Journal of Animal Science and Technology

Korean Society of Animal Sciences and Technology (한국축산학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Investigation of the impact of multi-strain probiotics containing Saccharomyces cerevisiae on porcine production

  • Sheena Kim (Department of Animal Biotechnology, Dankook University) ;
  • Jinho Cho (Division of Food and Animal Science, Chungbuk National University) ;
  • Gi Beom Keum (Department of Animal Biotechnology, Dankook University) ;
  • Jinok Kwak (Department of Animal Biotechnology, Dankook University) ;
  • Hyunok Doo (Department of Animal Biotechnology, Dankook University) ;
  • Yejin Choi (Department of Animal Biotechnology, Dankook University) ;
  • Juyoun Kang (Department of Animal Biotechnology, Dankook University) ;
  • Haram Kim (Department of Animal Biotechnology, Dankook University) ;
  • Yeongjae Chae (Department of Animal Biotechnology, Dankook University) ;
  • Eun Sol Kim (Department of Animal Biotechnology, Dankook University) ;
  • Minho Song (Division of Animal and Dairy Science, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Hyeun Bum Kim (Department of Animal Biotechnology, Dankook University)
  • Received : 2024.08.03
  • Accepted : 2024.08.20
  • Published : 2024.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

A balanced intestinal microbiome controls intestinal bacterial diseases, helps regulate immunity, and digests and utilizes nutrients, ultimately having a positive effect on the productivity of industrial animals. Yeasts help in the digestion process by breaking down indigestible fibers and producing organic acids, vitamins, and minerals. In particular, polysaccharides such as beta-glucan and mannan-oligosaccharides, which are present in the cell wall of yeast, inhibit the adhesion of pathogens to the surface of the gastrointestinal tract and increase resistance to disease to help maintain and improve intestinal health. Among the yeast additives used in animal feed, Saccharomyces cerevisiae is one of the most commonly used probiotics. However, it does not naturally reside in the intestine, so if it is supplied in combination with other species of probiotics that can compensate for it, many benefits and synergies can be expected for pigs in terms of maintaining intestinal health such as supplementing the immune system and improving digestion. A number of previous studies have demonstrated that dietary complex probiotic supplementation has growth-promoting effects in pigs, suggesting that multiple strains of probiotics may be more effective than single strain probiotics due to their additive and synergistic effects. In practice, however, the effects of complex probiotics are not always consistent, and can be influenced by a variety of factors. Therefore, this review comprehensively examines and discusses the literature related to the effects of complex probiotics using Saccharomyces cerevisiae in pig production.

Keywords

INTRODUCTION

Gut health plays a crucial role in determining the overall health and welfare of pigs and their production performance through nutrient utilization [1–5]. Therefore, maximizing intestinal function is fundamentally important for successful livestock farming. Gut health encompasses various physiological functions, including nutrient digestion and absorption, physical and chemical immune systems, and a balanced microbial ecosystem [5,6]. However, pigs may face gut-related issues due to their diet, management, and living environment, which are often exacerbated by modern pig production systems [7–9]. Therefore, there is a lot of interest and various approaches to manage and improve intestinal health problems, and feed additives using them are continuously provided [10,11].

A balanced microbiome is an essential component of a healthy gut [12]. Previous studies have shown that probiotics, which are live microorganisms that confer favorable health benefits to the host when administered in adequate amounts, are a category of feed additives that can be used to replenish the gut microbial population while restoring the host’s immune system, primarily to the microorganisms and to the host. We have ample evidence that it may help improve gut health due to its specific biochemical interactions with and systemic integration into the host biology [13–16]. The bacterial strains most often used as probiotics are Bacillus, Lactobacillus, Enterococcus, Streptococcus, Saccharomyces cerevisiae (S. cerevisiae), and Aspergillus spp. [17–19]. Unlike Lactobacillus and Enterococcus, S. cerevisiae is not a natural host of gut microorganisms in monogastric animals such as pigs. Thus, S. cerevisiae flows along the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) as alive and active without adhering to its walls [20]. Strains lacking the ability to adhere to the intestinal epithelium are effective as biological regulators, and their efficacy varies depending on their ability to form colonies through various mechanisms [21]. A synergistic effect can be obtained as complex probiotics by combining useful microorganisms and S. cerevisiae in the intestines (Table 1). It has been suggested that multiple strains of probiotics may be more effective than single strain probiotics due to their additive and synergistic effects [22,23], and many previous studies have demonstrated that dietary complex probiotic supplementation has growth-promoting effects in pigs [24,25]. A complex probiotic supplement contains various strains of beneficial microorganisms and is a health supplement. These strains have similar properties to the bacteria naturally occurring in the digestive system of humans or animals and can provide many health benefits. Wang et al. [26] reported that the administration of a complex probiotic supplement to nursing piglets improved their growth rate, enhanced nutrient digestibility, and had a positive effect on the microbial population of their feces as well as reducing odor emissions. Furthermore, Kang et al. [27] reported that the administration of probiotics not only improved nutrient digestibility leading to increased growth in pigs, but also positively modulated the microbial population within the intestinal tract. In practice, however, the effectiveness of complex probiotics is not always consistent, and the effectiveness of probiotics can be influenced by strain composition, dosage, feed formula, environment, sanitation, and age of the animal [28–30]. In this review, we will discuss the effect of a complex probiotic with S. cerevisiae, which is primarily used as a probiotic.

Table 1. Positive effects of complex probiotics used in pigs

DMJGDA_2024_v66n5_876_6_t0001.png 이미지

B. subtilis, Bacillus subtilis; B. licheniformis, Bacillus licheniformis; S. cerevisiae, Saccharomyces cerevisiae; ADG, average daily gain; L. acidophilus, Lactobacillus acidophilus; A. oryzae, Aspergillus oryzae; DM, dry matter; E. coli, Escherichia coli; FCR, feed conversion ratio; E. faecium, Enterococcus faecium; VFA, volatile fatty acid; IgG, immunoglobulin G; L. fermentum, Limosilactobacillus fermentum; L. plantarum, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum; L. casei, Lacticaseibacillus casei.

Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Yeasts are known to have soluble proteins, vitamin B complexes and minerals, unknown growth factors, and produce enzymes such as amylase, galactosidase and phytase [31,32]. Today, yeast is used in a variety of fermentation processes and plays a vital role in many industries, including food, beverage, pharmaceuticals, and commercial enzyme production [33]. Among them, it is attracting attention as probiotics for improving the intestinal environment, preventing and treating diarrhea, and its use is increasing in the livestock industry. A yeast additive commonly used in animal feed is S. cerevisiae, which is known to have positive effects on both ruminants and non-ruminants [30,32]. In ruminants, S. cerevisiae has been reported to increase feed efficiency and improve milk production and milk quality [34]. In non-ruminants, the addition of S. cerevisiae has been reported to improve piglet productivity [35–38] and increase resistance to enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) F4 or Salmonella infection [39,40]. These results suggest that S. cerevisiae improves fiber digestibility, produces antibacterial compounds, stimulates the immune system, inhibits the growth of pathogens, and improves intestinal morphology and structure in animals, ultimately contributing to improved productivity [21,33,41,42].

S. cerevisiae is effective as a biological regulator due to its strong acid resistance, excellent ability to reach the intestine, and ability to maintain activity without adhering to the intestinal wall [30]. In particular, S. cerevisiae has a proven immune modulatory ability [43–46]. Buts et al. [43] reported that including S. cerevisiae in pig feed has an impact on immune responses. Additionally, Qamar et al. [44] reported that S. cerevisiae in pig feed increases the activity of immunoglobulin M (IgM) and A (IgA) against pathogenic microorganisms, thereby enhancing mucosal immunity. It is understood that this reason is due to polysaccharides such as β-glucan and mannan-oligosaccharides in the cell wall of S. cerevisiae [47,48]. β-Glucan is believed to be associated with immune system stimulation and is thought to enhance immune responses [49–51]. Mannan in particular contributes to various biological functions by inhibiting pathogen attachment to the mucosal surface of the GIT, thereby aiding in infection prevention and maintaining intestinal health [50,52–55]. Additionally, the proteins present in the cell wall of S. cerevisiae interact with the pig’s intestinal environment, giving it properties that allow it to participate in cell signaling and immune system regulation in pigs [56,57].

These mechanisms collectively enhance gut development and function and regulate the balance of gut microbiota (Fig. 1). Additionally, organic acids such as lactic acid and acetic acid produced by the addition of yeast reduce intestinal pH, creating a more favorable environment for the innate gut microbiome and reducing the potential for pathogen colonization [58]. Therefore, the combination of intestinal beneficial bacteria and S. cerevisiae is expected to produce a synergistic effect as complex probiotics.

DMJGDA_2024_v66n5_876_4_f0001.png 이미지

Fig. 1. Overview on the mechanism of actions of complex probiotics in pig production. Adapted from Servier Medical Art [111] with CC-BY and Freepik [114] with attribution as required by the copyright holder.

APPLICATIONS AND BIOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS OF MULTI-STRAIN PROBIOTICS CONTAINING SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE

Pig growth performance

Previous studies have reported positive effects on growth when administering a complex probiotic containing S. cerevisiae to pigs (Table 1). Lu et al. [59] reported that feed efficiency and average daily gain (ADG) were significantly improved when pigs were fed complex probiotics for 3 weeks. Choi et al. [60–62] also found that the growth of piglets receiving the complex probiotic (L. acidophilus 4.0 × 108 CFU/g, B. subtilis 4.8 × 109 CFU/g and S. cerevisiae 1.0 × 107 CFU/g) improved to a similar level as the antibiotic-treated group. Sampath et al. [63] also reported improved growth in piglets fed a low-density diet when supplemented with the complex probiotic (1.5 × 109 CFU/g of Bacillus subtilis ms1, 1.5 × 109 CFU/g of B. licheniformis SF5- 1 and 1.5 × 109 CFU/g of S. cerevisiae). Previous studies of growing and finishing pigs also reported that supplementing pigs with a complex probiotic improved ADG and feed efficiency [18,64,65]. Wang et al. [66] reported that supplementing growing pigs fed a low-density diet with a complex probiotic (1.5 × 109 CFU/g of B. subtilis ms1, 1.5 × 109 CFU/g of B. licheniformis SF5- 1 and 1.5 × 109 CFU/g of S. cerevisiae) resulted in their growth being similar to the group fed a high-density diet. However, Ko and Yang [67] reported that there was no difference in the growth of pigs fed with yeast-containing complex microorganisms compared to the control group. The reason for the conflicting results could be due to differences in the combination of different probiotics [23], but could also be explained by differences in growth phase of the animals [68]. According to results of Giang [69], Giang et al. [70], the effect of probiotics decreased with increasing age.

Processing methods, as well as combinations of complex probiotic strains, may have different efficacy in pig growth, as their success in providing beneficial effects to the host depends on their ability to withstand thermal, osmotic, and oxygen stressors during processing and storage. In addition, Ross et al. [71] reported that the strain’s vitality under thermal and oxygen stressors during processing and storage determines its potency. In a study by Choi et al. [60] differences in growth occurred in pigs fed the same combination of probiotics produced at different drying temperatures. As such, the efficacy for pig growth may vary depending on the processing method. To and Etzel [72] reported that general freeze-drying or spray-drying caused microbial cell damage and death, reducing efficacy and Choi et al. [61] reported that the solid fermentation method had better performance and nutrient retention of probiotics than liquid fermentation. In addition, Liu et al. [18] reported that even if the same complex probiotics were supplemented, there was a difference in efficacy depending on the feed fed.

