Loading...
Theses
Browse
1 results
Search Results
ThesisItem Open Access COMPARATIVE EFFICACY OF PROBIOTICS (SWINE AND DAIRY ORIGIN) ON GROWTH AND NUTRIENTS UTILIZATION IN GROWING PIGS(Assam Agricultural University, Khanapara,Guwahati, 2017-07) JOYSOWAL, MAMATA; Saikia, B.N.An experiment was conducted to investigate the comparative efficacy of probiotics of dairy origin (Lactobacillus acidophilus NCDC15) and swine origin (Pediococcus acidilactici FT28) on growth, feed conversion efficiency, nutrient utilization and intestinal microflora and carcass yield of (HD-K 75 (75%H) crossbred pigs. Twenty four weaned crossbred piglets of above two months of age having average body weight 18.33±0.98 kg randomly divided into three groups i.e. C, T1 and T2. A pig grower ration was prepared as per ICAR (2013) (for medium to high growth rate). In the control ration (grower ration) probiotics of dairy origin (L. acidophilus NCDC 15) and probiotics of swine origin (P. acidilactici FT28) were added as feed additives and designated as T1 and T2 ration. The feeding trial was conducted for the entire growing period (84 days). The dry matter intake per 100 kg body weight did not differ significantly (P>0.05) among the treatment groups. The rate of mean daily gain in body weight and feed conversion efficiency of pigs were 358.6±12.3, 418±8.61, 429.4±13.1 and 4.06±0.09, 3.51±0.14 and 3.48±0.66 in control, T1 (probiotics of dairy origin) and T2 (probiotics of swine origin) respectively. Significantly highest average daily gain in body weight and best fed conversion efficiency were found in T1and T2 group. The digestibility coefficient of DM, OM, EE CF and NFE did not differ (P>0.05) significantly between the control and treatment group. But the digestibility coefficient of crude protein of T2 (probiotic of swine origin) group and T1 (probiotic of dairy origin) differed significantly (<0.05) from control. Similarly, in case of percent retention of intake nitrogen was highest in T2 (Probiotic of swine origin) group followed by T1 (probiotic of dairy origin) group. In respect of faecal microbial count, Lactobacillus was significantly increased in T1 (probiotic of dairy origin) followed by T2 (probiotic of swine origin) group and E. coli count was decreased in T1 and T2 group. Highest (P<0.05) villi length (700.3±2.57µm) and crypt depth (123.70±81.52 µm) was observed in T2 group. Highest carcass weight was found in T2 group followed by T1 group but average vital organ weight was found to be higher T1 group followed by T2 group. Highest dressing percentage was observed in T2 group followed by T1 group. In respect of average pH value, water holding capacity and ERV, there was no significant (P>0.05) difference between the treatment groups. The concentration of blood glucose and cholesterol was found lowest (P<0.05) in T2 group followed by T1 group. There was no significant (P>0.05) difference in respect of serum protein, serum albumin level between the treatment groups. The cost of production per kg body weight gain was found lowest in T1 group (Rs. 97.69) (Probiotic of dairy origin followed by T2 (Rs. 98.94) group (probiotics swine origin). This it is revealed that supplementation of probiotic of dairy and swine origin is beneficial in growing stage in respect of growth, feed conversion efficiency and digestibility of nutrients. The supplementation of probiotic of dairy and swine origin also improves blood biochemical profile, intestinal morphology and enhances faecal microbial count in respect of lactobacillus. Hence, it may be recommended that probiotic dairy origin (Lactobacillus acdidophillus NCDC 15, 1-2 x109 cfu/g) and swine origin (Pediococcus acidilactici FT28, 1-2 x 109 cfu/g) may be used as feed additives in growing pigs as probiotic.