Scientific Reports of the National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine

Effectiveness of biotechnological tools in improving the health of pigs and environmentalisation of production

Dmytro Zhdanov, Yaroslav Vasiutynskyi, Mykhailo Huhliak, Yuriy Zasukha
Download article
Abstract

In the context of the global growth of pathogen resistance to antibiotics and environmental challenges in animal husbandry, there is a need to implement effective biotechnological solutions. The purpose of the study was to establish the effectiveness of using biotechnological tools in pig breeding, considering their impact on animal health, productivity, and environmental sustainability of production. The experiment was conducted in the period from August to December 2024 at two pig farms in the Kirovohrad and Vinnytsia oblasts with a total sample of 240 pigs divided into control and three experimental groups. The study examined the effects of probiotics, vaccines, and genetic selection on live weight gain, morbidity, haematological and immunological parameters, frequency of antibiotic use, environmental parameters, and economic profitability. As a result of the use of probiotics, the average daily weight gain increased by 80 g, the morbidity decreased by half, and immunoglobulin levels increased increased by 30%. Vaccination provided an increase in the safety of livestock by 4.3%, a reduction in the need for antibiotic therapy by 40%, and a reduction in residual antibiotics in products. Genetic selection yielded the highest results – an increase of up to 810 g/day, the lowest rates of morbidity, ammonia emissions, and antibiotic residues. Economic analysis confirmed the effectiveness of all three approaches: the ROI was 287.5% for probiotics, 50% for vaccination, and 123% for breeding. The practical effectiveness of the results is confirmed by examples of similar approaches in Denmark, Poland, and Brazil, where a reduction in the use of antibiotics was achieved without compromising productivity. The study also showed a positive effect on soil microbial activity, reduced acid load, and eutrophication risks. The results can be used in the practice of pig farms to increase animal productivity, reduce dependence on antibiotics, and reduce the environmental burden on agroecosystems

