Effects of probiotics in swines growth performance: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

ZIMMERMANN, J.A.; FUSARI, M.L.; ROSSLER, E.; BLAJMAN J.E.; ROMERO SCHARPEN, A.; ASTESANA, D.M.; OLIVERO, C.R.; BERISVIL, A.P.; SIGNORINI, M.L.; ZBRUN, M.V.; FRIZZO, L.S.; SOTO, L.P.

ANIMAL FEED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV

Lugar: Amsterdam; Año: 2016

0377-8401

Theobjective of this meta-analysis was to assess effects of probiotics on thegrowth performance of pigs (Average Daily Gain (ADG) and Feed Efficiency (FE)).Data bases (ie. PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus) were searched from 1980 to2015 unrestricted by language. The inclusion criteria were: randomised andcontrolled experiments using pigs without apparent disease and published inpeer reviewed journals. Sixty-seven and 60 experiments were included to assessprobiotic effects on ADG and FE, respectively. LAB supplementation increasedADG (difference in mean (DM) = 29.930 g/day, 95% confidence interval (CI)17.617 to 42.261) and improve feed efficiency (DM= -0.096 kg feed/kg bodyweight, 95%CI -0.120 ? -0.071), considering the source of heterogeneity. Therewere no evidence of publication biases. The meta-analysis showed thatapplication of probiotics during the first stage of pig grown and in thefinishing period resulted in greater ADG and FE. The effect was not related tothe use of mono-strain or multi-strain probiotics, although it may depend onthe strain used. The breeds (especially F1 and threebreed-rotationalcrossbreeding) and the characteristic of these breeds (maternal breeds) includedin the experiments had an impact on the outcomes. These results might be usedto define the guidelines to standardize the experimental designs of futuretrials and to include the impact of each covariate on the differences in theestimated effect sizes.