Abstract
This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of dietary mixture of protease and probiotics on growth performance, blood constituents, and carcass characteristics of growing-finishing pigs. A total of 48 growing pigs were randomly allotted into 2 dietary (6 pigs/pen; 4 replicates/treatment). The treatments were a diet based on corn and soybean meal (CON) and CON supplemented with 0.01% of dietary mixture of protease and probiotics (MULTI). No differences were found on growth performance (average daily gain, ADG; overall, 874.06 vs. 881.14 g/d; p > 0.05), blood constituents (white blood cell, WBC; phase I, 17.51 vs. 19.96 × 103 /μL; phase II, 19.65 vs. 21.95 × 103 /μL; p > 0.05), and carcass characteristics during overall experimental period between CON and MULTI. In conclusion, the addition of dietary mix-ture of protease and probiotics in growing-finishing pig diet did not have any beneficial effects.
Keywords: Blood constituents, Carcass characteristics, Growing-finishing pigs, Probiotics, Protease
Background
Addition of protease in pig diets is a way to improve protein utilization. The main mechanism of dietary protease is to increase the hydrolysis of proteins in the small intestine [1], resulting in liberating amino acids and peptides for utilization and absorption by pigs [2]. Previous studies showed that dietary protease in pig diets decreased the nitrogen (N) pollution by enhancing N digestibility of pigs and reducing N excretion of pigs [3–5]. In addition, enzyme cocktails including protease and other nutrient enzymes are commonly used in the swine industry to improve growth performance and nutrient utilization for pigs [6–14].
Probiotics are live microorganisms which have beneficial effects on the gut health of the host [15]. Moreover, probiotics for farm animals have positive effects on growth, gastrointestinal ecosystem, efficiency of feed utilization, immune system, or gastrointestinal tract diseases [16]. Probiotics may act directly on the host to enhance anti-pathogen defense line and to secrete certain probiotics agents that can adversely affect the survival of deleterious bacteria [17]. Most microorganisms used as probiotics are common intestinal microbes such as Bacillus, Lactobacillus, or Bifidobacterium species [18]. Previous studies reported that probiotics have beneficial effects on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and etc. for pigs [19–22].
Recently, the swine industry has been trying to make some dietary mixtures using enzymes and/or probiotics to have their beneficial effects all together. There are some studies to verify the effects of dietary mixtures of enzymes and probiotics [2,10,23,24], but the experimental evidence for their positive or negative effects in pig diets is limited. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate effects of dietary mixture of protease and probiotics on growth performance, blood constituents, and carcass characteristics of growing-finishing pigs.
Materials and Methods
The experimental protocol for this research was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use committee at the National Institute of Animal Science. This experiment was conducted at the facility of National Institute of Animal Science Farm.
Animal and experimental design
A total of 48 pigs (Landrace × Yorkshire × Duroc; 35.3 ± 0.69 kg of average initial body weight (BW); all barrows) were randomly assigned to 2 dietary treatments (6 pigs/pen; 4 replicates/treatment) in a completely randomized design. The treatments were a diet based on corn and soybean meal (CON) and CON supplemented with 0.01% of dietary mixture of protease and probiotics (MULTI). The MULTI used in this study was a commercial product (Syncra® SWI 201, Dupont feed enzyme and probiotics system, United Kingdom). The basal diet was formulated to meet or exceed the nutrient requirements of NRC (2012) for growing-finishing pigs (Table 1). The pigs were fed respective dietary treatments with a 2-phase feeding program for 12 weeks. Pigs were housed in conventional facilities with an all-slatted concrete floor (3.2 × 3.6 m2) and allowed ad libitum access to diets and water during the overall experimental period.
