly, Gupta, Garg (2009), indicates that microorganisms used in probiotic
preparations should have the properties of being generally safe, resistant to bile, hydrochloric
María de Lourdes Salazar Mazamba, Pedro Antonio Cedeño Salazar, Roberto Coello Peralta
acid and pancreatic juice, having anticancer activity and stimulating the immune system,
reducing intestinal permeability, producing lactic acid and being able to survive either in the
acidic conditions of the stomach or the alkaline conditions of the duodenum (p. 205).
It is stated that the components of probiotics according to Fotiadis, Stoidis, Spyropoulos,
Zografos (2008), most probiotics are members of the two lactic acid bacteria (LAB),
Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium, but yeasts and enterococci are also used (p. 6453).
Based on research conducted by Cáceres and Gotteland (2010), he points out that probiotics
are mainly lactic acid bacteria belonging to the genera Lactobacillus or Bifidobacteriu (pp. 97-
109).
Also in the research on Probiotics in pigs, it is indicated that "among the strains of greater use
as probiotics are mainly Gram-positive bacteria such as Lactobacillus, Enterococcus, Bacillus,
Bifidobacterium and Saccharomyces" (Giraldo-Carmona, Narváez Solarte, Díaz-López, 2015,
pp. 81-90).
In relation to Lactobacillus acidophilus and Lactobacillus casei James, M., Velastegui, E., Cruz,
M. (2017) states that these Lactobacillus are lactic acid bacteria that act as probiotics and are
generally used to formulate functional foods and grow in similar culture conditions. Both
lactic acid bacteria metabolize specific sugars (p. 235).
Based on the results of Garcia et al. (2007), it can be inferred that the constant presence of
Lactobacillus and Lactobacillus rhamnosus in the diet is necessary to achieve the
hypocholesterolemic effect. The mechanism of action proposed to achieve this response of
the lactobacilli explains the need for their persistence in the gastrointestinal tract to exert
their effects.
Corresponding to the comments of Ng, Hart, Kamm, Stagg, Knight (2009), the intestinal flora
plays a fundamental role in the maintenance of immune homeostasis (p. 300).
Based on the preliminary in vitro identification of probiotic properties in S. cerevisiae strains,
it is indicated that "probiotics are made from microbial cultures whose function is to stimulate
the gastrointestinal flora in animals and humans" (Rubio, Hernández, Aguirre and Poutou,
2008, pp. 1157-1169).
With reference to yeasts, Moslehi, Lindegaard, Jespersen (2010), mentions, besides being
very important in food and beverage fermentation, yeasts also show many beneficial effects
on human health. Among them, the probiotic effect is the most well-known health effect,
including the prevention and treatment of intestinal diseases and immune regulation. Other
beneficial functions of yeast are increasing mineral bioavailability through hydrolysis of phytic
acid, biopotentiation of folic acid, and detoxification of mycotoxins due to surface binding of
yeast cell walls (p. 449).
In general, yeasts have been little used as probiotics:
Centrosur: e-ISSN 2706-6800 - April - June 2021
Saccharomyces cerevisiae has been reported as a supplement in the diet of monogastric
animals, in which its probiotic action reduces the presence of enteropathogens,
produces favorable changes in the intestinal mucosa and improves productive behavior.
It has also been recognized for its ability to promote growth, increase vitamin B
production, help weight gain, improve digestion of some feeds, stimulate the immune
system, improve nutrient assimilation and correct the balance of the microbial
population (Rubio et al., 2008). (Rubio et al., 2008, pp. 1157-1169).
The yeast S. cerevisiae "would stimulate the activity of beneficial microorganisms in the
gastrointestinal tract, thus increasing nutrient digestibility and production potential of
animals" (Dos Santos, Pereira, Ferreira, Penna, Rosa, Drummond, Neves, Nicoli, 2005, pp. 1-
15).
Based on Biricik and Turkmen (2001), in high diets, live yeast culture of Saccharomyces
cerevisiae can improve the digestibility of dry matter, organic matter and neutral detergent
fiber, NDF (p. 32).
