Loading…
Use of Lactobacillus plantarum (strains 22F and 25F) and Pediococcus acidilactici (strain 72N) as replacements for antibiotic-growth promotants in pigs
The lactic acid bacteria (LAB) Lactobacillus plantarum (strains 22F and 25F) and Pediococcus acidilactici (strain 72N) have appeared promising as replacements for antibiotics in in vitro studies. Microencapsulation, especially by the spray-drying method, has been used to preserve their numbers and...
Saved in:
Published in: | Scientific reports 2021-06, Vol.11 (1), p.12028-12028, Article 12028 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c517t-c7538d73947038515684588005c69467d2cc479a1ceeda0a0c801bd6c0aa15cf3 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c517t-c7538d73947038515684588005c69467d2cc479a1ceeda0a0c801bd6c0aa15cf3 |
container_end_page | 12028 |
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 12028 |
container_title | Scientific reports |
container_volume | 11 |
creator | Pupa, Pawiya Apiwatsiri, Prasert Sirichokchatchawan, Wandee Pirarat, Nopadon Maison, Tanawong Koontanatechanon, Anantawat Prapasarakul, Nuvee |
description | The lactic acid bacteria (LAB)
Lactobacillus plantarum
(strains 22F and 25F) and
Pediococcus acidilactici
(strain 72N) have appeared promising as replacements for antibiotics in in vitro studies. Microencapsulation, especially by the spray-drying method, has been used to preserve their numbers and characteristics during storage and digestion. This study compared the efficacy of these strains and their microencapsulated form with antibiotic usage on growth performance, faecal microbial counts, and intestinal morphology in nursing-finishing pigs. A total of 240 healthy neonatal pigs were treated on days 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12 after cross-fostering. Sterile peptone water was delivered orally to the control and antibiotic groups. Spray-dried
Lactobacillus plantarum
strain 22F stored for 6-months was administered to piglets in the spraydry group. Three ml of each the three fresh strains (10
9
CFU/mL) were orally administered to piglets in each group. All pigs received the basal diets, but these were supplemented with routine antibiotic for the antibiotic group. Pigs in all the probiotic supplemented groups exhibited a better average daily gain and feed conversion ratio than those of the controls in the nursery and grower phases. Probiotic supplementation increased viable lactobacilli and decreased enterobacterial counts. Antibiotic additives reduced both enterobacterial and lactobacilli counts. Villous height and villous height:crypt depth ratio were greater in probiotic and antibiotic supplemented pigs comparing to the controls, especially in the jejunum. The results demonstrated the feasibility of using these strains as a substitute for antibiotics and the practicality of the microencapsulation protocol for use in swine farms. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1038/s41598-021-91427-5 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_eb460bb01b8d4e8e9e20c0b5cdf0d6f9</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_eb460bb01b8d4e8e9e20c0b5cdf0d6f9</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2538877267</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c517t-c7538d73947038515684588005c69467d2cc479a1ceeda0a0c801bd6c0aa15cf3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kstu1DAUhiMEolXpC7CyxKYsUmzHjp0NEqoYWmkELOjaco6dqUdJHOykiCfhdTkzKZeywBtb9vd_vp2ieMnoJaOVfpMFk40uKWdlwwRXpXxSnHIqZMkrzp_-NT4pznPeU2ySN4I1z4uTSqBDKnFa_LjNnsSObC3MsbUQ-n7JZOrtONu0DOQiz8mGMRPON8SOjnC5eX0cfPYuRIgAyGPOhR4VAcKvCFH8I5KZJI868IMf50y6mDA9hzZEhMtdit_mOzKlOMTZHgAMTmGXXxTPOttnf_7QnxW3m_dfrq7L7acPN1fvtiVIpuYSlKy0U1UjFD6KZLLWQmqNV4W6EbVyHECoxjLw3llqKWjKWlcDtZZJ6Kqz4mb1umj3ZkphsOm7iTaY40RMO2MTnrT3xreipm2Lee2E177xnAJtJbiOurpr0PV2dU1LO3gHeOFk-0fSxytjuDO7eG8000pQjYKLB0GKXxefZzOEDL7H3_BxyYbLqpG8lvSw16t_0H1c0ohPdaC0VorXCim-UpBizsl3vw_DqDmUkVnLyGAZmWMZGYmhag1lhMedT3_U_0n9BMkgyfQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2538877267</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Use of Lactobacillus plantarum (strains 22F and 25F) and Pediococcus acidilactici (strain 72N) as replacements for antibiotic-growth promotants in pigs</title><source>PubMed (Medline)</source><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>Springer Nature - nature.com Journals - Fully Open Access</source><creator>Pupa, Pawiya ; Apiwatsiri, Prasert ; Sirichokchatchawan, Wandee ; Pirarat, Nopadon ; Maison, Tanawong ; Koontanatechanon, Anantawat ; Prapasarakul, Nuvee</creator><creatorcontrib>Pupa, Pawiya ; Apiwatsiri, Prasert ; Sirichokchatchawan, Wandee ; Pirarat, Nopadon ; Maison, Tanawong ; Koontanatechanon, Anantawat ; Prapasarakul, Nuvee</creatorcontrib><description>The lactic acid bacteria (LAB)
Lactobacillus plantarum
(strains 22F and 25F) and
