Studies on the effect of dietary supplementation of probiotics on proximate analysis and cost economics of crossbred pigs

Introduction

Pig farming plays a vital role in the livestock industry, with pork ranking among the most widely traded meat products worldwide. Data from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) indicates that global pork production stood at around 97 million metric tons in 2020. China emerged as the dominant producer, contributing more than half of the total output. To meet the rising demand for pork, major exporting nations rely on large-scale, intensive production systems designed to optimize efficiency (Bhaduaria et al., 2023) 1 . In India, pig farming is largely unorganized, with minimal use of additional nutrient supplements. However, over the past few decades, this sector has gained greater acceptance due to several factors, including the rising demand for pork products, shifts in dietary habits, rapid urbanization, increasing disposable income among the middle class, and the entry of international food chains that use pork for items such as bacon and sausages (Shastry et al., 2021) 2 . Nevertheless, pigs compete directly with humans for conventional feed resources, which has led to the exploration of alternative feed options aimed at lowering costs and improving feed conversion efficiency (Shastry et al., 2021) 2 . Various feed additives such as enzymes, antioxidants, antibiotics, prebiotics, and probiotics are commonly incorporated into pig diets to enhance growth and health (Al-Jaf et al., 2019) 3 . Likewise, probiotics help maintain a healthy gut microbiota by enhancing populations of beneficial microorganisms like Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium, which in turn suppress harmful microbes through the production of bacteriocins and organic acids (Al-Jaf et al., 2019) 3 . Probiotics are described as live microbial feed additives that exert beneficial effects on the host by enhancing growth performance, strengthening immunity, and maintaining intestinal microbial equilibrium (Fuller, 1989) 4 . Similarly, yeast-based products such as yeast culture, yeast extract, and yeast hydrolysates (YH) act as effective probiotics because they are rich in nucleotides, B-complex vitamins, amino acids, and cell wall polysaccharides like β-glucans and mannans. These bioactive components contribute to enhanced growth, immune regulation, gut development, and tissue repair in animals (Sauer, 2010) 5 .

Materials and Methods

Place of the experiment

The present work is carried out at Instructional Piggery Unit, Department of Livestock Production and Management, College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Rewa (M.P.)

Management of pigs

The experimental pens were prepared as per standard practice before separation of weaned piglets. All healthy experimental piglets were taken and kept in similar managerial condition and provided with nor-mal routine health care and vaccination. CFU per gram, Saccharomyces cerevisiae@ 6×10 6 CFU / gram] (from 60 days of age to upto120 days)

Basal diet + Probiotic @ 400g/ tonne of feed [Bacillus subtilis and B. lichenformis @ 6×10 6 CFU per gram, Saccharomyces cerevisiae@ 12×10 6 CFU / gram] (from 60 days of age to upto120 days)

Basal diet + Probiotic @ 600g/ tonne of feed [Bacillus subtilis and B. lichenformis@ 9×10 6 CFU per gram, Saccharomyces cerevisiae @ 18×10 6 CFU / gram] (from 60 days of age to upto120 days) 10 piglets 10 piglets 10 piglets 10 piglets

Proximate Analysis

Moisture

A sample of the feed and feacal was weighed into a dried aluminium disc and heated to 100 ± 2 °C in a hot air oven without a lid for 16-18 hours. Loss in weight (moisture of the sample) was calculated after cooling the sample in desiccator. The difference in weight is expressed as moisture percent from which DM % can be calculated. 2) Na OH

Moisture% =

3) Ethyl alcohol

In a spoutless beaker on a hot plate, measured amounts of moistureand fat-free feed and feacal samples were refluxed with diluted sulfuric acid (2.05N) and sodium hydroxide (2.05N) for 30 minutes each, after which each was filtered and repeatedly washed with hot water. The leftover residue was weighed and then quantitatively moved to a silica basin. It was then oven dried and ash-treated in a muffle furnace for two to three hours at 550 °C. By dividing the sample weight on a dry matter basis by the weight loss resulting from ashing the residue, crude fibre was computed.

The calculation was as follows:

Where, a= weight (g) of silica basin plus oven dried sample b= weight (g) of silica basin plus ash w= weight of sample

2.

Total Ash-Five grams of the feed and feacal sample were placed in a silica crucible that had been dried and weighed. The sample was cooked on a hot plate until the smoking stopped and it was completely blackened. The burned sample was then maintained for 2.5 hours at 600 °C in a muffle furnace. The crucible was weighed after being cooled in a desiccator. The weight difference between the empty crucible and the weight after ashing was used to calculate the amount of ash.

