Table 1.
Effects of probiotic supplementation in different technological groups of pigs (% change relative to the control group)
| Technological group | Period | Probiotic/dose | Production indicators | Nutrient digestibility | Health parameters | Microbiology indicators | Meat quality | Emissions | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| PIGS | 27–56 d of life | Bacillus licheniformis, Bacillus subtilis/2 × 109 CFU/kg feed |
|
|
| E. coli in faeces ↓~26% | Czech et al. (2018 a, b) | ||
| PIGS | ~23.3– ~109 kg body weight |
|
|
|
|
| NH3, H2S – T1, T2 – ns | Balasubramanian et al. (2016) | |
| PIGS | ~7– ~25 kg body weight |
|
|
|
|
|
| Cao et al. (2025) | |
| PIGS | ~8– ~14 kg body weight |
|
|
|
|
| Han et al. (2020) | ||
| PIGLETS | 6–18 d of life | Bacillus amylo liquefaciens/4 0x1.0 × 109 C FU/mL-1 mL/day by oral gavage | Average diarrhoea scores ↓ p ≤0.05 |
| Jiang et al. (2023) | ||||
| FINISHER PIGS | ~28– ~112 kg body weight | Bacillus licheniformis/1.6 × 109 CFU/g, and Bacillus subtilis/1.6 × 109 CFU/g – dose 0.04% |
|
| Meat quality and basic chemical composition – ns | Rybarczyk et al. (2021) | |||
| FINISHER PIGS | ~18– ~100 kg body weight |
|
| Dry matter T3 ↑~1% |
| Lactobacillus in faecal T3 ↑~1% | H2S ↓~5% | Jeon et al. (2024) | |
| FINISHER PIGS | ~7.5– ~100 kg body weight | 0.01% L. plantarum/1.0 × 109 CFU/g, S. thermophilus/1.0 × 107 CFU/g, Bacillus spp./3.0 × 109 CFU/g | Live body weight ↑~1% | Carcass traits – ns Protein in the longissimus dorsi muscle ↑~6% | Lee et al. (2025 a) | ||||
| SOWS | 90 d of gestation –end of lactation | 0.04% – 2.75 × 109 CFU/g viable spores of B. subtilis, B. amyloliquefaciens |
|
| Konieczka et al. (2023) | ||||
| PIGLETS | 7–28 d of life |
|
| ||||||
| SOWS | gestation and lactation | Lactobacillus fermentum/1 × 108 CFU/ml, Basidiomycetous yeast/8 × 107 CFU/mL – 200 ml/day |
|
| Wu et al. (2023) |