Pediococcus acidilactici
(strain 72N) have appeared promising as replacements for antibiotics in in vitro studies. Microencapsulation, especially by the spray-drying method, has been used to preserve their numbers and characteristics during storage and digestion. This study compared the efficacy of these strains and their microencapsulated form with antibiotic usage on growth performance, faecal microbial counts, and intestinal morphology in nursing-finishing pigs. A total of 240 healthy neonatal pigs were treated on days 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12 after cross-fostering. Sterile peptone water was delivered orally to the control and antibiotic groups. Spray-dried
Lactobacillus plantarum
strain 22F stored for 6-months was administered to piglets in the spraydry group. Three ml of each the three fresh strains (10
9
CFU/mL) were orally administered to piglets in each group. All pigs received the basal diets, but these were supplemented with routine antibiotic for the antibiotic group. Pigs in all the probiotic supplemented groups exhibited a better average daily gain and feed conversion ratio than those of the controls in the nursery and grower phases. Probiotic supplementation increased viable lactobacilli and decreased enterobacterial counts. Antibiotic additives reduced both enterobacterial and lactobacilli counts. Villous height and villous height:crypt depth ratio were greater in probiotic and antibiotic supplemented pigs comparing to the controls, especially in the jejunum. The results demonstrated the feasibility of using these strains as a substitute for antibiotics and the practicality of the microencapsulation protocol for use in swine farms.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2045-2322</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2045-2322</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-91427-5</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34103574</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Nature Publishing Group UK</publisher><subject>631/326 ; 631/326/2522 ; Antibiotics ; Bacteria ; Drying ; Farms ; Feed additives ; Feed conversion ; Hogs ; Humanities and Social Sciences ; Jejunum ; Lactic acid bacteria ; Lactobacillus plantarum ; Microencapsulation ; Microorganisms ; multidisciplinary ; Neonates ; Oral administration ; Pediococcus acidilactici ; Peptones ; Probiotics ; Science ; Science (multidisciplinary) ; Strains (organisms) ; Swine</subject><ispartof>Scientific reports, 2021-06, Vol.11 (1), p.12028-12028, Article 12028</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2021</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2021. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c517t-c7538d73947038515684588005c69467d2cc479a1ceeda0a0c801bd6c0aa15cf3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c517t-c7538d73947038515684588005c69467d2cc479a1ceeda0a0c801bd6c0aa15cf3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2538877267/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2538877267?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,25731,27901,27902,36989,36990,44566,53766,53768,75096</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pupa, Pawiya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Apiwatsiri, Prasert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sirichokchatchawan, Wandee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pirarat, Nopadon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maison, Tanawong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koontanatechanon, Anantawat</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prapasarakul, Nuvee</creatorcontrib><title>Use of Lactobacillus plantarum (strains 22F and 25F) and Pediococcus acidilactici (strain 72N) as replacements for antibiotic-growth promotants in pigs</title><title>Scientific reports</title><addtitle>Sci Rep</addtitle><description>The lactic acid bacteria (LAB)
Lactobacillus plantarum
(strains 22F and 25F) and
Pediococcus acidilactici
(strain 72N) have appeared promising as replacements for antibiotics in in vitro studies. Microencapsulation, especially by the spray-drying method, has been used to preserve their numbers and characteristics during storage and digestion. This study compared the efficacy of these strains and their microencapsulated form with antibiotic usage on growth performance, faecal microbial counts, and intestinal morphology in nursing-finishing pigs. A total of 240 healthy neonatal pigs were treated on days 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12 after cross-fostering. Sterile peptone water was delivered orally to the control and antibiotic groups. Spray-dried
Lactobacillus plantarum
strain 22F stored for 6-months was administered to piglets in the spraydry group. Three ml of each the three fresh strains (10
9