Digestibility

In addition to growth promoting properties, it has been well documented that probiotics also exert positive effect on nutrient digestibility. For instance, previous studies proved that dietary complex probiotics supplementation could enhance the apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of dry matter and gross energy in weaning pigs [60,73]. Another study reported that dietary complex probiotics (L. acidophilus 4.0 × 108 CFU/g, B. subtilis 4.8 × 109 CFU/g and S. cerevisiae 1.0 × 107 CFU/g) supplementation stimulated the ATTD of nitrogen in weaning pigs [60]. When Hu et al. [74] evaluated the digestibility of energy, crude protein, calcium, and phosphorus in the complex probiotics (L. fermentum, S. cerevisiae and B. subtilis) fed group compared to the control group during the entire growth period of pigs from weaning to finishing, it was confirmed that protein digestibility was improved only during the fattening period. Regarding these results, Kim et al. [73] described that the digestive system of young pigs was insufficiently developed, the enzyme secretion activity was low, and the microflora was unstable compared to adult pigs, so the digestibility improvement effect through probiotic feeding was shown only in young pigs. As such, enzyme production by probiotic microorganisms contributes to improved nutrient ATTD in pigs due to probiotic treatment. Aguilar et al. [75] reported higher amounts of certain enzymes or organic acids produced from solid fermentation than those obtained from liquid fermentation. Undigested protein weakens the intestinal wall and is a major cause of diarrhea, but protein hydrolyzed by microbial enzymes into free amino acids and smaller soluble forms is easier to digest than insoluble protein [76]. According to Tonheim et al. [77], solid fermentation of complex lactic acid bacteria increased water-soluble protein compared to liquid fermentation, and it was observed that there was a difference in protein digestibility depending on the processing method.

Porcine gut microflora

Maintaining a healthy gut is important for pigs to efficiently digest and absorb dietary nutrients. The gut microbiome, an essential component of a healthy gut, forms a complex ecosystem and plays a crucial role in preventing diarrhea and disease by developing appropriate intestinal architecture and an effective immune system in a symbiotic relationship with the host [2,78,79]. Disruption of the gut microbiome may increase the risk of diarrhea. Probiotics are known to help balance the gut of the host by creating microbiological conditions in the gut, suppressing harmful microbes and favoring beneficial microbes [80]. Probiotics can secrete organic acids, such as lactic acid and acetic acid, which lower the gut pH and competitively exclude pathogenic bacteria through high affinity for nutrients or attachment sites in the intestine [81]. This creates a favorable environment for the native gut microbial community and reduces the possibility of pathogenic colonization [58]. Additionally, some probiotics, like S. cerevisiae, can metabolize or assist in the detoxification of specific inhibitory compounds, such as amines or nitrates, and remove essential oxygen from the anaerobic gut ecosystem [82]. These mechanisms explain the effects of probiotics in regulating the gut microbial balance.

In pigs fed probiotics, the Lactobacillus/Coliform ratio, commonly considered an indicator of gut health, is improved [83,84]. Choi et al. [61] reported that a complex probiotics preparation (L. acidophilus 4.0 × 108 CFU/g, B. subtilis 4.8 × 109 CFU/g and S. cerevisiae 1.0 × 107 CFU/g) was effective in reducing the coliform and Clostridium and improving the Lactobacillus spp. population in the ileum and Bifidobacterium spp. population in the cecum of weaning pigs. Choi et al. [62] similarly reported that dietary multi-species probiotics (L. acidophilus 4.0 × 108 CFU/g, B. subtilis 4.8 × 109 CFU/g and S. cerevisiae 1.0 × 104 CFU/g) improved cecal Lactobacillus spp. populations, but reduced the cecal E. coli counts in weaning pigs (d 28). Kim et al. [85] also found higher levels of Lactobacillus spp. in the ileum of pigs fed a diet supplemented with complex probiotics.

Czech et al. [86] reported that the combined use of S. cerevisiae with probiotics showed a significantly greater impact on reducing the total colonic bacteria compared to using typical probiotics alone. This is because S. cerevisiae can produce antibacterial substances and exerts antagonistic effects against several bacterial pathogens, including E. coli [41,42]. Additionally, the complex structure of the cell wall of S. cerevisiae and mannan bind to toxins released by pathogenic bacteria, detoxifying them and excreting them out of the body [87,88]. The production of antibacterial substances and the structural characteristics of S. cerevisiae play an important role in reducing the number of pathogens in the intestinal tract and creating an environment in which beneficial bacteria can dominate [89,90]. The biodiversity and stability of the gut microbial ecosystem not only benefits animal nutrient utilization but also animal health and productivity performance [91,92].

Intestinal morphology and barrier integrity

Reducing the number of pathogenic bacteria in the gut can improve the proliferation of epithelial cells to form villi, thus improving intestinal morphology [93]. The villus height and crypt depth, which are the structures of the intestinal mucosa, serve as indirect indicators of intestinal health, specifically reflecting the maturity of intestinal development and functional capacity [11,60,85]. Longer villi are associated with increased nutrient absorption and utilization [31,94]. In the studies by Choi et al. [60,61] weanling piglets fed a complex of L. acidophilus, B. subtilis, and S. cerevisiae showed no difference in villous structure. However, in the study by Choi et al. [62], villus height and crypt depth increased in the duodenum, jejunum, and ileum.

Pan et al. [93] administered a conjugated probiotic to ETEC K88 challenged pigs and evaluated its efficacy on intestinal morphology and permeability. Pigs challenged with ETEC K88 showed severe villus atrophy and a decrease in the villus height to crypt depth ratio. However, feeding complex probiotics to pigs challenged with ETEC K88 mitigated the negative effects of the challenge on intestinal morphology, and there were no significant differences compared to the non-challenged and antibiotic-treated groups. ETEC colonizes the small intestine and releases enterotoxins, impairing intestinal barrier function and increasing intestinal permeability. This can indirectly lead to fluid loss and facilitate the invasion of pathogenic bacteria [95,96]. When the intestinal barrier is damaged, the permeability of toxins such as endotoxins and lipopolysaccharides from Gram-negative bacterial cell walls into the bloodstream increases [97]. Additionally, the serum diamine oxidase levels also increase [98]. Pigs challenged with ECEC and supplemented with complex probiotics showed significantly lower levels of serum diamine oxidase and endotoxin compared to the control group (p < 0.05). Additionally, there was a significant increase (p < 0.05) in the amount of occludin protein, a component of tight junctions, indicating that complex probiotics improved intestinal permeability and enhanced tight junction integrity. These positive changes in small intestine morphology contribute to improved intestinal health and performance, greater ability to absorb nutrients, and prevention of diarrhea [99–101].