The importance of modulating the intestinal microbiota of animals is widely recognized due
to its vital role in animal health:
There are complex communities of microbiota that colonize the gastrointestinal tract.
The gut microbiota supports animal health and the development of the host's immune
system. Probiotics are commonly used dietary additives in which they provide the host
with many beneficial functions, such as modulating intestinal homeostasis and
promoting intestinal health. These beneficial effects of probiotics can be derived from
inhibiting the growth of pathogenic bacteria and promoting the growth of beneficial flora
in the gastrointestinal tract. (Shenghan, Li, & Zongyong, 2017, pp. 382-387)
However, gaps remain in the exact role probiotics play in modulating the gut microbiota and
immune response:
The roles of probiotic Lactobacillus plantarum strain JDFM LP11 in modulating intestinal
microbiota and immune response in weaned piglets, L. plantarum JDFM LP11 increased
the population of lactic acid bacteria in feces and enhanced villi development in the
small intestine. (Donghyun et al., 2019, pp. 1-23)
Towards rational selection criteria for probiotic selection in pigs:
The expected probiotic effect depends on the age of the animal and disease prevention
in young animals may require different probiotic strains compared to growth promotion
in older animals. With appropriate selection criteria, the inclusion of probiotics in feed
supplementation is a promising way to exert positive effects in sows, neonates,
weanlings and finishing pigs as they promote feed digestion and improve growth
performance. (Wang and Ganzle, 2019, pp. 83-112)
María de Lourdes Salazar Mazamba, Pedro Antonio Cedeño Salazar, Roberto Coello Peralta
According to Reyes, Figueroa, Cobos, Sánchez-Torres, Zamora, Cordero (2012), the addition
of the standard low-protein probiotic Streptococcus faecium to the soybean and sorghum
meal diet will not affect pig production variables, body characteristics and plasma urea
concentration of the pig during the initial, growth and finishing processes. Reducing dietary
protein will not adversely affect production response or carcass characteristics (p. 597).
The beneficial functions of probiotics, demonstrated that "the importance of probiotics in
swine production is widely recognized as crucial" (Donghyun, Yong, Bogere, Won, Jae-Young,
Yeon-Jae, Hak, Hur, Byung-Yong, Younghoom, & Jaeyoung, 2019, p. 1-23).
Probiotics used in the intensive rearing of farm animals could totally replace antibiotics as
growth promoting additives, due to the beneficial effects they produce in the host. The
objective of this work was to compare the effect of a probiotic and an antibiotic as additives
on the productive behavior of pigs in the growth phase.
On the other hand, Miranda Yuquilema et al. (2018) argue that, at all stages of research, the
use of probiotic preparations can improve production parameters and reduce diarrhea and
mortality (p. 27).
According to the latest research by Vega Cañizares et al. (2018) on lactic acid bacteria as
probiotics in swine farms shows that they constitute a possible substitute for antibiotics (p.
2).
However Giraldo Carmona, Narváez Solarte, Díaz López (2015) another factor to consider
when conducting such research is to determine the health of the animals used as
experimental units and the load of environmental microorganisms on each farm, which can
change the complex ecosystem in the gastrointestinal tract (p. 89).
Coppola, Gil (2004), Abércio da Silva, Bridi, Castro-Gómez, Hernán, Benítez da Silva, Gual
Menegucci, Bueno de Carvalho (2007), Ayala, Bocourt, Martínez, Castro, Hernández, (2008),
Castillo, Cárdenas, Cepero, Silveira, (2010), Ferreira, Barbosa, Larissa, Silva, Henrique, Figueira
(2011), Nagae, Westphal, Santi (2014), Abreu-Abreu (2018) study on probiotics, in all cases
the researchers agree that probiotics were better in reducing diarrhea, improve zootechnical
performance by reducing microbial contamination or regulate the immune response of the
animal.