Table 1. Composition of basal diets for phase I and II (as-fed basis).
| Items | Phase I (grower) | Phase II (finisher) |
|---|---|---|
| Ingredient (%) | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| Corn (7.2%) | 62.83 | 62.66 |
| Soft wheat (11.5%) | – | 11.00 |
| Soybean meal (45%) | 28.35 | 19.72 |
| Animal fat | 3.07 | 1.84 |
| Molasses | 3.00 | 3.00 |
| Mono-dicalcium phosphate | 0.62 | 0.27 |
| Lime stone | 1.04 | 0.86 |
| Salt | 0.30 | 0.30 |
| L-Lysine (98%) | 0.25 | 0.02 |
| DL-Methionine (98%) | 0.06 | – |
| L-Tryptophan (20%) | 0.15 | – |
| Choline-chloride (50%) | 0.05 | 0.05 |
| Phytase | 0.05 | 0.05 |
| Vitamin-mineral premix1) | 0.23 | 0.23 |
| Calculated chemical composition | ||
| Metabolizable energy (kcal/kg) | 3,300.00 | 3,300.00 |
| Crude protein (%) | 18.00 | 15.00 |
| Total calcium (%) | 0.59 | 0.45 |
| Total phosphorus (%) | 0.50 | 0.41 |
| SID Lysine (%) | 0.89 | 0.66 |
| SID Methionine (%) | 0.34 | 0.25 |
| SID Methionine + Cysteine (%) | 0.65 | 0.53 |
| SID Tryptophan (%) | 0.19 | 0.13 |
The vitamin-mineral premix provided the following quantities of vitamins and minerals per kilogram of diets: vitamin A, 10,000 IU; vitamin D3, 2,000 IU; vitamin E, 250 IU; vitamin K3, 0.5 mg; vitamin B1, 0.49 mg as mononitrate; thiamin, 0.49 mg as thiamin mononitrate; riboflavin, 1.50 mg; pyridoxine, 1 mg as pyridoxine hydrochloride; vitamin B12, 0.01 mg; niacin, 10 mg as nicotinic acid; pantothenic acid, 5 mg as calcium pantothenate; folic acid, 1 mg; biotin as d-biotin, 0.1 mg; choline, 125 mg as choline chloride; Mn, 60 mg as manganese sulfate; Zn, 75 mg as zinc sulfate; Fe, 20 mg as ferrous sulfate; Cu, 3 mg as cupric sulfate; I, 1.25 mg as calcium iodate; Co, 0.5 mg as cobaltous carbonate; and Mg, 10 mg as magnesium oxide.
Data and sample collection and measurement
The pig BW and average daily feed intake (ADFI) were weighed and recorded at the starting day and end of each phase. The gain to feed ratio (G:F) was calculated using average daily gain (ADG) and ADFI. Blood samples were collected from the jugular vein of 2 pigs per replicate using 8 mL EDTA tubes. The blood samples were analyzed to measure number of white blood cells and proportions of their differentiation using a multi-parameter automated hematology analyzer calibrated for porcine blood (Hemavet 950FS, Drew Scientific, UK).
Slaughter and carcass evaluation
After completion of the finishing period, pigs fed experimental diets until slaughtered. Approximately four hours before transport, feed was withdrawn. The live BW of finishing pigs used in the experiments was recorded before slaughter. To reduce stress, the pigs were showered with water, and water was freely available for drinking during lairage. The pigs were rested for about eight hours. Pigs were slaughtered according to industry accepted procedures (Korea Institute for Animal Products Quality Evaluation). The final live BW of pigs was recorded, and then they were slaughtered through electrical stunning and scalding-singeing. The hot carcass weight (HCW) was recorded, and dressing percentage was calculated by comparing final live BW and HCW. After splitting, the back fat depth at the 11th and 12th thoracic vertebra and between the last thoracic vertebra and the 1st lumbar vertebra was measured.
Statistical analysis
Data were analyzed with the PROC GLM procedure of SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC, USA) in the completely randomized design. The experimental unit was the pen. The statistical model for growth performance, blood constituents, and carcass characteristics included dietary treatments as the fixed effect and initial BW as the covariate. Results are presented as a mean ± SEM. Statistical significance and tendency were considered at p < 0.05 and 0.05 ≤ p < 0.10, respectively.