Ether extract

In a thimble with a boiling flask that had been previously weighted, three grams of sample were taken. In Soxhlet's extraction apparatus, the sample was extracted using petroleum ether (which has a boiling point between 60 and 80 °C) for a duration of 6 to 8 hours. Following extraction, the boiling flask was removed, allowed to dry outside and then placed in a hot air oven set at approximately 100 °C for one hour. The percentage of ether extract was computed and the weight gain of the boiling flask was noted.

3.

To assess the cost economics of feeding probiotics in pigs.

Calculation of cost economics -

Profit (Rs.) = Income -Expenditure 𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡: 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = 𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡 (𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒) 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 (𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒)

Result and discussion

Proximate analysis of feed and feces

The results of proximate analysis as proximate values of Feed and Feces are reported a follows-In the present study, the proximate values of the feed remained relatively similar across groups, as expected, since the basal diet formulation was constant and only probiotics were supplemented. However, variations were observed in the proximate values of feces, suggesting differences in nutrient absorption and digestive efficiency among the groups. Moisture content in feces was highest in groups supplemented with probiotics compared to the control, which could be linked to improved gut microbial activity and modulation of intestinal fermentation, thereby influencing water retention and consistency of fecal matter. Previous studies have reported that probiotics supplementation enhances gut microbial balance, which promotes better nutrient breakdown and intestinal health (Datt et al., 2011 6 ; Cai et al., 2015 7 ) [6,7] . Crude protein levels in feces were relatively low across all groups, but pigs fed probiotics diets showed slightly reduced protein excretion compared to controls, indicating improved protein utilization.

The present research findings agrees with earlier findings that probiotics enhance protein digestibility by stimulating enzymatic activity and microbial fermentation in the gut (Giang et al., 2011 8 ; Wang et al., 2019 9

) [8,9] . Similarly, fecal crude fiber levels were lower in probiotics-fed groups, reflecting enhanced fiber degradation, which is consistent with reports that certain probiotics strains, such as Lactobacillus and Bacillus, possess cellulolytic activity that aids in fiber breakdown (Datt et al., 2011 6 ) [6] . Ether extract values showed some variation, with probiotics groups generally demonstrating improved lipid utilization, as evidenced by lower fecal fat in certain treatments. This observation supports earlier studies suggesting that probiotics promote bile salt hydrolase activity and fat metabolism in pigs (Upadhaya et al., 2015 10 ) [10] . Fecal ash content varied considerably among groups, with lower values in probiotic-supplemented pigs, implying better mineral absorption and retention (Upadhaya et al., 2015 10 ) [10] .

Cost economics

The result of effect of probiotics supplementation at different doses in treatment groups (Group 1 to 4) at the end of the trial on Cost economics of crossbred pigs was evaluated. The result of Cost economics is presented below in Table 3.