Boucourt, Savón, Díaz, Brizuela, Serrano, Prats, Elías, (2004), Dos Santos et al, (2005), Gil de
los Santos, Gil-Turnes, (2005), Pérez, Milián, Galindo, Domínguez, Pérez, Portilla, Rondón
(2015), Flores-Mancheno, García-Hernández, Usca, Caicedo, (2016), Cano, Carcelén, Ara,
Quevedo, Alvarado, Jiménez, (2016), probiotics have been introduced as a promising
alternative solution, in all cases researchers agree that it has a positive impact on the
physiological indicators of pigs, improving production.
Centrosur: e-ISSN 2706-6800 - April - June 2021
While it is true that the use of probiotics decreased the mortality percentage of pigs, it
determined that there were differences in weight gain, feed conversion, this does not relate
at all with the experimental results of other investigations (confront Chiquieri et al., 2006).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The research was carried out at the Double A Swine Farm, located in Guayaquil, Guayas
province, Ecuador. Twenty pigs were used in each group of 60 days of age, with crossbreeding
of Landrace-Belga, Pietrain, Yorkshire and Duroc-Jersey breeds, weights were adjusted at 92,
120 and 149 days, the initial weight in the control group was 29.0 ±4.49 kg, the C.V. of 15.47%
and in the experimental group the initial weight was 21.04 ±8.42 kg, the C.V. of 16.91%. The
animals were housed in a cement shed, with hopper feeders and automatic waterers. The
experiment lasted 58 days.
The research design was experimental, with descriptive scope. The animals were distributed
in two groups: the experimental group received a diet with the addition of three biological
components; microencapsulated bacteria (Streptococcus faecium, Lactobacillus acidophilus),
enzymes (protease, amylase and cellulases) and yeast culture (Sacharomyses cerevisiae strain
1026), without antibiotic, while the control group received the diet containing the antibiotic
avoparcin as growth promoter.
The composition and nutrient description of the feed rations (Table 1 and 2) were formulated
according to the nutritional requirements (McDonald, 1975). Growth promoters were added
according to the manufacturer's specifications (0.75 kg/Ton. of probiotic and 200 g of
Avoporcine). Water and feed rations were supplied ad Livitum. Pig weight and feed
consumption were monitored at the beginning and end of the phase,
Data were analyzed by Student's t-test with related samples, using SPSS version 26. The price
of the diets in each group was also calculated and the benefit-cost ratio was estimated.
Table 1
Composition of feed rations supplied during the growth phase
Ingredients
Formula (%)
Lacto-
Sacc
Avotan
Corn
34.63
34.63
Extruded soybean
paste
10.4
10.4
P. export
8.75
8.75
María de Lourdes Salazar Mazamba, Pedro Antonio Cedeño Salazar, Roberto Coello Peralta
Palm oil
1
1
Cookie
26.27
26.27
Wheat bran
17.15
17.15
Dicalcium
phosphate
0.72
0.72
Carbonate #40
0.35
0.35
Salt
0.4
0.4
Lacto-Sacc
0.08
Avotan
0.02
Premix pigs
0.15
0.15
Methionine 99%.
0.1
0.1
Antioxidant BHT
0.01
0.01
Total
100.0
100.0
Table 2
Description of nutrients of the feed rations supplied during the growth phase
Description of
nutrients
Lacto-
Sacc
Avotan
Protein
18.01
18.02
ME kcal/kg
3264.62
3266.49
Calcium
0.8
0.8
Assimilable
phosphorus
0.6
0.6
Methionine 99%.
0.48
0.48
Methionine +
Cystine
0.61
0.61
lysine
0.96
0.96
Fiber
4.49
4.49
Total salt
0.49
0.49
Grease
6.27
6.28
Calcium/Phosphorus
1.34
1.34
Total
Centrosur: e-ISSN 2706-6800 - April - June 2021
RESULTS
The effect of the addition of Probiotic (Table 3) on productive parameters was observed
(p≤0.05). Feed conversion was better for the group with probiotic: 2.33 kg of feed to gain 1
kg of weight. On the other hand, the benefit-cost analysis is higher for the probiotic group, so
it should be considered economically viable and profitable.
Table 3
Initial and final weight, ration consumption per day per animal, daily weight gain and feed
conversion of growing pigs on a probiotic and antibiotic diet.
