Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:46:44.801Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The efficacy of the probiotic feed additive Calsporin® (Bacillus subtilis C-3102) in weaned piglets: combined analysis of four different studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 May 2012

T. Marubashi ,
M. I. Gracia ,
B. Vilà ,
V. Bontempo ,
S. K. Kritas  and
M. Piskoríková
T. Marubashi*
Affiliation:
Calpis Co Ltd, 150-0022 Tokyo, Japan
M. I. Gracia
Affiliation:
Imasde Agroalimentaria S.L., 28224 Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain
B. Vilà
Affiliation:
IRTA Mas Bové, 43120 Constantí, Spain
V. Bontempo
Affiliation:
VSA, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20133 Milan, Italy
S. K. Kritas
Affiliation:
Veterinary School, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
M. Piskoríková
Affiliation:
Pen & Tec Consulting SL, 08195 Sant Cugat del Vallès, Spain
*
*Corresponding author:feeddivision@calpis.co.jp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The efficacy of the probiotic feed product, Calsporin® (Bacillus subtilis C-3102) in weaned piglets was evaluated by statistical analysis of the combined results from four different experiments. The body weight, average daily gain, feed intake, feed conversion ratio and mortality data from these four experiments were tested for homogeneity before being pooled and analysed as a whole, with experiment being included as a blocking factor. Piglets fed diets supplemented with Calsporin® were significantly heavier (3.4%) at 43 days (P < 0.05), their feed intakes decreased by 2.1% and feed efficiency (FCR) improved by 3.2% between 15 and 43 days, although these latter differences were not significant. Over the entire study period (day 1 to 43), significant improvements in daily gain (4.8%) and feed efficiency (6.2%) were observed with Calsporin® supplementation (P < 0.05). The results demonstrated that Calsporin® at 30 mg/kg inclusion in commercial-type diets can improve zootechnical performance in weaned piglets.

Keywords

probioticCalsporin®pigletsperformance
Type
Original Research
Information
Journal of Applied Animal Nutrition , Volume 1 , 2012 , e2
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Journal of Applied Animal Nutrition Ltd. 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AOAC (2000). Official Methods of Analysis. 17th Edn. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Barton, M.D. (2000). Antibiotic use in animal feed and its impact on human health. Nutrition Research Reviews, 13: 279–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhandari, S.K., Xu, B., Nyachoti, C.M., Giesting, D.W. and Krause, D.O. (2008). Evaluation of alternatives to antibiotics using an Escherichia coli K88+ model of piglet diarrhea: Effects on gut microbial ecology. Journal of Animal Science, 86: 836–847.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blair, E.C., Allen, H.M., Brooks, S.E., Firman, J.D., Robbins, D.H., Nishimura, K. and Ishimaru, H. (2004). Effects of CAL on Turkey Performance, Carcass Yield and Nitrogen Reduction. International Journal of Poultry Science, 3 (1): 75–79, 2004.Google Scholar
Brown, M.A. (2011). Modes of action of probiotics: recent developments. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 10: 1895–1900.Google Scholar
BS-EN-15784-2009, Animal feeding stuffs – Isolation and enumeration of presumptive Bacillus spp., British Standard, ICS 65.120, 2009Google Scholar
Fritts, C.A., Kersey, J.H., Motl, M.A., Kroger, E.C., Yan, F., Si, J., Jiang, Q., Campos, M.M., Waldroup, A.L. and Waldroup, P.W. (2000). Bacillus subtilis C-3102 (Calsporin) Improves Live Performance and Microbiological Status of Broiler Chickens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 9: 149–155.Google Scholar
Fuller, R. (1989). Probiotics in man and animals. Journal of Applied Bacteriology, 66: 365–378.Google Scholar
Hooge, D.M., Ishimaru, H. and Sims, M.D. (2004). Influence of Dietary Bacillus subtilis C-3102 Spores on Live Performance of Broiler Chickens in Four Controlled Pen Trials. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 13: 222–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council of the National Academies. Nutrient Requirements of Swine. 9th Edn. The National Academies Press, Washington DC, USA, 1998.Google Scholar
Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition, http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex.Google Scholar
SAS Institute (2002). SAS® User's Guide: Statistics. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Vilà, B., Esteve-Garcia, E. and Brufau, J. (2010). Probiotic micro-organisms: 100 years of innovation and efficacy; modes of action. World's Poultry Science Journal, 66: 369–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar