Immune status of piglets for chemoprophylaxis of nematodoze-protozoan invasion and use of probiotic “Lactovet”


Keywords: immune status, piglets, nematodozee-protozoosic invasion, T-lymphocytes, B-lymphocytes, BABS, LABS, CABS

Abstract

The immune status of piglets for chemoprophylaxis of nematodoze-protozoan invasion and use of probiotic “Lactovet” was investigated. For the experiment, 4 groups of piglets were formed, 5 animals in each. For piglets of the first group, the probiotic was prescribed for 7 days before treatment with amphene, the second group – for 7 days, starting from the day of setting the antiparasitic preparation and the third one - for 7 days, starting the day after the last antiparasitic treatment. Lactovet was given with drinking water twice a day at a dose of 1 cm3/dm3 of water. The control group of piglets did not use the probiotic. It was established that the giving of probiotics “Lactovet” to piglets did not cause probable intergroup differences in the content of the total number of lymphocytes, however, in comparison with control their number was lower in the first group by 2.3%, in the second by 1.9% and the third by 4.7%. The decrease in lymphocytes was due to a possible decrease in the content of B-lymphocytes, the difference being on 28 days of the search, compared with the beginning of the experiment, in the control group it was 12.4% (P < 0.05), in the first one – 16.8% (P < 0.01), in the second – 15.9% (P < 0.01) and in the third group – 18.8% (P < 0.01). Compared with the beginning of the experiment, there was a marked increase in the T-lymphocyte content in the blood of piglets in the second and third groups after the using of “Amphene” and “Lactovet”, which was due to the growth of T-helpers at 7th day, respectively, 5.0 and 5.1%, at 14th day – 8.6 and 10.5%, at 21st day – 12.8 and 13.3%, and at 28th day – 14.8 and 18.5%. The indicated changes influenced the immunoregulatory index, which in the control group was increased, compared with the beginning of treatment, at 7th day in 1.32 times, at 14th day – 1.68, at 21st day – 1.93 and for 28th day – 2.15 times, in the first group, respectively, into 1.21, 1.60, 2.04 and 2.26 times, in the second one into 1.36, 1.74, 2.18 and 2.44 times, and in the third one into 1.39, 1.96, 2.43 and 3.02 times. The use of the probiotic “Lactovet” for the chemoprophylaxis of nematodoze-protozoosic invasion has led to a significantly lower level of G-class immunoglobulins in comparison with the beginning of the experiment, at 28th day in piglets of control (P < 0.05) and the first group (P < 0.01), at 21st and 28th days – in piglets of the second group (P < 0.01) and at 14th (P < 0.05), at 21st and 28th days (P < 0.01) – in pigs of the third group, immunoglobulins of the class M – in the second group at 28th day (P < 0.01), and the third one was at 21st (P < 0.05) and 28th days (P < 0.01), and class A of immunoglobulins only in piglets of the third group (P < 0.001, P < 0.01) starting from 14th day. The use of the probiotic “Lactovet” contributed to the growth of BABS and LABS and the reduction of CABS Possibly higher BABS was at 28th day in piglets of all studied groups and the difference in the control group, compared to the beginning of the experiment was 9.8% (P < 0.05), in the first – 13.7% (P < 0.05), in the second 12.8% (P < 0.05) and in the third group – 14.6% (P < 0.01). The probable difference (P < 0.05) of CABS compared to the beginning of the experiment was set up only at 28th day in piglets of the third group.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abramov, A.B., & Shilova, E.H. (2006). Immunologicheskie pokazateli porosjat pri associativnyh para-zitocenozah. Toksikozy zhivotnyh i aktual'nye problemy boleznej molodnjaka: Mezhdunarodnaja nauch-naja konferencija. Kazan', 25-27 oktjabrja 2006 (in Russian).

Bisiuk, I.Yu. (2006). Kataloh veterynarnykh likarskykh zasobiv i kormovykh dobavok dlia tvaryn, zareiestro-vanykh i dozvolenykh dlia vykorystannia v Ukraini. Kyiv: Osvita (in Ukrainian).