Keywords

probiotics; vaccination; genetics; animal husbandry; veterinary medicine

Suggested citation
Zhdanov, D., Vasiutynskyi, Ya., Huhliak, M., & Zasukha, Yu. (2025). Effectiveness of biotechnological tools in improving the health of pigs and environmentalisation of production. Scientific Reports of the National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine, 21(3),128-144. https://doi.org/10.31548/dopovidi/3.2025.128
References
  1. Bodyul, A. (2024). Assessment of the properties of different strains of salmonella for the use of biotechnological diagnostic methods in laboratory conditions Derzhprodspozhivsluzhbi m. Mykolaiv. Mykolaiv: MNAU.
  2. Das, D.N., Paul, D., & Mondal, S. (2022). Role of biotechnology on animal breeding and genetic improvement. In Emerging issues in climate smart livestock production (pp. 317-337). London: Academic Press.
  3. DSTU 7863:2015. (2015). Soil quality. Determination of easily hydrolyzable nitrogen by Kornfield method. Kyiv: Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine.
  4. European Environment Agency. (2021). Eutrophication and nitrogen pollution in Europe. Retrived from https://www.eea.europa.eu.
  5. European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2010). Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. Official Journal of the European Union, L276, 33-79.
  6. Gaidar, A.A. (2020). System of functioning of ecological marketing in biotechnological production. Environmental Balance, 2, 46-52. doi: 10.33730/2310-4678.2.2020.208768.
  7. Goley, Yu.M., Stasyuk, Yu.M., & Krupskyi, O.P. (2022). Research on world trends in biotechnology development. Innovative Economy, 1, 12-22. doi: 10.37332/2309-1533.2022.1.2.
  8. Hasan, M.K., et al. (2024). Transformation toward precision large-scale operations for sustainable farming: A review based on China’s pig industry. Journal of Advanced Veterinary and Animal Research, 11(4), 1076-1092. doi: 10.5455/javar.2024.k859.
  9. Huangfu, W., et al. (2024). In vitro and in vivo fermentation models to study the function of dietary fiber in pig nutrition. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 108(1), 314. doi: 10.1007/s00253-024-13148-9.
  10. Jacobson, M., Fellström, C., Lindberg, R., Wallgren, P., & Jensen-Waern, M. (2004). Experimental swine dysentery: Comparison between infection models. Journal of Medical Microbiology, 53(4). doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.05323-0.
  11. Jørgensen, U., Jensen, S.K., & Ambye‐Jensen, M. (2022). Coupling the benefits of grassland crops and green biorefining to produce protein, materials and services for the green transition. Grass and Forage Science, 77(4), 295-306. doi: 10.1111/gfs.12594.
  12. Kemper, N. (2008). Veterinary antibiotics in the aquatic and terrestrial environment. Ecological Indicators, 8(1), 1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2007.06.002.
  13. Khajali, F., & Rafiei, F. (2024). A review of plant anti-nutritional factors in animal health and production: The classification, biological properties, and the passivation strategy. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 18, article number 101290. doi: 10.1016/j.jafr.2024.101290.
  14. Knap, P.W. (2022). Pig breeding for increased sustainability. In Animal breeding and genetics (pp. 139-179). New York: Springer US.
  15. Koroban, M., Lykhach, V., Lykhach, A., Barkar, Y., & Chernysh, S. (2023). Increasing the productivity of young pigs in the context of overcoming technological stress. Animal Science and Food Technology, 14(3), 47-60. doi: 10.31548/animal.3.2023.47.
  16. Korsa, G., Alemu, D., & Ayele, A. (2024). Azolla plant production and their potential applications. International Journal of Agronomy, 2024(1), article number 1716440. doi: 10.1155/2024/1716440.
  17. Law of Ukraine No. 3447-IV “On the Protection of Animals from Cruelty”. (2006, February). Retrived from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/3447-15.
  18. Nagy, P.P., Skidmore, J.A., & Juhasz, J. (2022). Intensification of camel farming and milk production with special emphasis on animal health, welfare, and the biotechnology of reproduction. Animal Frontiers, 12(4), 35-45. doi: 10.1093/af/vfac043.
  19. Oliveira, B.C.D., et al. (2024). Antimicrobial use in pig farms in the Midwestern Region of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Antibiotics, 13(5), article number 403. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics13050403.
  20. Puchałka, R., Paź-Dyderska, S., Woziwoda, B., & Dyderski, M.K. (2023). Climate change will cause climatic niche contraction of Vaccinium myrtillus L. and V. vitis-idaea L. in Europe. Science of the Total Environment, 892, article number 164483. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164483.
  21. Rauw, W.M., et al. (2020). Prospects for sustainability of pig production in relation to climate change and novel feed resources. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 100(9), 3575-3586. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.10338.
  22. Reeves, D.E. (2006). The application of biotechnical and epidemiologic tools for pig health. Animal Biotechnology, 17(2), 177-187. doi: 10.1080/10495390600962134.
  23. Shanmugamprema, D., Muthuswamy, K., Ponnusamy, V., Subramanian, G., Velusamy, T., Krishnan, V., & Subramaniam, S. (2022). CD36 and GPR120 mediated orogustatory perception of dietary lipids and its physiological implication in the pygmy mouse Mus booduga. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 106(6), 1408-1419. doi: 10.1111/jpn.13755.
  24. Singh, R.P., Singh, P.K., Gupta, R., & Singh, R.L. (2018). Biotechnological tools to enhance sustainable production. In Biotechnology for sustainable agriculture (pp. 19-66). Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-812160-3.00002-7.
  25. Stefanik, E., Drewnowska, O., Lisowska, B., & Turek, B. (2021). Causes, effects and methods of monitoring gas exchange disturbances during equine general anaesthesia. Animals, 11(7), article number 2049. doi: 10.3390/ani11072049.
  26. Ti, C., Xia, L., Chang, S.X., & Yan, X. (2019). Potential for mitigating global agricultural ammonia emission: A meta-analysis. Environmental Pollution, 245, 141-148. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.10.124.
  27. Tu, C.F., Chuang, C.K., & Yang, T.S. (2022). The application of new breeding technology based on gene editing in pig industry – a review. Animal Bioscience, 35(6), 791-803. doi: 10.5713/ab.21.0390.
  28. Wang, J., Deng, L., Chen, M., Che, Y., Li, L., Zhu, L., Chen G., & Feng, T. (2024). Phytogenic feed additives as natural antibiotic alternatives in animal health and production: A review of the literature of the last decade. Animal Nutrition, 17, 244-264. doi: 10.1016/j.aninu.2024.01.012.
  29. Whitworth, K.M., Green, J.A., Redel, B.K., Geisert, R.D., Lee, K., Telugu, B.P., Wells, K.D., & Prather, R.S. (2022). Improvements in pig agriculture through gene editing. CABI Agriculture and Bioscience, 3(1), article number 41. doi: 10.1186/s43170-022-00111-9.
  30. Wu, G., & Bazer, F.W. (2019). Application of new biotechnologies for improvements in swine nutrition and pork production. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, 10(1), article number 28. doi: 10.1186/s40104-019-0337-6.
  31. Yunes, M.C., Osório-Santos, Z., von Keyserlingk, M.A., & Hötzel, M.J. (2021). Gene editing for improved animal welfare and production traits in cattle: Will this technology be embraced or rejected by the public? Sustainability, 13(9), article number 4966. doi: 10.3390/su13094966.
  32. Zhao, L.Y., Manuzon, R., & Hadlocon, L.J. (2014). Ammonia emission from animal feeding operations and its impacts. Columbus: Ohio State University Extension.
  33. Zhong, S., Li, J., & Zhang, D. (2022). Measurement of green total factor productivity on Chinese pig breeding: From the perspective of regional differences. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(18), 27479-27495. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-201828/v1.
  34. Zhu, Y.-G., Johnson, T.A., Su, J.-Q., Qiao, M., Guo, G.-X., Stedtfeld, R.D., Hashsham, S.A. & Tiedje, J.M. (2013). Diverse and abundant antibiotic resistance genes in Chinese swine farms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(9), 3435-3440. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1222743110.
  35. Zira, S., Röös, E., Ivarsson, E., Friman, J., Møller, H., Samsonstuen, S., Olsen, H.F., & Rydhmer, L. (2022). An assessment of scenarios for future pig production using a One Health approach. Livestock Science, 260, article number 104929. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2022.104929.