Skip to main content
. 2021 Jan 29;7(1):72–83. doi: 10.1016/j.aninu.2020.06.010

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

The gut microbiota diversity of sows was altered by addition of isomaltooligosaccharide (IMO) alone and in combination with Bacillus to diets at farrowing and on d 18 of lactation. (A) At farrowing, comparisons of the number of gut microbiota α-diversity containing bias-corrected Chao richness estimator (Chao 1), observed species, PD_whole_tree, and Shannon diversity indices among sows subjected to different dietary treatments. (B) On d 18 of lactation, comparisons of the number of gut microbiota α-diversity containing bias-corrected Chao richness estimator (Chao 1), observed species, PD_whole_tree, and Shannon diversity indices among sows subjected to different dietary treatments. (C) At farrowing, principal component analysis (PCA) based on operational taxonomic units (OTU) among samples of different groups. Each point represents 1 sample. (D) On d 18 of lactation, principal component analysis (PCA) based on OTU among samples of different groups. Each point represents one sample. Data are presented as means ± SEM (n = 3 or n = 5). CON group, sows fed diets without IMO; IMO group, sows fed diets containing 5.0 g/kg IMO; IMOS group, sows fed diets containing 5.0 g/kg IMO plus 0.2 g/kg Bacillus subtilis; IMOL group, sows fed diets containing 5.0 g/kg IMO plus 0.2 g/kg Bacillus licheniformis; IMOSL group, sows fed diets containing 5.0 g/kg IMO plus 0.2 g/kg B. subtilis and 0.2 g/kg B. licheniformis.