Diets
With probiotic
With antibiotic
21.04 ± 3.56
29.0 ± 4.49
46.54 ± 8.42
56.28 ± 11.51
0.54
0.48
2.365
2.32
2.33
2.59
Table 4
Benefit-Cost Ratio Determination
Groups
Consumptio
n/ Bag 40
kg/pig
Cost/Bag
40 kg
Weight
gain/kg
Price -
kg/ft - $
Expenditur
e - $
Income -
$
Benefit-
Cost
Ratio
Experiment
al
2.36
28.00
30.84
2.55
66.21
78.64
1.19
Control
2.32
28.00
27.27
2.55
65.08
69.54
1.07
María de Lourdes Salazar Mazamba, Pedro Antonio Cedeño Salazar, Roberto Coello Peralta
The study demonstrated the feasibility of using probiotics as additives, since it was possible
to improve the productive response, achieving a better development and utilization of the
feed. The results are in agreement with the findings of other authors (Alltech, 1996; Biricik
and Türkmen, 2001; Swientek, 2003; Boucourt et al., 2004; Ayala et al., 2008; Manzano et al.,
2012), Jurado Gámez et al., 2013). However, Chiquieri et al., (2006) working with mixed-
breed, castrated male pigs, adding probiotic and prebiotic in the diet, reported contradictory
results on weight gain and feed conversion with the use of probiotics.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of additives such as probiotic containing microencapsulated lactic acid bacteria (LAB)
(Streptococcus faecium and Lactobacillus acidophilus), enzymes (protease, amylase and
cellulase), and yeast culture (Sacharomyses cerevisiae 1026), in the diet at a dose of 0.75 kg/t
of feed, improves weight gain, feed conversion ratio and benefit-cost ratio, in the growth
phase of pigs.
REFERENCES
Abreu-Abreu, A.T.. (2012). Prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics. Journal of Gastroenterology,
77(1), 26-28. https://www.elsevier.es/es-revista-offarm-4-pdf-
X0212047X11247515. https://www.elsevier.es/es-revista-offarm-4-pdf-
X0212047X11247515
Abércio da Silva, Caio, Bridi, Ana María, Castro-Gómez, Raúl Jorge Hernán, Benítez da Silva,
Carla Renata, Gual Menegucci, Christiane, Bueno de Carvalho, Bruna. (2007). Use of
probiotics and antibiotics in the feeding of lemons in the growing phase. Semina:
Ciências Agrárias. http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=445744086017 ISSN 1676-
546X
Ayala, L., Bocourt, R., Martínez, M., Castro, M., Hernández, L. (2008). Productive,
hematological and morphometric response of a commercial probiotic in young pigs.
Revista Cubana de Ciencia Agrícola, 42, (2), 181-184.
https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/1930/193015494011.pdf
Barros-Bastidas, C., & Turpo, O. (2020). Research training and its impact on the scientific
production of education faculty at a public university in Ecuador. Publicaciones,
50(2), 167-185. doi:10.30827/publicaciones.v50i2.13952.
Biricik, H., Türkmen, I. (2001). The effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae on in vitro rumen
digestibilities of dry matter, organic matter and neutral detergent fibre of different
forage: concenrate ratios in diets. J. Fac. Vet. Med. 20, 29-33.
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/144577
Centrosur: e-ISSN 2706-6800 - April - June 2021
Blajman, J., Zbrun, M., Astesana, D., Berisvil, A., Scharpen, A., Fusan, M., Soto, L., Signorini,
M., Rosmini, M., Frizzo, L. (2015). Probiotics in broiler chickens: a strategy for
intensive production models. Revista Argentina de Microbiología, 47(4), 360 - 367.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article /S0325754115001133>.
Bosscher, D., Breynaert, A., Pieters, L., & Hermans, N. (2009). Food-based strategies to
modulate the composition of the intestinal microbiota and their associated health
effects. Journal of physiology and pharmacology: an official journal of the Polish
Physiological Society, 60(6), 5-11. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20224145/.
Boucourt, R., Savón, L., Díaz, J., Brizuela, M., Serrano, P., Prats, A., Elías, A. (2004). Effect of
probiotic activity of Lactobacillus rhamnosus on physiological indicators in piglets.
