Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 10 Effects of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens on intestinal microbiota abundance of weanling piglets with intra-uterine growth retardation

From: Effects of dietary Bacillus amyloliquefaciens supplementation on growth performance, intestinal morphology, inflammatory response, and microbiota of intra-uterine growth retarded weanling piglets

Itemsa NBW-CON (NC group) IUGR-CON (IC group) IUGR-BA (IB group) SEM Contrast
NC vs. IC IC vs. IB
Jejunum Total bacteriab, log10 copies/g 9.52 9.65 9.50 0.11 0.888 0.857
Lactobacillusb, log10 copies/g 6.75 6.61 7.09 0.17 0.942 0.502
Escherichia colic, log10 copies/g 6.20 6.87 6.00 0.14 0.223 0.028
Bacillusb, log10 copies/g 4.38 4.39 4.69 0.11 1.000 0.507
Bifidobacteriumb, log10 copies/g 2.90 2.82 3.12 0.09 0.931 0.398
Ileum Total bacteriac, log10 copies/g 10.12 10.26 10.20 0.09 NS NS
Lactobacillusb, log10 copies/g 7.79 7.02 8.03 0.17 0.105 0.030
Escherichia colic, log10 copies/g 6.12 7.20 6.39 0.16 0.033 0.198
Bacillusc, log10 copies/g 4.85 4.63 5.37 0.15 NS NS
Bifidobacteriumb, log10 copies/g 3.65 3.00 3.76 0.11 0.019 0.007
  1. aIUGR-BA piglets with intrauterine growth retardation fed the Bacillus amyloliquefaciens-supplemented diet, IUGR-CON piglets with intrauterine growth retardation fed the control diet, NBW-CON piglets with normal birth weight fed the control diet, NS nonsignificant values after Kruskal–Wallis comparison test
  2. bOne-way ANOVA test. A value of P < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant
  3. cNon-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test. A value of P < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant