Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Probiotic Strategies in Modern Pig Production: From Gut Microbiota Modulation to Immune and Metabolic Benefits* Cover

Probiotic Strategies in Modern Pig Production: From Gut Microbiota Modulation to Immune and Metabolic Benefits*

By:  and    
Open Access
|Oct 2026

Figures & Tables

Table 1.

Effects of probiotic supplementation in different technological groups of pigs (% change relative to the control group)

Technological groupPeriodProbiotic/doseProduction indicatorsNutrient digestibilityHealth parametersMicrobiology indicatorsMeat qualityEmissionsReferences
12345678910
PIGS27–56 d of lifeBacillus licheniformis, Bacillus subtilis/2 × 109 CFU/kg feed
  • Body weight ~3.4%

  • Feed conversions ratio ↓~6%

  • Ether extract ↓~8%

  • Crude fibre ↑~13%

  • Blood:

  • Fe ↑~14%

  • Uric acid ↑~20%

  • HDL ↑~40%

  • LDL ↓~20%

  • TG ↓~14%

  • LIM ↑~16%

E. coli in faeces ↓~26%Czech et al. (2018 a, b)
PIGS~23.3– ~109 kg body weight
  • B. coagulance/1 × 109 CFU/g, B. lichenformis/5 × 108 CFU/g, B. subtilis/1 × 109 CFU/g

  • T1 – 0.01%

  • T2 – 0.03%

  • Average daily weight gain T2 ↑~5%

  • Average daily feed intake T2 ↓~2%

  • Feed conversion ratio T2 ↑~7%

  • Dry matter T2 ↑~4%

  • Nitrogen T2 ↑~3.5%

  • Energy T2 ↑~3%

  • E. coli in faeces T1, T2 – ns

  • L. spp. in faeces T1, T2 – ns

  • Sensory evaluation – Colour

  • T2 ↑~9%,

  • Carcass weight T2 ↑~7%

NH3, H2S – T1, T2 – nsBalasubramanian et al. (2016)
PIGS~7– ~25 kg body weight
  • Bacillus subtilis/1.0 × 109 CFU/g and B. licheniformis/1.0 × 109 CFU/g

  • PRO1 – 0.1%

  • PRO2 – 0.2%

  • PRO3 – 0.3%

  • Average daily weight gain PRO3 ↑~9,%

  • Average daily feed intake PRO3 ↓~3%

  • Feed conversion ratio PRO3 ↑~6%; PRO2 ↑~5%

  • Dry matter – PRO2 ↑~2%

  • Nitrogen – PRO2 ↑~3%; PRO2 ↑~2%

  • Energy – PRO2 ↑~3; PRO3 ↑~4

  • Blood:

  • TG – PRO1 ↓~40%; PRO2 ↓~30%

  • HDL – PRO3 ↑~45%

  • E. coli in faeces –PRO3 ↓~3%

  • L. spp. in faeces PRO3 ↑~2%

  • NH3 – PRO3 ↓~30%

  • H2S – PRO3 ↓~8%

Cao et al. (2025)
PIGS~8– ~14 kg body weight
  • Clostridium butyricum

  • CBN – 2.5 × 108 CFU/kg

  • CBH – 2.5 × 109 CFU/kg

  • Feed conversion ratio

  • CBN ↓~11%

  • CBH ↓~6%

  • Average fecal score

  • CBN ↓~17%

  • Dry matter

  • CBH ↑~3%

  • Organic matter

  • CBH ↑~3%

  • Total Carbohydrates

  • CBN ↑~3%

  • Blood:

  • IgA – CBN ↑~36%; CBH ↑~30%

  • IgM – CBN ~↑20%

  • IgG – CBN ~↑24%

  • IL-1β – CBN ~↓13%

  • IL2 – CBN ~↑14%

  • GSH-PX – CBN ~↑18%

  • Bifidobacterium in the chyme

  • CBN ~↑833%

Han et al. (2020)
PIGLETS6–18 d of lifeBacillus amylo liquefaciens/4 0x1.0 × 109 C FU/mL-1 mL/day by oral gavageAverage diarrhoea scores ↓ p ≤0.05
  • Diamine oxidase ↓ p≤0.05

  • D-lactate ↓p≤0.05

  • TNF-α ↓p≤0.05

Jiang et al. (2023)
FINISHER PIGS~28– ~112 kg body weightBacillus licheniformis/1.6 × 109 CFU/g, and Bacillus subtilis/1.6 × 109 CFU/g – dose 0.04%
  • Feed conversion ratio ↓~7%

  • Average daily

  • gain ↑~15%

  • Mortality ↓~32%

  • Digestive tract of proximal colon

  • Clostridium ↓~30%

  • Enterococcus ↓~52%

  • Lactic acid bacteria ↑~46%

  • Enterobacteriaceae ↓~22%

Meat quality and basic chemical composition – nsRybarczyk et al. (2021)
FINISHER PIGS~18– ~100 kg body weight
  • T1. 0,2% Bacillus subtilis/

  • T2 0.2% Saccharomyces cerevisiae

  • T3 0.2% B. subtilis + 0.2% S. cerevisiae

  • Body weight – T3 ↑~6%

  • Average daily weight gain – T3 ↑~7%

  • Feed conversion ratio T3 ↓~5%

Dry matter T3 ↑~1%
  • Blood:

  • BUN – T1;T2;T3 ↓~12–21%

Lactobacillus in faecal T3 ↑~1%H2S ↓~5%Jeon et al. (2024)
FINISHER PIGS~7.5– ~100 kg body weight0.01% L. plantarum/1.0 × 109 CFU/g, S. thermophilus/1.0 × 107 CFU/g, Bacillus spp./3.0 × 109 CFU/gLive body weight ↑~1%Carcass traits – ns Protein in the longissimus dorsi muscle ↑~6%Lee et al. (2025 a)
SOWS90 d of gestation –end of lactation0.04% – 2.75 × 109 CFU/g viable spores of B. subtilis, B. amyloliquefaciens
  • Body weight, loss during lactation ↓~31%

  • Backfat loss during lactation ↓~17%

  • Sows

  • IgG ↑~47%

  • Piglets

  • IgM↑~57%

  • Intestinal mucosal

Konieczka et al. (2023)
PIGLETS7–28 d of life
  • End of lactation unit ↑~8%

  • Average individual weight of live-born piglets ↑~6%

  • Average individual piglet weight at weaning ↑~5%

  • Total litter weight gain↑~9%

  • piglets

  • IgG ↓~30%

  • IgM ↑~100%

SOWSgestation and lactationLactobacillus fermentum/1 × 108 CFU/ml, Basidiomycetous yeast/8 × 107 CFU/mL – 200 ml/day
  • Total lactation yield ↑~14%

  • The average daily gains/piglets/first to 21st day of lactation ↑~9%

  • Colostrum fat ratio ↑~27%

  • Lactating sows’ blood

  • MDA ↑~5%

  • SOD ↑~6%

Wu et al. (2023)

[i] ns = not significant; MDA – malondialdehyde; SOD – superoxide dismutase; BUN – blood urea nitrogen; GSH-PX – glutathione peroxidase; HDL – high-density lipoprotein, LDL – low-density lipoprotein, TG – triglycerides, LIM – lymphocyte.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/aoas-2026-0018 | Journal eISSN: 2300-8733 (formerly 1642-3402) | Journal ISSN: 1642-3402
Language: English
Submitted on: Jul 15, 2025
Accepted on: Feb 24, 2026
Published on: Oct 5, 2026
Published by: National Research Institute of Animal Production
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Related subjects:

© 2026 Fabian Domański, Anna Czech, published by National Research Institute of Animal Production
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.