Probiótico à base de Bacillus spp. e Saccharomyces cerevisiae na alimentação de suínos em crescimento e terminação

• Ano de defesa: 2025
• Autor(a) principal: Trenkel, Andressa Luana Gorzelanski
• Orientador(a): Carvalho, Paulo Levi de Oliveira
• Banca de defesa: Carvalho, Paulo Levi de Oliveira , Carvalho, Silvana Teixeira , Nunes, Ricardo Vianna , Parra, Angela Rocio Poveda
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Estadual do Oeste do Paraná; Marechal Cândido Rondon
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: Programa de Pós-Graduação em Zootecnia
• Departamento: Centro de Ciências Agrárias
• País: Brasil
• Palavras-chave em Português: Aditivo zootécnico; Digestibilidade aparente; Qualidade de carne; Microbiota intestinal; Nutrição de suínos; Saúde intestinal
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: CIÊNCIAS AGRÁRIAS:ZOOTECNIA
• Link de acesso: https://tede.unioeste.br/handle/tede/8150

The objective of the study was to evaluate the effect of including probiotics in the diet of growing and finishing pigs on growth performance, occurrence of diarrhea incidence (DI), biochemical and hematological profile, quantification of immunoglobulin G (IgG), fecal microbiota, apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD), and carcass and meat traits, as an alternative to growth-promoting antibiotics. Eighty-four male pigs with an average body weight of 25.55 ± 0.85 kg were allotted, distributed in a randomized block design with six treatments: 1) basal diet + 60% halquinol antibiotic (PC); 2) basal diet without performance enhancer (NC); 3) negative control + 0.5 kg of probiotic/ton of diet (NC0.5); 4) negative control + 1.0 kg of probiotic/ton of diet (NC1.0); 5) negative control + 1.5 kg of probiotic/ton of diet (NC1.5); and 6) negative control + 2.0 kg of probiotic/ton of diet (NC2.0), with seven replicates, two animals per pen, and the pen considered as the experimental unit. The probiotic used consisted of two microorganisms, Bacillus spp. and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The treatments had no effect on growth performance. The pigs in the PC, NC1.0, and NC2.0 treatments had lower DI than the others in growth phase I. In growth phase II, the animals that received the NC1.0 diet had higher urea concentrations than those in the NC treatment. The NC0.5 group had higher alanine aminotransferase concentrations than the NC treatment. In the finishing phase II, pigs fed the PC, NC, and NC0.5 diets had higher glucose concentrations compared to NC1.5. There was no effect of the treatments on the hematological profile and IgG quantification. The NC1.0 treatment reduced the Acutalibacteraceae family compared to PC. The NC1.5 treatment decreased the occurrence of the Streptococcus genus compared to NC. Additionally, the NC2.0 treatment increased the abundance of the Limosilactobacillus reuteri species compared to PC and NC1.0. Pigs in the growing phase that received the NC1.0 treatment showed higher ATTDDM, ATTD-OM, and ATTD-GE compared to those of the NC and NC0.5 groups. The NC1.5 treatment increased ATTD-DM, ATTD-OM, ATTD-CP, and ATTD-GE compared to the NC, NC0.5, and NC2.0 treatments. The NC1.0 and NC1.5 treatments showed higher ATTD-DM, ATTD-OM, ATTD-CP, and ATTD-GE values compared to the PC, NC, NC0.5, and NC2.0 diets, while higher ATTD-CP was obtained for the PC, NC1.0, and NC1.5 treatments compared to the others. During the finishing phase, pigs fed the NC1.0 and NC2.0 diets had higher ATTD-CP compared to the others, and the NC0.5 diet provided higher ATTD-GE when compared to the others. There was no effect on carcass and meat attributes. The inclusion of 1.5 and 2.0 of probiotics in the diet proved effective in replacing antibiotics, as it reduces the diarrhea incidence, improving nutrient and energy digestibility, and positively modulating the intestinal microbiota without altering performance, biochemical and hematological parameters, and carcass and meat characteristics.