Table 2. The Proximate analysis of feed samples, the values recorded for moisture content were 9.6%, 7.2%, and 6.8%. The crude protein levels were 21%, 22%, and 21.2%, while crude fiber content was observed at 4.2%, 4.8%, and 3.5%. Ether extract values were 5.5%, 4.0%, and 6.0%, and the total ash content measured 8.3%, 9.6%, and 8.4%. The result of fecal samples, the moisture content was 64.5% in Group 1, 69.2% in Group 2, 73.3% in Group 3, and 74.2% in Group 4. The crude protein values were 4.0%, 3.8%, 4.3%, and 4.1% for Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Crude fiber levels were 1.0%, 0.89%, 0.75%, and 1.2% across the same groups. Ether extract was recorded at 8%, 7.5%, 10%, and 6%, while total ash values stood at 16%, 33%, 16%, and 11% in Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively The economic evaluation of feeding probiotics to crossbred pigs revealed noticeable improvements in cost efficiency and profitability compared to the control group in Table 10. The cost economics of probiotics supplementation in crossbred pigs revealed clear advantages over the control group. The rearing cost per pig was highest in Group 2 (₹10,722.5) and Group 4 (₹10,697), while it was lowest in Group 1 (control, ₹10,410). Despite higher feed and supplement costs, probiotics-fed groups achieved improved body weights and higher returns. The selling price per pig was maximum in Group 2 (₹12,800) followed by Group 4 (₹12,600), Group 3 (₹12,400), and Group 1 (₹12,000). Consequently, profit per pig increased in all probiotics-supplemented groups compared to control, with Group 2 recording the highest profit (₹2077.5), closely followed by Group 3 (₹2040.4) and Group 4 (₹1903), against only ₹1590 in Group 1. The benefit-cost ratio (B\:C) further supported the economic advantage, being highest in Group 3 (1.20) and Group 2 (1.19), 1.18 in Group 4 compared to the lowest 1.15 in the control. These results indicate that probiotics supplementation, particularly at moderate levels, improves profitability and efficiency of production in crossbred pigs. ) [11] . Similarly, Giang et al. (2011 8 ) [8] and Rai et al. (2013) 12 reported that probiotics supplementation in weaned pig diets enhanced growth rate and reduced feed cost per kilogram of weight gain, thereby improving overall profitability. The benefit\cost (B\C) ratio further highlighted the economic advantage of probiotics supplementation, with the highest values recorded in Group 3 (1.20) and Group 2 (1.19), compared to 1.15 in the control. These findings corroborate earlier reports that dietary supplementation of probiotics enhances feed efficiency, growth, and net economic returns in swine production (Cai et al., 2015 7 ) [7] . Similar studies by Datt et al. (2011 6 ) [6] and Justino et al. (2024 13 ) [13] have also shown that probiotics reduce feed cost per unit gain by improving nutrient utilization and gut health, thereby translating into higher profitability. Thus, while the inclusion of probiotics marginally increased feed cost, the overall economic returns improved, demonstrating probiotics as a cost-effective and sustainable feed additive strategy for crossbred pig production.

Parameters

References

1. Bhaudaria P, Singh S, Singh I, Sheoran P. Pig Farming techniques and technological. ICAR-Agricultural Technology Application Research Institute,Zone-1, Ludhiana, Punjab; 2023:125.
2. Shastry NSR, Thomas CK. Livestock production management, 6th edition. New Delhi: Kalyani Publishing Co.; 2021:756-778.
3. Al-Jaf KAH, Del YK. Effect of Different Feed Additives on Growth Performance and Production in Livestock. International Journal of Agriculture and Forestry. 2019;9(1):16-31.
4. Fuller R. Probiotics in man and animals. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 1989;66:365-368.
5. Sauer N. Nucleotides modify growth of selected intestinal bacteria in vitro. Livestock Science. 2010;133:161-163.
6. Datt C, Malik S, Datta M, Singh NP, Kundu SS. Effect of probiotics supplementation on feed consumption, nutrient digestibility and growth performance in crossbred pigs under Tripura climate. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition. 2011;28(3):331-335.
7. Cai L, Indrakumar S, Kiarie E, Kim IH. Effects of a multi-strain Bacillus species-based direct-fed microbial on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, blood profile, and gut health in nursery pigs fed corn-soybean meal-based diets. Journal of Animal Science. 2015;93(9):4336-4342.
8. Giang HH, Viet TQ, Ogle B, Lindberg JE. Effects of supplementation of probiotics on the performance, nutrient digestibility and fecal microflora in growing-finishing pigs. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences. 2011;23(12):1486-1493.
9. Wang Y, Wu Y, Wang B, et al. Effects of probiotics on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and intestinal health in pigs: A meta-analysis. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2019;258:114312.
10. Upadhaya SD, Kim SC, Valientes RA, Kim IH. The Effect of Bacillus-based Feed Additive on Growth Performance, Nutrient Digestibility, Fecal Gas Emission, and Pen Cleanup Characteristics of Growing-finishing Pigs. Asian-Aust. Journal of Animal Science. 2015;28(7):999-1005.
11. Kumar S, Verma AK, Mondal SK, Gupta M, Patil AK, Jangir BL. Effect of live Saccharomyces cerevisiae feeding on serum biochemistry in early weaned cross bred piglets. Veterinary World. 2012;5:11.
12. Rai V, Lakhani GP, Roy B. Effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae on the growth performance of crossbred pigs. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition. 2013;30(4):392-395.
13. Justino LR, Souza CS, Vasconcelos BSDD, Costa JA, Quaresma DV, Dilelis F, Lima CARD. Energy-reduced diets supplemented with xylanase, Bacillus sp., and yeast wall maintain bone parameters, gut morphometry, economic indices, and performance of pigs. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia. 2024;53.