CFU/mL) were orally administered to piglets in each group. All pigs received the basal diets, but these were supplemented with routine antibiotic for the antibiotic group. Pigs in all the probiotic supplemented groups exhibited a better average daily gain and feed conversion ratio than those of the controls in the nursery and grower phases. Probiotic supplementation increased viable lactobacilli and decreased enterobacterial counts. Antibiotic additives reduced both enterobacterial and lactobacilli counts. Villous height and villous height:crypt depth ratio were greater in probiotic and antibiotic supplemented pigs comparing to the controls, especially in the jejunum. The results demonstrated the feasibility of using these strains as a substitute for antibiotics and the practicality of the microencapsulation protocol for use in swine farms.</description><subject>631/326</subject><subject>631/326/2522</subject><subject>Antibiotics</subject><subject>Bacteria</subject><subject>Drying</subject><subject>Farms</subject><subject>Feed additives</subject><subject>Feed conversion</subject><subject>Hogs</subject><subject>Humanities and Social Sciences</subject><subject>Jejunum</subject><subject>Lactic acid bacteria</subject><subject>Lactobacillus plantarum</subject><subject>Microencapsulation</subject><subject>Microorganisms</subject><subject>multidisciplinary</subject><subject>Neonates</subject><subject>Oral administration</subject><subject>Pediococcus acidilactici</subject><subject>Peptones</subject><subject>Probiotics</subject><subject>Science</subject><subject>Science (multidisciplinary)</subject><subject>Strains (organisms)</subject><subject>Swine</subject><issn>2045-2322</issn><issn>2045-2322</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kstu1DAUhiMEolXpC7CyxKYsUmzHjp0NEqoYWmkELOjaco6dqUdJHOykiCfhdTkzKZeywBtb9vd_vp2ieMnoJaOVfpMFk40uKWdlwwRXpXxSnHIqZMkrzp_-NT4pznPeU2ySN4I1z4uTSqBDKnFa_LjNnsSObC3MsbUQ-n7JZOrtONu0DOQiz8mGMRPON8SOjnC5eX0cfPYuRIgAyGPOhR4VAcKvCFH8I5KZJI868IMf50y6mDA9hzZEhMtdit_mOzKlOMTZHgAMTmGXXxTPOttnf_7QnxW3m_dfrq7L7acPN1fvtiVIpuYSlKy0U1UjFD6KZLLWQmqNV4W6EbVyHECoxjLw3llqKWjKWlcDtZZJ6Kqz4mb1umj3ZkphsOm7iTaY40RMO2MTnrT3xreipm2Lee2E177xnAJtJbiOurpr0PV2dU1LO3gHeOFk-0fSxytjuDO7eG8000pQjYKLB0GKXxefZzOEDL7H3_BxyYbLqpG8lvSw16t_0H1c0ohPdaC0VorXCim-UpBizsl3vw_DqDmUkVnLyGAZmWMZGYmhag1lhMedT3_U_0n9BMkgyfQ</recordid><startdate>20210608</startdate><enddate>20210608</enddate><creator>Pupa, Pawiya</creator><creator>Apiwatsiri, Prasert</creator><creator>Sirichokchatchawan, Wandee</creator><creator>Pirarat, Nopadon</creator><creator>Maison, Tanawong</creator><creator>Koontanatechanon, Anantawat</creator><creator>Prapasarakul, Nuvee</creator><general>Nature Publishing Group UK</general><general>Nature Publishing Group</general><general>Nature Portfolio</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PJZUB</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PPXIY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQGLB</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210608</creationdate><title>Use of Lactobacillus plantarum (strains 22F and 25F) and Pediococcus acidilactici (strain 72N) as replacements for antibiotic-growth promotants in pigs</title><author>Pupa, Pawiya ; Apiwatsiri, Prasert ; Sirichokchatchawan, Wandee ; Pirarat, Nopadon ; Maison, Tanawong ; Koontanatechanon, Anantawat ; Prapasarakul, Nuvee</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c517t-c7538d73947038515684588005c69467d2cc479a1ceeda0a0c801bd6c0aa15cf3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>631/326</topic><topic>631/326/2522</topic><topic>Antibiotics</topic><topic>Bacteria</topic><topic>Drying</topic><topic>Farms</topic><topic>Feed additives</topic><topic>Feed conversion</topic><topic>Hogs</topic><topic>Humanities and Social Sciences</topic><topic>Jejunum</topic><topic>Lactic acid bacteria</topic><topic>Lactobacillus plantarum</topic><topic>Microencapsulation</topic><topic>Microorganisms</topic><topic>multidisciplinary</topic><topic>Neonates</topic><topic>Oral administration</topic><topic>Pediococcus acidilactici</topic><topic>Peptones</topic><topic>Probiotics</topic><topic>Science</topic><topic>Science (multidisciplinary)</topic><topic>Strains (organisms)</topic><topic>Swine</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pupa, Pawiya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Apiwatsiri, Prasert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sirichokchatchawan, Wandee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pirarat, Nopadon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maison, Tanawong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koontanatechanon, Anantawat</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prapasarakul, Nuvee</creatorcontrib><collection>SpringerOpen</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Proquest)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biological