Revista Cubana de Ciencia Agrícola, 38(4), 411-416.
https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/1930/193017793012.pdf
Cano, J., Carcelén, F., Ara, M., Quevedo, W., Alvarado, A., Jiménez, R. (2016). Effect of
Supplementation with a Probiotic Mixture on the Productive Behavior of Guinea Pigs
(Cavia porcellus) during the Growth and Finishing Phase. Revista de Investigaciones
Veterinarias del Peru, RIVEP, 27(1), 51-58.
http://www.scielo.org.pe/pdf/rivep/v27n1/a07v27n1.pdf.
http://www.scielo.org.pe/pdf/rivep/v27n1/a07v27n1.pdf
Carro, M., Ranilla, M. (2002). Antibiotic additives for animal growth promotion: current
situation and possible alternatives. Department of Animal Production, University of
León. https://www.produccion-animal.com.ar
Castillo Cuenca, J. C., Cárdenas, A., Cepero Rodríguez, O., Silveira Prado, E. A. (2010).
Effectiveness of the probiotic Biopranal in the prevention of acute diarrheal
syndrome in lactating pigs. REDVET. Revista Electrónica de Veterinaria, 11(1), 1-7.
https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=63613103009.
https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=63613103009.
Castro, M., Rodríguez, F. (2005). Yeasts: probiotics and prebiotics that improve animal
production. Revista Corpoica, Ciencia y tecnología Agropecuaria, 6(1), 26-38.
https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/4499/449945018004.pdf
Coppola, M., Gil, C. (2004). Probióticos e resposta imune. Ciência Rural, 34(4), 1297-1303.
https://www.scielo.br/pdf/cr/v34n4/a56v34n4.pdf
Corassa, A., Lopes, D., Bellaver, C. (2012). Mananoligossaccharides, organic acids and
probiotics for piglets from 21 to 49 days of age. University of Córdoba, Archivos de
Zootecnia, 61(235), 467-476. http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=49525487011
ISSN 0004-0592
Chiquieri, J., Soares, R., Souza, J., Hurtado, V., Ferreira, R., Ventura, B. (2006). Probiotic and
prebiotic in the feeding of growing and finishing pigs. University of Córdoba Archivos
María de Lourdes Salazar Mazamba, Pedro Antonio Cedeño Salazar, Roberto Coello Peralta
de Zootecnia, 55(211), 305-308. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/495/49521112.pdf.
https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/495/49521112.pdf
Dos Santos Martins, F., da Conceição Pereira, T., Ferreira, F., Penna, F., Rosa, C., Drummond
Nardi, R., Neves, M., Nicoli, J. (2005). Utilização de leveduras como probióticos.
Revista de Biologia e Ciências da Terra, 5(2), 1-14.
https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=50050218%253E.
https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=50050218%253E
Ferreira, F., Barbosa, J. Larissa, P., Silva B., Henrique, L., Figueira, F. (2011). Probióticos-
microrganismos a favor da vida. Revista de Biologia e Ciências da Terra, 11(1), 11-21.
https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/500/50021097002.pdf
Flores-Mancheno, L. García-Hernández, Y., Usca, J., Caicedo, W. (2016). Comparative study of
three zootechnical additives in the productive and sanitary behavior of pigs in the
post-weaning period. Revista Ciencia y Agricultura, 13 (2), 95-105.
https://www.redalyc.org/jatsRepo/5600/560062851010/html/index.html.
https://www.redalyc.org/jatsRepo/5600/560062851010/html/index.html
Fotiadis C., Stoidis C., Spyropoulos B., Zografos E. (2008). Role of probiotics, prebiotics and
synbiotics in chemoprevention for colorectal cancer. World J Gastroenterology,
14(42), 6453-6457. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.14.6453.
Fuller, R. (1989). Probiotics in man and animals. Journal of Applied Bacteriology, 66, 365-378.
http://performanceprobiotics.com/Downloads/Articles/Fuller%201989%20Probioti
cs%20in%20man%20and%20animals.pdf.