Berezovskyi, A.V. (2006). Osnovni parazytozy svynei, osoblyvosti khimioterapii ta profilaktyky. Veterynar-na medytsyna, 86, 40–48 (in Ukrainian).

Ievstafieva, V.O. (2010). Asotsiatyvni invazii svynei v umovakh Lisostepu i Stepu Ukrainy : avtoref. dys. ... d.vet.n.: 16.00.11. Kyiv, 34 (in Ukrainian).

Olehnovich, N.I. (1990). Associativnye parazitozy zhelu-dochno-kishechnogo trakta svinej v Belorusi i mery bor'by snimi. Kandidat nauk. Vitebskaja gosudar-stvennaja akademija veterinarnoj mediciny (in Russian).

Panin, A.N., Malik, N.I., & Ilaev, O.S. (2011). Probiotiki v zhivotnovodstve – sostojanie i perspektivi. Veterinari-ja, 3, 3–8 (in Russian).

Peleno, R.A. (2017). Tekhnichni umovy Ukrainy 21.2-00492990-003:2015. Preparat veterynarnyi “Lakto-vet” (in Ukrainian).

Petrakov, E.S., & Petrakova, N.S. (2014). Biologicheskie svojstva laktobacill kishechnoj mikroflory i ih znachenie v normalizacii fiziologicheskih funkcij u sel'skohozjajstvennyh zhivotnyh: obzor. Problemy biologii produktyvnyh zhyvotnyh, 2, 5–31 (in Russian).

Tarakanov, B.V., & Nikolicheva, T.A. (2000). Mehaniz-my dejstvija probiotikov na mikrofloru pishheva-ritel'nogo trakta i organizma zhivotnogo. Veterinarija, 1, 47 (in Russian).

Tolokonnikov, V.P., Lysenko, I.O., & Eremin, V.A. (2008). Izuchenie farmakoterapevticheskih svojstv an-tibakterial'nogo preparata kompozit pri zabolevanijah zheludochno-kishechnogo trakta u svinej in-fekcionnoj i invazionnoj jetiologii. Trudy Kubanskogo gosudarstvennogo agrarnogo universi-teta, 2(11), 207–215 (in Russian).

Topurija, I.Ju. (2007). Farmakorrekcija estestvennoj rezistentnosti porosjat v podsosnyj period. Vestnik RASHN, 2, 71–72 (in Russian).

Havkin, A.I. (2004). Narushenija mikrojekologii kishechnika. Principy korrekcii. Metodicheskie rek-omendacii. Moskva (in Russian).

Chumachenko, V., & Pavlenko, O. (2004). Doslidzhennia imunnoi systemy i mekhanizmy zakhystu orhanizmu. Veterynarna medytsyna Ukrainy, 4, 26–29 (in Ukrainian).

Hardy, H., Harris, J., Lyon, E., Beal, J., & Foey, A.D. (2013). Probiotics, Prebiotics and Immunomodulation of Gut Mucosal Defences: Homeostasis and immunopathology. Nutrients, 5(6), 1869–1912. doi: 10.3390/nu5061869.

Jones, S., & Versalovic, J. (2009). Probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri biofilms produce antimicrobial and antiinflammatory factors. BMC Microbiology, 9, 35. doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-9-35.

Vlizlo, V.V. (2012). Laboratorni metody doslidzhen u biolohiyi, tvarynnytstvi ta veterynarniy medytsyni [Laboratory methods of investigation in biology, stock-breeding and veterinary]. Spolom, Lviv (in Ukrainian).

Abstract views: 11
PDF Downloads: 8
Published
2018-11-16
How to Cite
Peleno, R. (2018). Immune status of piglets for chemoprophylaxis of nematodoze-protozoan invasion and use of probiotic “Lactovet”. Scientific Messenger of LNU of Veterinary Medicine and Biotechnologies. Series: Veterinary Sciences, 20(88), 167-172. Retrieved from https://nvlvet.com.ua/index.php/journal/article/view/1782