Goicochea-Vargas José, Salvatierra-Alor Max, Acosta-Pachorro Fidel, Rondón-Jorge Wilson, Cajacuri-Aquino Julissa, Herrera-Briceño Arnold, Morales-Parra Edson, Mialhe Eric, Silva Mauricio, Ratto Marcelo
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Zootechnics, Hermilio Valdizán National University, Huánuco, Peru.
Molecular Biotechnology Laboratory, Central Laboratory Unit, Hermilio Valdizán National University, Huánuco, Peru.
Open Vet J. 2025 Apr;15(4):1576-1584. doi: 10.5455/OVJ.2025.v15.i4.8. Epub 2025 Apr 30.
The use of probiotics in guinea pig farming has emerged as an alternative to antibiotics because proper probiotic administration provides beneficial effects to the host without the risks associated with antibiotics. However, few studies have reported the significant effects of probiotics on guinea pig production and meat quality.
This study aimed to evaluate the effects of the oral administration of different lactic acid bacteria with probiotic potential on the productive parameters and meat quality of fattening guinea pigs ().
A total of 72 guinea pigs from a fattening line weaned at 14 days post-birth with an initial average weight of 248.6 ± 42.2 g were distributed into six pens ( = 12 each). They received oral administration of 3 ml of native lactic acid bacteria: Treatment 1 (T1): , Treatment 2 (T2): ., Treatment 3 (T3): , Treatment 4 (T4): a mixture of the three bacteria, Treatment 5 (T5): addition of Zinc bacitracin, and Treatment 6 (T6): control. After 63 days, final weight, weight gain (WG), dry matter intake, feed conversion ratio, carcass yield (CY), economic merit (EM), and meat quality were determined.
The addition of lactic acid bacteria did not significantly affect the final weight ( = 0.242). However, differences were observed in WG ( = 0.04), specifically between T1 and T3 ( = 0.039). No significant differences were observed in dry matter intake ( = 0.99) or feed conversion ratio ( = 0.72). The CY was similar across all treatments ( = 0.093), as was EM ( = 0.157). Sensory analysis indicated better acceptance of meat from animals treated with probiotics, although no significant differences were found ( > 0.05).
The oral administration of the native probiotic bacteria and did not affect the productivity or meat quality of guinea pigs.
在豚鼠养殖中使用益生菌已成为抗生素的一种替代方法，因为适当施用益生菌可为宿主带来有益效果，且无抗生素相关风险。然而，鲜有研究报道益生菌对豚鼠生产性能和肉质的显著影响。
本研究旨在评估口服具有益生菌潜力的不同乳酸菌对育肥豚鼠生产性能参数和肉质的影响。
选取72只出生后14天断奶的育肥品系豚鼠，初始平均体重为248.6±42.2 g，将其分为6个栏（每组12只）。它们口服3 ml天然乳酸菌：处理1（T1）：[具体菌种1]，处理2（T2）：[具体菌种2]，处理3（T3）：[具体菌种3]，处理4（T4）：三种细菌的混合物，处理5（T5）：添加杆菌肽锌，处理6（T6）：对照。63天后，测定终末体重、增重（WG）、干物质摄入量、饲料转化率、胴体产率（CY）、经济价值（EM）和肉质。
添加乳酸菌对终末体重无显著影响（P = 0.242）。然而，在增重方面观察到差异（P = 0.04），特别是T1和T3之间（P = 0.039）。干物质摄入量（P = 0.99）或饲料转化率（P = 0.72）未观察到显著差异。所有处理的胴体产率相似（P = 0.093），经济价值也相似（P = 0.157）。感官分析表明，益生菌处理动物的肉更易被接受，尽管未发现显著差异（P>0.05）。
口服天然益生菌[具体菌种1]和[具体菌种2]不影响豚鼠的生产性能或肉质。