Gamboa Romero, M. A., Barros Morales, R. L., & Barros Bastidas, C. (2016). Childhood
aggressiveness, learning and self-regulation in primary school children. LUZ, 15(1),
105-114. Retrieved from https://luz.uho.edu.cu/index.php/luz/article/view/743
García, Y., Boucourt, R., Acosta, A., Albelo, N., Núñez, O. (2007). Effect of a probiotic mixture
of Lactobacillus acidophillus and Lactobacillus rhamnosus on some health and
physiological indicators of broiler chickens in the tropics. Revista Cubana de Ciencia
Agrícola, 41(1), 71-74. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/1930/193017666012.pdf
García Curbelo, Y., García, Y., López, A., Boucourt, R. (2005). Probiotics: an alternative to
improve animal behavior. Revista Cubana de Ciencia Agrícola, 39(2), 129-140.
https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/1930/193017845001.pdf
García Hernández, Y., Pérez Sánchez, T., Boucourt, R., Balcázar, J., Nicoli, J., Moreira Silva, J.,
Rodríguez, Z., Fuertes. H., Nuñez, O., Albelo, N., Halaihel, N. (2016). Isolation,
characterization and evaluation of probiotic lactic acid bacteria for potential use in
animal production. Research in Veterinary Science, 108, 125-132.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2016.08.009.
Centrosur: e-ISSN 2706-6800 - April - June 2021
Gil de los Santos, J., Gil-Turnes, C. (2005). Probiotics in poultry farming. Ciência Rural, 35, 741-
747. https://www.scielo.br/pdf/cr/v35n3/a42v35n3.pdf
Gupta V., Garg R. (2009). Probiotics. Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology, 27(3), 202-209.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/S0325754115000917
Jurado Gámez, H. Ramírez, C., Martínez, J. (2013). In vivo evaluation of Lactobacillus
plantarum as an alternative to the use of antibiotics in piglets. Revista MVZ Córdoba,
18(Supl), 3648-3657. http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=69312277009 ISSN
0122-0268
Manzano, C., Estupiñán, D., Poveda, E. (2012). Clinical effects of probiotics: what the evidence
says. Revista Chilena de Nutrición, 39(1), 98-110.
https://scielo.conicyt.cl/pdf/rchnut/v39n1/art10.pdf
McDonald, Edwars, Greenhalgh. (1975). Animal Nutrition. Editorial Acribia, Zaragoza - Spain.
Moslehi-Jenabian S, Lindegaard, L, Jespersen L. (2010). Beneficial effects of probiotic and food
borne yeasts on human health. Nutrients II, 2(4), 449-473.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ nu2040449.
Nagae, L., Westphal, P., Santi, E. (2014). Probióticos na avicultura. Rural Science, 44(8), 1457-
1465. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr2012
Ng, S. C., Hart, A. L., Kamm, M. A., Stagg, A. J., & Knight, S. C. (2009). Mechanisms of action of
probiotics: recent advances. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, 15(2), 300-310.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ibd.20602.
Pérez, Y., Milián, G., Galindo, J., Domínguez, H., Pérez, M., Portilla, Y., Rondón, A. (2015).
Evaluation of a Bacillussubtilys-based biopreparation with probiotic activity in pigs of
breeding and prebreeding categories. REDVET. Revista Electrónica de Veterinaria,
16(8), 1-13. http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=63641401003.
http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=63641401003
Prats, A.; Boucourt, R.; Rodríguez, Z. (2005). Methodology for the determination of in vitro
adherence of lactobacilli to pig intestinal cells. Revista Cubana de Ciencia Agrícola,
39, (2), 205-212.
http://www.redalyc.org/src/inicio/ArtPdfRed.jsp?iCve=193017845012
Reyes, I., Figueroa, J., Cobos, M., Sánchez-Torres, M., Zamora, V., Cordero, J. (2012). Probiotic
(enterococcus faecium) added to standard and low protein diets for pigs. Archivos
de Zootecnia, 61(236), 589-598. http://dx.doi.org/10.4321/S0004-
05922012000400011.