Immune modulation

In addition to its function in nutrient digestion and absorption, the GIT of pigs also plays a crucial role in maintaining immune homeostasis. The gut is considered the largest immune organ in the body, accounting for over 70% of the body’s immune cells [102–104].

Previous studies have reported positive immunomodulatory effects of complex probiotics containing S. cerevisiae when fed to pigs. In the research by Czech et al. [86], the use of S. cerevisiae or a combination probiotic containing S. cerevisiae led to a decrease in the number of neutrophil granulocytes and eosinophils, while increasing the number of lymphocytes and immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels. In the study by Phaengphairee et al. [105], the efficacy of complex probiotics containing S. cerevisiae on immune and antioxidant stress markers in weaning pigs was evaluated, and similar results were observed. Pigs supplemented with complex probiotics containing S. cerevisiae showed a decrease in the pro-inflammatory cytokine tumor necrosis factor-alpha compared to the control group. Additionally, the levels of IgG and antioxidant enzymes, such as superoxide dismutase and glutathione peroxidase, increased in the probiotic-supplemented group compared to the control group. However, there were no significant differences in IgM, interleukin-6, and total antioxidant capacity compared to the control group.

Pan et al. [93] reported that feeding conjugated probiotics to ETEC K88-infected pigs increased ileal and jejunal secretory IgA (sIgA) secretion. The sIgA serves as a local immune system in the intestinal mucosal barrier, acting as a primary defense mechanism to limit the access of intestinal antigens to the bloodstream and control intestinal microorganisms [106,107]. These findings suggest that complex probiotics improve gut mucosal resistance against ETEC infection. Thus, an activated defense system can effectively block infections and invasions by pathogens.

Pork quality

When pigs are supplemented with complex probiotics, there have been reports of additional benefits beyond productivity and intestinal health. In a study by Ko and Yang [67], reported that feeding pigs with green tea probiotics containing L. acidophilus 3.2×108 CFU/g, L. plantarum 2.2×108 CFU/g, B. subtilis 4.5×109 CFU/g and S. cerevisiae 5.2×108 CFU/g reported in a significant reduction of thiobarbituric acid reactive substance (TBARS) value in loin meat. Liu et al. [18] suggested that the beneficial effects of the observed complex probiotics on meat quality in the above study are likely due to the probiotics’ antioxidant properties.

Kim et al. [108] reported that supplementation of finishing pigs’ diets with complex probiotics containing S. cerevisiae resulted in reduced drip loss and increased meat redness (a*). Similarly, Liu et al. [109] found that supplementation of probiotics reduced drip loss and cooking loss in pork, but had no significant effect on meat color, pH, and shear force. However, in contrast, Rybarczyk et al. [110] reported that pigs supplemented with probiotics showed lower pH (24 hours post-mortem), increased drip and cooking loss, decreased juiciness and tenderness of the longissimus lumborum muscle, and increased shear force. Further investigation is needed to confirm the efficacy of complex probiotics containing yeast on inconsistent meat quality and to elucidate the underlying mechanisms.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the data from previous studies indicate that the use of S. cerevisiae complex probiotics can enhance the productivity in pigs. In general, supplementing swine diets with probiotics has given more positive and consistent effects in weaned piglets than in growing or finishing pigs, which may be due to their inducing better digestibility of feed, improved immunity, and increased resistance to intestinal disorders than young pigs.

The beneficial effects of S. cerevisiae complex probiotics are associated with various mechanisms, including immune modulation, competitive exclusion of pathogenic bacteria, toxin adsorption, and regulation of the gut microbiota. However, the effectiveness of complex probiotics may not always be consistent, as it can be influenced by factors such as the composition of mixed strains, dosage, feed formulation, and the age and health status of the animals. Therefore, more research is needed to explore the efficacy of complex probiotics in pigs.