Sciences</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>ProQuest Science Journals</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Health & Nursing</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Applied & Life Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Scientific reports</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pupa, Pawiya</au><au>Apiwatsiri, Prasert</au><au>Sirichokchatchawan, Wandee</au><au>Pirarat, Nopadon</au><au>Maison, Tanawong</au><au>Koontanatechanon, Anantawat</au><au>Prapasarakul, Nuvee</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Use of Lactobacillus plantarum (strains 22F and 25F) and Pediococcus acidilactici (strain 72N) as replacements for antibiotic-growth promotants in pigs</atitle><jtitle>Scientific reports</jtitle><stitle>Sci Rep</stitle><date>2021-06-08</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>12028</spage><epage>12028</epage><pages>12028-12028</pages><artnum>12028</artnum><issn>2045-2322</issn><eissn>2045-2322</eissn><abstract>The lactic acid bacteria (LAB)
Lactobacillus plantarum
(strains 22F and 25F) and
Pediococcus acidilactici
(strain 72N) have appeared promising as replacements for antibiotics in in vitro studies. Microencapsulation, especially by the spray-drying method, has been used to preserve their numbers and characteristics during storage and digestion. This study compared the efficacy of these strains and their microencapsulated form with antibiotic usage on growth performance, faecal microbial counts, and intestinal morphology in nursing-finishing pigs. A total of 240 healthy neonatal pigs were treated on days 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12 after cross-fostering. Sterile peptone water was delivered orally to the control and antibiotic groups. Spray-dried
Lactobacillus plantarum
strain 22F stored for 6-months was administered to piglets in the spraydry group. Three ml of each the three fresh strains (10
9
CFU/mL) were orally administered to piglets in each group. All pigs received the basal diets, but these were supplemented with routine antibiotic for the antibiotic group. Pigs in all the probiotic supplemented groups exhibited a better average daily gain and feed conversion ratio than those of the controls in the nursery and grower phases. Probiotic supplementation increased viable lactobacilli and decreased enterobacterial counts. Antibiotic additives reduced both enterobacterial and lactobacilli counts. Villous height and villous height:crypt depth ratio were greater in probiotic and antibiotic supplemented pigs comparing to the controls, especially in the jejunum. The results demonstrated the feasibility of using these strains as a substitute for antibiotics and the practicality of the microencapsulation protocol for use in swine farms.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Nature Publishing Group UK</pub><pmid>34103574</pmid><doi>10.1038/s41598-021-91427-5</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2045-2322 |
ispartof | Scientific reports, 2021-06, Vol.11 (1), p.12028-12028, Article 12028 |
issn | 2045-2322 2045-2322 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_eb460bb01b8d4e8e9e20c0b5cdf0d6f9 |
source | PubMed (Medline); Publicly Available Content Database; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; Springer Nature - nature.com Journals - Fully Open Access |
subjects | 631/326 631/326/2522 Antibiotics Bacteria Drying Farms Feed additives Feed conversion Hogs Humanities and Social Sciences Jejunum Lactic acid bacteria Lactobacillus plantarum Microencapsulation Microorganisms multidisciplinary Neonates Oral administration Pediococcus acidilactici Peptones Probiotics Science Science (multidisciplinary) Strains (organisms) Swine |
title | Use of Lactobacillus plantarum (strains 22F and 25F) and Pediococcus acidilactici (strain 72N) as replacements for antibiotic-growth promotants in pigs |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-22T19%3A01%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Use%20of%20Lactobacillus%20plantarum%20(strains%2022F%20and%2025F)%20and%20Pediococcus%20acidilactici%20(strain%2072N)%20as%20replacements%20for%20antibiotic-growth%20promotants%20in%20pigs&rft.jtitle=Scientific%20reports&rft.au=Pupa,%20Pawiya&rft.date=2021-06-08&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=12028&rft.epage=12028&rft.pages=12028-12028&rft.artnum=12028&rft.issn=2045-2322&rft.eissn=2045-2322&rft_id=info:doi/10.1038/s41598-021-91427-5&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2538877267%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c517t-c7538d73947038515684588005c69467d2cc479a1ceeda0a0c801bd6c0aa15cf3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2538877267&rft_id=info:pmid/34103574&rfr_iscdi=true |