Results and Discussion
The MULTI did not affect growth performance of growing-finishing pigs during the overall experimental period (Table 2). Most previous studies showed that pigs fed diets with dietary protease or probiotics had higher growth rate of pigs than those fed diets without dietary protease or probiotics [2,7,9,25–28]. However, some research reported that addition of dietary protease or probiotics in pig diets did not affect growth rate of pigs [29,30]. The reason for the no beneficial effect of dietary MULTI on growth rate may be related to the basal diet with sufficient nutrients because some studies showed positive effect of enzyme supplementation in low-nutrient or low-CP content diets [12,25]. In addition, low concentration of the protein enzyme and/or probiotics may contribute to no beneficial effect on growth rate of pigs because some studies showed a dietary mixture of protease and probiotics with higher concentrations.
Table 2. Effects of dietary mixture of protease and probiotics on growth performance of growing-finishing pigs1).
| Items2) | CON | MULTI | SEM | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phase I (1–60 d) | ||||
| Initial BW (kg) | 35.19 | 35.32 | 0.69 | 0.893 |
| Final BW (kg) | 85.60 | 85.37 | 0.99 | 0.869 |
| ADG (g/d) | 840.25 | 834.22 | 9.80 | 0.669 |
| ADFI (g/d) | 2,428.09 | 2,410.25 | 26.11 | 0.761 |
| G:F (g/g) | 0.353 | 0.354 | 0.04 | 0.922 |
| Phase II (61–88 d) | ||||
| Final BW (kg) | 112.73 | 112.23 | 1.48 | 0.816 |
| ADG (g/d) | 968.77 | 959.45 | 27.71 | 0.813 |
| ADFI (g/d) | 3,108.87 | 3,151.76 | 143.48 | 0.894 |
| G:F (g/g) | 0.313 | 0.314 | 0.15 | 0.689 |
| Overall (1–88 d) | ||||
| Initial BW (kg) | 35.19 | 35.32 | 0.68 | 0.893 |
| Final BW (kg) | 112.73 | 112.23 | 1.48 | 0.816 |
| ADG (g/d) | 881.14 | 874.06 | 13.19 | 0.707 |
| ADFI (g/d) | 2,768.48 | 2,781.01 | 83.06 | 0.947 |
| G:F (g/g) | 0.321 | 0.321 | 0.08 | 0.704 |
Each value is the mean value of 4 replicates (6 pigs/pen).
CON, basal diet; MULTI, CON + 0.01% protease and probiotics; SEM, standard error of means; BW, body weight; ADG, average daily gain; ADFI, average daily feed intake; G:F, gain to feed ratio.
Addition of MULTI in the pig diet did not modulate blood constituent of pigs (Table 3). These results were similar to the results reported by Chen et al. [22], Tactacan et al. [31], and Yan et al. [32]. In addition, the blood constituent of all pigs in this experiment showed a normal range of values maybe because of normal condititinos without any diseases. Generally, blood indicators for immunity of pigs do not change well in normal pig, feed, and environment conditions [33]. Moreover, there were no differences on carcass characteristics among dietary treatment (Table 4). These results were similar to the results of previous studies reported by O’Shea et al. [26], Zamora et al. [29], and Burnham et al. [34]. However, some research reported that addition of dietary protease or probiotics in pig diets influenced carcass characteristics of pigs [7,33,35,36].
Table 3. Effects of dietary mixture of protease and probiotics on complete blood count of growing-finishing pigs1).
| Items2) | CON | MULTI | SEM | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phase I (1–60 d) | ||||
| RBC (× 106/μL) | 7.67 | 7.35 | 0.18 | 0.235 |
| WBC (× 103/μL) | 19.96 | 17.51 | 1.55 | 0.335 |
| NE (%) | 33.71 | 31.15 | 2.85 | 0.540 |
| LY (%) | 57.89 | 59.38 | 2.39 | 0.665 |
| MO (%) | 5.96 | 6.83 | 0.53 | 0.364 |
| EO (%) | 2.33 | 2.58 | 0.27 | 0.580 |
| BA (%) | 0.11 | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.638 |
| Phase II (88 d) | ||||
| RBC (× 106/μL) | 7.27 | 7.08 | 0.24 | 0.584 |
| WBC (× 103/μL) | 21.95 | 19.65 | 1.57 | 0.340 |
| NE (%) | 27.47 | 25.70 | 1.47 | 0.425 |
| LY (%) | 58.19 | 63.21 | 2.67 | 0.211 |
| MO (%) | 7.31 | 7.50 | 0.72 | 0.859 |
| EO (%) | 3.79 | 3.56 | 0.31 | 0.621 |
| BA (%) | 0.09 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.167 |
Each value is the mean value of 4 replicates (6 pigs/pen).
CON, basal diet; MULTI, CON + 0.01% protease and probiotics; SEM, standard error of means; RBC, red blood cell; WBC, white blood cell; NE, neutrophil; LY, lymphocyte; MO, monocyte; BO, eosinophil; BA, basophil.
Table 4. Effects of dietary mixture of protease and probiotics on carcass characteristics of growing-finishing pigs1).
| Items2) | CON | MULTI | SEM | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Live weight (kg) | 117.60 | 117.16 | 1.71 | 0.857 |
| Hot carcass weight (kg) | 85.29 | 84.87 | 1.34 | 0.827 |
| Dressing percentage (%) | 72.52 | 72.43 | 0.32 | 0.845 |
| Backfat thickness (mm) | 27.50 | 26.07 | 1.44 | 0.489 |
| Carcass grade | 1.50 | 1.73 | 0.22 | 0.454 |
Each value is the mean value of 4 replicates (6 pigs/pen).
CON, basal diet; MULTI, CON + 0.01% protease and probiotics; SEM, standard error of means; Based on a scale with 1, grade 2; 2, grade 1; 3, grade 1+.
Overall, further investigation is needed to verify nutrient digestibility, growth performance, carcass characteristics, or etc. of pigs by increasing the concentrations of protease and probiotics or controlling the nutrient levels of basal diets.
Conclusion
The present study showed addition of dietary mixture of protease and probiotics in the pig diet did not affect growth rate, blood constituents, and carcass characteristics of growing-finishing pigs.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by 2019 the RDA Fellowship Program of National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea.
Competing interests
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Funding sources
This work was carried out with the support of “Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science and Technology Development (Project No. PJ01161703)” Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea.
Availability of data and material
Upon reasonable request, the datasets of this study-can be available from the corresponding author.
Authors’ contributions
Conceptualization: Kim YH, Jeong YD.
Data curation: Choi YH, Song MH.
Formal analysis: Choi YH.
Methodology: Jeong YD.
Software: Kim DW, Kim JW.
Validation: Jung HJ.
Investigation: Min YJ, Jeong YD.
Writing - original draft: Min YJ, Choe JH.
Writing - review & editing: Choi YH, Choe JH, Jung HJ, Song MH.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study was approved by IACUC of Rural Development Administration (No. NIAS-2019-374).
References
- 1.Olukosi OA, Beeson LA, Englyst K, Romero LF. Effects of exogenous proteases without or with carbohydrases on nutrient digestibility and disappearance of non-starch polysaccharides in broiler chickens. Poult Sci. 2015;94:2662–9. doi: 10.3382/ps/pev260. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Payling L, Kim IH, Walsh MC, Kiarie E. Effects of a multistrain Bacillus spp. direct-fed microbial and a protease enzyme on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, blood characteristics, fecal microbiota, and noxious gas emissions of grower pigs fed corn-soybean-meal-based diets-A meta-analysis. J Anim Sci. 2017;95:4018–29. doi: 10.2527/jas.2017.1522. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Liu SY, Selle PH, Court SG, Cowieson AJ. Protease supplementation of sorghum-based broiler diets enhances amino acid digestibility coefficients in four small intestinal sites and accelerates their rates of digestion. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2013;183:175–83. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2013.05.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Pan L, Zhao PF, Yang ZY, Long SF, Wang HL, Tian QY et al. Effects of coated compound proteases on apparent total tract digestibility of nutrients and apparent ileal digestibility of amino acids for pigs. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2016;29:1761–7. doi: 10.5713/ajas.16.0041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Xu X, Wang HL, Pan L, Ma XK, Tian QY, Xu YT et al. Effects of coated proteases on the performance, nutrient retention, gut morphology and carcass traits of broilers fed corn or sorghum based diets supplemented with soybean meal. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2017;223:119–27. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.10.015. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Thacker PA. Effect of enzyme supplementation on the performance of growing-finishing pigs fed barley-based diets supplemented with soybean meal or canola meal. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2001;14:1008–13. doi: 10.5713/ajas.2001.1008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Wang D, Piao XS, Zeng ZK, Lu T, Zhang Q, Li PF et al. Effects of keratinase on performance, nutrient utilization, intestinal morphology, intestinal ecology and inflammatory response of weaned piglets fed diets with different levels of crude protein. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2011;24:1718–28. doi: 10.5713/ajas.2011.11132. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Agyekum AK, Regassa A, Kiarie E, Nyachoti CM. Nutrient digestibility, digesta volatile fatty acids, and intestinal bacterial profile in growing pigs fed a distillers dried grains with solubles containing diet supplemented with a multi-enzyme cocktail. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2016;212:70–80. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.12.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Zuo J, Ling B, Long L, Li T, Lahaye L, Yang C et al. Effect of dietary supplementation with protease on growth per-formance, nutrient digestibility, intestinal morphology, digestive enzymes and gene expression of weaned piglets. Anim Nutr. 2015;1:276–82. doi: 10.1016/j.aninu.2015.10.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Yin YL, Baidoo SK, Jin LZ, Liu YG, Schulze H, Simmins PH. The effect of different carbohydrase and protease sup-plementation on apparent (ileal and overall) digestibility of nutrients of five hulless barley varieties in young pigs. Livest Prod Sci. 2001;71:109–20. doi: 10.1016/S0301-6226(01)00215-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Omogbenigun FO, Nyachoti CM, Slominski BA. Dietary supplementation with multienzyme preparations improves nutrient utilization and growth performance in weaned pigs. J Anim Sci. 2004;82:1053–61. doi: 10.2527/2004.8241053x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Yin YL, Deng ZY, Huang HL, Li TJ, Zhong HY. The effect of arabinoxylanase and protease supplementation on nutritional value of diets containing wheat bran or rice bran in growing pig. J Anim Feed Sci. 2004;13:445–61. doi: 10.22358/jafs/67611/2004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Ji F, Casper DP, Brown PK, Spangler DA, Haydon KD, Pettigrew JE. Effects of dietary supplementation of an enzyme blend on the ileal and fecal digestibility of nutrients in growing pigs. J Anim Sci. 2008;86:1533–43. doi: 10.2527/jas.2007-0262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Jo JK, Ingale SL, Kim JS, Kim YW, Kim KH, Lohakare JD et al. Effects of exogenous enzyme supplementation to corn- and soybean meal-based or complex diets on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and blood metabolites in growing pigs. J Anim Sci. 2012;90:3041–8. doi: 10.2527/jas.2010-3430. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Guarner F, Schaafsma GJ. Probiotics. Int J Food Microbiol. 1998;39:237–8. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1605(97)00136-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Gaggia F, Mattarelli P, Biavati B. Probiotics and prebiotics in animal feeding for safe food production. Int J Food Microbiol. 2010;141(Suppl 1):S15–28. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.02.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Corthesy B, Gaskins HR, Mercenier A. Cross-talk between probiotic bacteria and the host immune system. J Nutr. 2007;137(Suppl 2):781S–90S. doi: 10.1093/jn/137.3.781S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Kenny M, Smidt H, Mengheri E, Miller B. Probiotics–do they have a role in the pig industry? Animal. 2011;5:462–70. doi: 10.1017/S175173111000193X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Meng QW, Yan L, Ao X, Zhou TX, Wang JP, Lee JH et al. Influence of probiotics in different energy and nutrient density diets on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, meat quality, and blood characteristics in growing-finishing pigs. J Anim Sci. 2010;88:3320–6. doi: 10.2527/jas.2009-2308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Nousiainen J. Lactic acid bacteria as animal probiotics. In: Salminen S, von Wright A, editors. Lactic acid bacteria. New York, NS: Dekker; 1993. pp. p.315–56. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Shon KS, Hong JW, Kwon OS, Min BJ, Lee WB, Kim IH et al. Effects of Lactobacillus reuteri-based direct-fed mi-crobial supplementation for growing-finishing pigs. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2005;18:370–4. doi: 10.5713/ajas.2005.370. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 22.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. doi: 10.5713/ajas.2006.587. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Fan G, Chang J, Yin Q, Wang X, Dang X. Effects of probiotics, oligosaccharides, and berberine combinations on growth performance of pigs. Turk J Vet Anim Sci. 2015;39:637–42. doi: 10.3906/vet-1306-30. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Suryanarayana MV. Performance and total tract digestibility responses of probiotic, xylanase and phytase in the diets of grower pigs. J Agric sustain. 2013;2:86–97. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Lei XJ, Cheong JY, Park JH, Kim IH. Supplementation of protease, alone and in combination with fructooligosaccharide to low protein diet for finishing pigs. Anim Sci J. 2017;88:1987–93. doi: 10.1111/asj.12849. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.O’Shea CJ, Mc Alpine PO, Solan P, Curran T, Varley PF, Walsh AM et al. The effect of protease and xylanase enzymes on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and manure odour in grower-finisher pigs. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2014;189:88–97. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2013.11.012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Chen YJ, Son KS, Min BJ, Cho JH, Kwon OS, Kim IH. Effects of dietary probiotic on growth performance, nutrients digestibility, blood characteristics and fecal noxious gas content in growing pigs. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2005;18:1464–8. doi: 10.5713/ajas.2005.1464. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Bohmer BM, Kramer W, Roth-Maier DA. Dietary probiotic supplementation and resulting effects on per-formance, health status, and microbial characteristics of primiparous sows. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr. 2006;90:309–15. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0396.2005.00601.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Zamora V, Figueroa JL, Reyna L, Cordero JL, Sanchez-Torres MT, Martinez M. Growth performance, carcass characteristics and plasma urea nitrogen concentration of nursery pigs fed low-protein diets supplemented with glucomannans or protease. J Appl Anim Res. 2011;39:53–6. doi: 10.1080/09712119.2011.565217. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Mc Alpine PO, O’shea CJ, Varley PF, O’Doherty JV. The effect of protease and xylanase enzymes on growth performance and nutrient digestibility in finisher pigs. J Anim Sci. 2012;90(Suppl 4):375–7. doi: 10.2527/jas.53979. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Tactacan GB, Cho SY, Cho JH, Kim IH. Performance responses, nutrient digestibility, blood characteristics, and measures of gastrointestinal health in weanling pigs fed protease enzyme. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2016;29:998–1003. doi: 10.5713/ajas.15.0886. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Yan L, Kim IH. Effect of probiotics supplementation in diets with different nutrient densities on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, blood characteristics, faecal microbial population and faecal noxious gas content in growing pigs. J Appl Anim Res. 2013;41:23–8. doi: 10.1080/09712119.2012.739092. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Min Y, Choi Y, Kim Y, Jeong Y, Kim D, Kim J et al. Effects of protease supplementation on growth performance, blood constituents, and carcass characteristics of growing-finishing pigs. J Anim Sci Technol. 2019;61:234–8. doi: 10.5187/Jast.2019.61.4.234. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Burnham L. Growth performance and carcass characteristics of growing-finishing pigs fed diets containing peanut hulls, with or without added probiotic. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University; 2004. [Ph.D. Dissertation] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Balasubramanian B, Li T, Kim IH. Effects of supplementing growing-finishing pig diets with Bacillus spp probiotic on growth performance and meat-carcass grade qualitytraits. Braz J Anim Sci. 2016;45:93–100. doi: 10.1590/S1806-92902016000300002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Choe J, Kim KS, Kim HB, Park S, Kim J, Kim S et al. Effect of protease on growth performance and carcass charac-teristics of growing-finishing pigs. S Afr J Anim Sci. 2017;47:697–703. doi: 10.4314/sajas.v47i5.13. [DOI] [Google Scholar]