References

  1. Kogut MH, Arsenault RJ. Editorial: gut health: the new paradigm in food animal production. Front Vet Sci. 2016;3:71. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2016.00071
  2. Liao SF, Nyachoti M. Using probiotics to improve swine gut health and nutrient utilization. Anim Nutr. 2017;3:331-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2017.06.007
  3. Ducatelle R, Goossens E, De Meyer F, Eeckhaut V, Antonissen G, Haesebrouck F, et al. Biomarkers for monitoring intestinal health in poultry: present status and future perspectives. Vet Res. 2018;49:43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-018-0538-6
  4. Pluske JR, Turpin DL, Kim JC. Gastrointestinal tract (gut) health in the young pig. Anim Nutr. 2018;4:187-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2017.12.004
  5. Yang Z, Liao SF. Physiological effects of dietary amino acids on gut health and functions of swine. Front Vet Sci. 2019;6:169. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00169
  6. Kogut MH, Zhang G. Gut microbiota, immunity, and health in production animals. Cham: Springer; 2022.
  7. Suryanarayana MVAN, Sreedhar S, Babu BJ. Interactive effect of prebiotic (oligofructose) and probiotic (saccharomyces) feed additives on nutrient utilization, growth, feed conversion, and faecal microbiota population in pigs. Anim Sci Rep. 2013;7:107-13.
  8. Peng J, Tang Y, Huang Y. Gut health: the results of microbial and mucosal immune interactions in pigs. Anim Nutr. 2021;7:282-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2021.01.001
  9. Szabo C, Kachungwa Lugata J, Ortega ADSV. Gut health and influencing factors in pigs. Animals. 2023;13:1-28. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13081350
  10. Tuohy KM, Rouzaud GCM, Bruck WM, Gibson GR. Modulation of the human gut microflora towards improved health using prebiotics - assessment of efficacy. Curr Pharm Des. 2005;11:75-90. https://doi.org/10.2174/1381612053382331
  11. Patil AK, Kumar S, Verma AK, Baghel RPS. Probiotics as feed additives in weaned pigs: a review. Livest Res Int. 2015;3:31-9.
  12. Liao SF. Invited review: maintain or improve piglet gut health around weanling: the fundamental effects of dietary amino acids. Animals. 2021;11:1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11041110
  13. Choct M. Managing gut health through nutrition. Br Poult Sci. 2009;50:9-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660802538632
  14. de Lange CFM, Pluske J, Gong J, Nyachoti CM. Strategic use of feed ingredients and feed additives to stimulate gut health and development in young pigs. Livest Sci. 2010;134:124-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.06.117
  15. Kim S, Choi J, Kim ES, Keum GB, Doo H, Kwak J, et al. Assessing the relationship between muscle-to-fat ratio in pork belly and boston butt using magnetic resonance imaging. Korean J Agric Sci. 2024;51:187-92. https://doi.org/10.7744/kjoas.510209
  16. Keum GB, Pandey S, Kim ES, Doo H, Kwak J, Ryu S, et al. Understanding the diversity and roles of the ruminal microbiome. J Microbiol. 2024;62:217-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12275-024-00121-4
  17. Shim YH, Shinde PL, Choi JY, Kim JS, Seo DK, Pak JI, et al. Evaluation of multi-microbial probiotics produced by submerged liquid and solid substrate fermentation methods in broilers. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2010;23:521-9. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2010.90446
  18. Liu WC, Ye M, Liao JH, Zhao ZH, Kim IH, An LL, et al. Application of complex probiotics in swine nutrition - a review. Ann Anim Sci. 2018;18:335-50. https://doi.org/10.2478/aoas2018-0005
  19. Zhang Y, Zhang Y, Liu F, Mao Y, Zhang Y, Zeng H, et al. Mechanisms and applications of probiotics in prevention and treatment of swine diseases. Porcine Health Manag 2023;9:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-022-00295-6
  20. Auclair E. Yeast as an example of the mode of action of probiotics in monogastric and ruminant species. In: Brutau J, editor. Feed manufacturing in the mediterranean region. Improving safety: from feed to food. Zaragoza: CIHEAM; 2001. p. 45-53.
  21. Suarez C, Guevara CA. Probiotic use of yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae in animal feed. Res J Zool. 2018;1:1000103.
  22. Kwoji ID, Aiyegoro OA, Okpeku M, Adeleke MA. Multi-strain probiotics: synergy among isolates enhances biological activities. Biology. 2021;10:1-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10040322
  23. Lambo MT, Chang X, Liu D. The recent trend in the use of multistrain probiotics in livestock production: an overview. Animals. 2021;11:1-15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11102805
  24. Fuller R. Probiotics in man and animals. J Appl Bacteriol. 1989;66:365-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.1989.tb05105.x
  25. Timmerman HM, Koning CJM, Mulder L, Rombouts FM, Beynen AC. Monostrain, multistrain and multispecies probiotics: a comparison of functionality and efficacy. Int J Food Microbiol. 2004;96:219-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2004.05.012
  26. Wang H, Yu SJ, Kim IH. Evaluation on the growth performance, nutrient digestibility, faecal microbiota, noxious gas emission, and faecal score on weaning pigs supplement with and without probiotics complex supplementation in different level of zinc oxide. Animals. 2023;13:1-10. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13030381
  27. Kang J, Lee JJ, Cho JH, Choe J, Kyoung H, Kim SH, et al. Effects of dietary inactivated probiotics on growth performance and immune responses of weaned pigs. J Anim Sci Technol. 2021;63:520-30. https://doi.org/10.5187/jast.2021.e44
  28. Wagner DG, Quinonez J, Bush LJ. The effect of corn- or wheat-based diets and yeast culture on performance, ruminal pH, and volatile fatty acids in dairy calves. Agri Practice. 1990;11:7-9,11,12.
  29. Lessard M, Dupuis M, Gagnon N, Nadeau E, Matte JJ, Goulet J, et al. Administration of Pediococcus acidilactici or Saccharomyces cerevisiae boulardii modulates development of porcine mucosal immunity and reduces intestinal bacterial translocation after Escherichia coli challenge. J Anim Sci. 2009;87:922-34. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-0919
  30. Elghandour MMY, Tan ZL, Abu Hafsa SH, Adegbeye MJ, Greiner R, Ugbogu EA, et al. Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a probiotic feed additive to non and pseudo-ruminant feeding: a review. J Appl Microbiol. 2020;128:658-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.14416
  31. Alugongo GM, Xiao J, Wu Z, Li S, Wang Y, Cao Z. Review: utilization of yeast of Saccharomyces cerevisiae origin in artificially raised calves. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2017;8:34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-017-0165-5
  32. Ogbuewu IP, Okoro VM, Mbajiorgu EF, Mbajiorgu CA. Yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) and its effect on production indices of livestock and poultry-a review. Comp Clin Pathol 2019;28:669-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00580-018-2862-7
  33. Vohra A, Syal P, Madan A. Probiotic yeasts in livestock sector. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2016;219:31-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.05.019
  34. Desnoyers M, Giger-Reverdin S, Bertin G, Duvaux-Ponter C, Sauvant D. Meta-analysis of the influence of Saccharomyces cerevisiae supplementation on ruminal parameters and milk production of ruminants. J Dairy Sci. 2009;92:1620-32. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1414
  35. Mathew AG, Chattin SE, Robbins CM, Golden DA. Effects of a direct-fed yeast culture on enteric microbial populations, fermentation acids, and performance of weanling pigs. J Anim Sci. 1998;76:2138-45. https://doi.org/10.2527/1998.7682138x
  36. van Heugten E, Funderburke DW, Dorton KL. Growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and fecal microflora in weanling pigs fed live yeast. J Anim Sci. 2003;81:1004-12. https://doi.org/10.2527/2003.8141004x
  37. Shen YB, Piao XS, Kim SW, Wang L, Liu P, Yoon I, et al. Effects of yeast culture supplementation on growth performance, intestinal health, and immune response of nursery pigs. J Anim Sci. 2009;87:2614-24. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-1512
  38. Li J, Li D, Gong L, Ma Y, He Y, Zhai H. Effects of live yeast on the performance, nutrient digestibility, gastrointestinal microbiota and concentration of volatile fatty acids in weanling pigs. Arch Anim Nutr. 2006;60:277-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450390600785343
  39. Price KL, Totty HR, Lee HB, Utt MD, Fitzner GE, Yoon I, et al. Use of Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product on growth performance and microbiota of weaned pigs during Salmonella infection. J Anim Sci. 2010;88:3896-908. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2009-2728
  40. Trevisi P, Latorre R, Priori D, Luise D, Archetti I, Mazzoni M, et al. Effect of feed supplementation with live yeast on the intestinal transcriptome profile of weaning pigs orally challenged with Escherichia coli F4. Animal. 2017;11:33-44. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731116001178
  41. Spriet SM, Decuypere JA, Henderickx HK. Effect of Bacillus toyoi (Toyocerin) on the gastro intestinal microflora, concentration of some bacterial metabolites, digestibility of the nutrients and the small intestinal mean retention time in pigs. In Proceedings of First Forum for Applied Biotechnology; 1987; Gent, Belgium. p.1673-83.
  42. Czerucka D, Rampal P. Experimental effects of Saccharomyces boulardii on diarrheal pathogens. Microbes Infect. 2002;4:733-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1286-4579(02)01592-7
  43. Buts JP, Bernasconi P, Van Craynest MP, Maldague P, De Meyer R. Response of human and rat small intestinal mucosa to oral administration of Saccharomyces boulardii. Pediatr Res. 1986;20:192-6. https://doi.org/10.1203/00006450-198602000-00020
  44. Qamar A, Aboudola S, Warny M, Michetti P, Pothoulakis C, LaMont JT, et al. Saccharomyces boulardii stimulates intestinal immunoglobulin a immune response to Clostridium difficile toxin A in mice. Infect Immun. 2001;69:2762-5. https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.69.4.2762-2765.2001
  45. Majtan J, Kogan G, Kovacova E, Bilikova K, Simuth J. Stimulation of TNF-α release by fungal cell wall polysaccharides. Z Naturforsch C J Biosci. 2005;60:921-6. https://doi.org/10.1515/znc-2005-11-1216
  46. Broadway PR, Carroll JA, Sanchez NCB. Live yeast and yeast cell wall supplements enhance immune function and performance in food-producing livestock: a review. Microorganisms. 2015;3:417-27. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms3030417
  47. Ruiz-Herrera J. Fungal cell wall: structure, synthesis, and assembly. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1991.
  48. Li J, Li DF, Xing JJ, Cheng ZB, Lai CH. Effects of β-glucan extracted from Saccharomyces cerevisiae on growth performance, and immunological and somatotropic responses of pigs challenged with Escherichia coli lipopolysaccharide. J Anim Sci. 2006;84:2374-81. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2004-541
  49. Song M, di Luzio NR. Yeast glucan and immunotherapy of infectious diseases. Front Biol. 1979;48:533-47.
  50. Kogan G, Kocher A. Role of yeast cell wall polysaccharides in pig nutrition and health protection. Livest Sci. 2007;109:161-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.01.134
  51. Volman JJ, Ramakers JD, Plat J. Dietary modulation of immune function by β-glucans. Physiol Behav. 2008;94:276-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.11.045
  52. Ofek I, Mirelman D, Sharon N. Adherence of Escherichia coli to human mucosal cells mediated by mannose receptors. Nature. 1977;265:623-5. https://doi.org/10.1038/265623a0
  53. Gedek BR. Interaktionen zwischen lebenden Hefezellen und darmpathogenen Escherichiacoli-Keimen. In: Muller J, Ottenjann R, Seifert J, editors. Okosystem darm: morphologie, mikrobiologie, immunologie klinik und therapie akuter und chronischer entzundlicher Darmerkrankungen. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1989. p. 135-9.
  54. Castagliuolo I, Riegler MF, Valenick L, LaMont JT, Pothoulakis C. Saccharomyces boulardii protease inhibits the effects of Clostridium difficile toxins A and B in human colonic mucosa. Infect Immun. 1999;67:302-7. https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.67.1.302-307.1999
  55. Davis ME, Maxwell CV, Erf GF, Brown DC, Wistuba TJ. Dietary supplementation with phosphorylated mannans improves growth response and modulates immune function of weanling pigs. J Anim Sci. 2004;82:1882-91. https://doi.org/10.2527/2004.8261882x
  56. Zanello G, Berri M, Dupont J, Sizaret PY, D'Inca R, Salmon H, et al. Saccharomyces cerevisiae modulates immune gene expressions and inhibits ETEC-mediated ERK1/2 and p38 signaling pathways in intestinal epithelial cells. PLOS ONE. 2011;6:e18573. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0018573
  57. Trevisi P, Colombo M, Priori D, Fontanesi L, Galimberti G, Calo G, et al. Comparison of three patterns of feed supplementation with live Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast on postweaning diarrhea, health status, and blood metabolic profile of susceptible weaning pigs orally challenged with Escherichia coli F4ac. J Anim Sci. 2015;93:2225-33. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2014-8539
  58. Servin AL, Coconnier MH. Adhesion of probiotic strains to the intestinal mucosa and interaction with pathogens. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2003;17:741-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1521-6918(03)00052-0
  59. Lu X, Zhang M, Zhao L, Ge K, Wang Z, Jun L, et al. Growth performance and post-weaning diarrhea in piglets fed a diet supplemented with probiotic complexes. J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2018;28:1791-9. https://doi.org/10.4014/jmb.1807.07026
  60. Choi JY, Kim JS, Ingale SL, Kim KH, Shinde PL, Kwon IK, et al. Effect of potential multimicrobe probiotic product processed by high drying temperature and antibiotic on performance of weanling pigs. J Anim Sci. 2011;89:1795-804. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2009-2794
  61. Choi JY, Shinde PL, Ingale SL, Kim JS, Kim YW, Kim KH, et al. Evaluation of multi-microbe probiotics prepared by submerged liquid or solid substrate fermentation and antibiotics in weaning pigs. Livest Sci. 2011;138:144-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.12.015
  62. Choi Y, Goel A, Hosseindoust A, Lee S, Kim K, Jeon S, et al. Effects of dietary supplementation of Ecklonia cava with or without probiotics on the growth performance, nutrient digestibility, immunity and intestinal health in weanling pigs. Ital J Anim Sci. 2016;15:62-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2015.1128685
  63. Sampath V, Duk Ha B, Kibria S, Kim IH. Effect of low-nutrient-density diet with probiotic mixture (Bacillus subtilis ms1, B. Licheniformis SF5-1, and Saccharomyces cerevisiae) supplementation on performance of weaner pigs. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr. 2022;106:61-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.13544
  64. Chen YJ, Min BJ, Cho JH, Kwon OS, Son KS, Kim HJ, et al. Effects of dietary bacillus-based probiotic on growth performance, nutrients digestibility, blood characteristics and fecal noxious gas content in finishing pigs. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2006;19:587-92. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2006.587
  65. Hung ATY, Su TM, Liao CW, Lu JJ. Effect of probiotic combination fermented soybean meal on growth performance, lipid metabolism and immunological response of growing-finishing pigs. Asian J Anim Vet Adv. 2008;3:431-6. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajava.2008.431.436
  66. Wang H, Ha BD, Kim IH. Effects of probiotics complex supplementation in low nutrient density diet on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, faecal microbial, and faecal noxious gas emission in growing pigs. Ital J Anim Sci. 2021;20:163-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2020.1801358
  67. Ko SY, Yang CJ. Effect of green tea probiotics on the growth performance, meat quality and immune response in finishing pigs. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2008;21:1339-47. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2008.70597
  68. Pollmann DS, Danielson DM, Peo ER Jr. Effects of microbial feed additives on performance of starter and growing-finishing pigs. J Anim Sci. 1980;51:577-81. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1980.513577x
  69. Giang HH. Impact of bacteria and yeast with probiotic properties on performance, digestibility, health status and gut environment of growing pigs in Vietnam [Ph.D. dissertation]. Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; 2010.
  70. Giang HH, Viet TQ, Ogle B, Lindberg JE. Effects of supplementation of probiotics on the performance, nutrient digestibility and faecal microflora in growing-finishing pigs. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2011;24:655-61. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2011.10238
  71. Ross RP, Desmond C, Fitzgerald GF, Stanton C. Overcoming the technological hurdles in the development of probiotic foods. J Appl Microbiol. 2005;98:1410-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2005.02654.x
  72. To BCS, Etzel MR. Survival of Brevibacterium linens (ATCC 9174) after spray drying, freeze drying, or freezing. J Food Sci. 1997;62:167-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1997.tb04392.x
  73. Kim DW, Choi YH, Kim JE, Cho ES, Jung HJ, Oh SM, et al. Effects of complex probiotic supplementation on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, blood metabolites, noxious gas and fecal microflora in weaning pigs. J Korea Acad Ind Coop Soc. 2020;21:266-73. https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2020.21.5.266
  74. Hu J, Lu W, Wang C, Zhu R, Qiao J. Characteristics of solid-state fermented feed and its effects on performance and nutrient digestibility in growing-finishing pigs. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2008;21:1635-41. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2008.80032
  75. Aguilar CN, Contreras-Esquivel JC, Rodriguez R, Prado LA, Loera O. Differences in fungal enzyme productivity in submerged and solid state cultures. Food Sci Biotechnol. 2004;13:109-13.
  76. Diether NE, Willing BP. Microbial fermentation of dietary protein: an important factor in diet-microbe-host interaction. Microorganisms. 2019;7:19. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms7010019
  77. Tonheim SK, Nordgreen A, Hogoy I, Hamre K, Ronnestad I. In vitro digestibility of water-soluble and water-insoluble protein fractions of some common fish larval feeds and feed ingredients. Aquaculture. 2007;262:426-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.10.030
  78. Fouhse JM, Zijlstra RT, Willing BP. The role of gut microbiota in the health and disease of pigs. Anim Front. 2016;6:30-6. https://doi.org/10.2527/af.2016-0031
  79. Swanson KS. From the editor: gut microbiota, diet, and health: application to livestock and companion animals. Anim Front. 2016;6:4-7. https://doi.org/10.2527/af.2016-0027
  80. Fuller R. Probiotics: the scientific basis. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media; 1992.
  81. Chaucheyras-Durand F, Durand H. Probiotics in animal nutrition and health. Benef Microbes. 2010;1:3-9. https://doi.org/10.3920/BM2008.1002
  82. Chaucheyras-Durand F, Walker ND, Bach A. Effects of active dry yeasts on the rumen microbial ecosystem: past, present and future. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2008;145:5-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2007.04.019
  83. Demeckova V, Kelly D, Coutts AGP, Brooks PH, Campbell A. The effect of fermented liquid feeding on the faecal microbiology and colostrum quality of farrowing sows. Int J Food Microbiol. 2002;79:85-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1605(02)00182-4
  84. Le Bon M, Davies HE, Glynn C, Thompson C, Madden M, Wiseman J, et al. Influence of probiotics on gut health in the weaned pig. Livest Sci. 2010;133:179-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.06.058
  85. Kim JS, Hosseindoust A, Lee SH, Choi YH, Kim MJ, Lee JH, et al. Bacteriophage cocktail and multi-strain probiotics in the feed for weanling pigs: effects on intestine morphology and targeted intestinal coliforms and Clostridium. Animal. 2017;11:45-53. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731116001166
  86. Czech A, Smolczyk A, Ognik K, Wlazlo L, Nowakowicz-Debek B, Kiesz M. Effect of dietary supplementation with Yarrowia lipolytica or Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast and probiotic additives on haematological parameters and the gut microbiota in piglets. Res Vet Sci. 2018;119:221-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2018.06.007
  87. Flickinger EA, Van Loo J, Fahey GC. Nutritional responses to the presence of inulin and oligofructose in the diets of domesticated animals: a review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2003;43:19-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408690390826446
  88. Giannenas I, Doukas D, Karamoutsios A, Tzora A, Bonos E, Skoufos I, et al. Effects of Enterococcus faecium, mannan oligosaccharide, benzoic acid and their mixture on growth performance, intestinal microbiota, intestinal morphology and blood lymphocyte subpopulations of fattening pigs. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2016;220:159-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.08.003
  89. Adewole DI, Kim IH, Nyachoti CM. Gut health of pigs: challenge models and response criteria with a critical analysis of the effectiveness of selected feed additives - a review. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2016;29:909-24. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.15.0795
  90. Broad A, Jones DEJ, Kirby JA. Toll-like receptor (TLR) response tolerance: a key physiological "damage limitation" effect and an important potential opportunity for therapy. Curr Med Chem. 2006;13:2487-502. https://doi.org/10.2174/092986706778201675
  91. Jensen BB. The impact of feed additives on the microbial ecology of the gut in young pigs. J Anim Feed Sci. 1998;7:45-64. https://doi.org/10.22358/jafs/69955/1998
  92. Lv CH, Wang T, Regmi N, Chen X, Huang K, Liao SF. Effects of dietary supplementation of selenium-enriched probiotics on production performance and intestinal microbiota of weanling piglets raised under high ambient temperature. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr. 2015;99:1161-71. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.12326
  93. Pan L, Zhao PF, Ma XK, Shang QH, Xu YT, Long SF, et al. Probiotic supplementation protects weaned pigs against enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli K88 challenge and improves performance similar to antibiotics. J Anim Sci. 2017;95:2627-39. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2016.1243
  94. Hampson DJ. Alterations in piglet small intestinal structure at weaning. Res Vet Sci. 1986;40:32-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0034-5288(18)30482-x
  95. Fairbrother JM, Nadeau E, Gyles CL. Escherichia coli in postweaning diarrhea in pigs: an update on bacterial types, pathogenesis, and prevention strategies. Anim Health Res Rev. 2005;6:17-39. https://doi.org/10.1079/AHR2005105
  96. Guttman JA, Li Y, Wickham ME, Deng W, Vogl AW, Finlay BB. Attaching and effacing pathogen-induced tight junction disruption in vivo. Cell Microbiol. 2006;8:634-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-5822.2005.00656.x
  97. Lambert GP. Stress-induced gastrointestinal barrier dysfunction and its inflammatory effects. J Anim Sci. 2009;87:E101-8. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-1339
  98. Zhao L, Luo L, Jia W, Xiao J, Huang G, Tian G, et al. Serum diamine oxidase as a hemorrhagic shock biomarker in a rabbit model. PLOS ONE. 2014;9:e102285. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102285
  99. Pluske JR, Hampson DJ, Williams IH. Factors influencing the structure and function of the small intestine in the weaned pig: a review. Livest Prod Sci. 1997;51:215-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(97)00057-2
  100. Moreto M, Perez-Bosque A. Dietary plasma proteins, the intestinal immune system, and the barrier functions of the intestinal mucosa. J Anim Sci. 2009;87:E92-100. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-1381
  101. Gao X, Wang X, Pham TH, Feuerbacher LA, Lubos ML, Huang M, et al. NleB, a bacterial effector with glycosyltransferase activity, targets GAPDH function to inhibit NF-κB activation. Cell Host Microbe. 2013;13:87-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2012.11.010
  102. Blikslager AT, Moeser AJ, Gookin JL, Jones SL, Odle J. Restoration of barrier function in injured intestinal mucosa. Physiol Rev. 2007;87:545-64. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00012.2006
  103. Mason KL, Huffnagle GB, Noverr MC, Kao JY. Overview of gut immunology. In: Huffnagle GB, Noverr MC, editors. GI microbiota and regulation of the immune system. New York, NY: Springer; 2008.
  104. Liu Y. Fatty acids, inflammation and intestinal health in pigs. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2015;6:41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-015-0040-1
  105. Phaengphairee P, Boontiam W, Wealleans A, Hong J, Kim YY. Dietary supplementation with full-fat Hermetia illucens larvae and multi-probiotics, as a substitute for antibiotics, improves the growth performance, gut health, and antioxidative capacity of weaned pigs. BMC Vet Res. 2023;19:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-022-03550-8
  106. Pabst O. New concepts in the generation and functions of IgA. Nat Rev Immunol. 2012;12:821-32. https://doi.org/10.1038/nri3322
  107. Huang J, Guerrero A, Parker E, Strum JS, Smilowitz JT, German JB, et al. Site-specific glycosylation of secretory immunoglobulin a from human colostrum. J Proteome Res. 2015;14:1335-49. https://doi.org/10.1021/pr500826q
  108. Kim KS, Lim JC, Shin MS, Choi YI, Lee SC. Effect of dietary combined probiotics (AnyLac, ®) supplementation contained with Phaffia rhodozyma on the growth performances and meat quality of pigs. J Anim Sci Technol. 2008;50:657-66. https://doi.org/10.5187/JAST.2008.50.5.657
  109. Liu T, Su B, Wang J, Zhang C, Shan A. Effects of probiotics on growth, pork quality and serum metabolites in growing-finishing pigs. J Northeast Agric Univ. 2013;20:57-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1006-8104(14)60048-9
  110. Rybarczyk A, Romanowski M, Karamucki T, Ligocki M. The effect of bokashi probiotic on pig carcass characteristics and meat quality. FleischWirtsch Int. 2016;1:74-7.
  111. Servier Medical Art. Smart Servier Medical Art [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 Aug 1]. https://smart.servier.com/2024
  112. Freepik. Graphic resources [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 Aug 1]. https://www.freepik.com/2024
  113. Kim KH, Ingale SL, Kim JS, Lee SH, Lee JH, Kwon IK, et al. Bacteriophage and probiotics both enhance the performance of growing pigs but bacteriophage are more effective. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2014;196:88-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2014.06.012