Abstract
A total of 360 weanling pigs (DNA 200 × 400; initially 9.7 ± 0.23 kg BW) were used in a 21-d experiment with 6 pigs/pen, 10 replicate pens/treatment, and 2 separate nursery rooms, each with 30 pens. Pigs were weighed and allotted to pens based on BW in a completely randomized block design to one of six treatment diets: 1) Negative control (no organic acids or antibiotics) and the control with 2) 0.25% acidifier A; 3) 0.3% acidifier B; 4) 0.5% acidifier C); 5) 50 g/ton carbadox; and 6) 400 g/ton chlortetracycline (CTC). Upon weaning, a common diet with no antibiotics or additives was fed for 21 d (Phases 1 and 2; days −21 to 0), followed by a 21-d experimental period (Phase 3; days 0 to 21) where treatment diets were fed. Pigs and feeders were individually weighed on a weekly basis to calculate average daily gain (ADG), average daily feed intake (ADFI), and feed efficiency (G:F). Data were analyzed using the PROC GLIMMIX procedure of SAS (v 9.4, SAS Inst., Cary, NC) with pen as the experimental unit, treatment as a fixed effect, and room as a random effect. Dietary treatment had a significant impact (P < 0.05) on ADG, ADFI, and G:F each week and for the overall experimental period (days 0 to 21). Specifically, from days 0 to 7, pigs fed CTC had increased (P = 0.001) ADG compared with those fed acidifier B, acidifier C, and carbadox, whereas pigs fed the negative control and acidifier A diets were intermediate. Additionally, pigs fed the CTC diet had improved (P = 0.0002) ADFI when compared with all other treatments. From days 7 to 14 and days 14 to 21, pigs fed the carbadox diet had decreased (P < 0.0001) ADG compared with all other treatments. During the overall period (days 0 to 21), pigs fed diets containing carbadox had reduced ADG and ADFI (P < 0.0001), whereas pigs fed CTC had improved (P < 0.0001) ADG compared with all other treatments. Additionally, blood parameters, fecal consistency, and fecal microbial populations were analyzed on a subset of pigs (n = 5 pigs/treatment). Dietary treatment significantly affected (P < 0.05) concentrations of protein, globulin, phosphorus, alkaline phosphatase, and sorbitol dehydrogenase in the blood. Treatment also significantly impacted (P = 0.0005) fecal score but did not affect (P = 0.59) fecal microbial growth from days 0 to 21. In summary, CTC continues to be a valuable additive to improve performance in the nursery. Further investigation surrounding the efficacy of dietary acidifiers as antibiotic alternatives is warranted given inconclusive evidence in this study.
Highlights
The weaning transition is a time of great stress and drastic changes in the piglet’s digestive abilities
Pigs were weighed and allotted to pens based on BW in a completely randomized block design to one of six treatment diets: 1) negative control and the control with 2) 0.25% acidifier A; 3) 0.3% acidifier B; 4) 0.5% acidifier C); 5) 50 g/ton carbadox; and 6) 400 g/ton chlortetracycline (CTC)
A common diet with no antibiotics or additives was fed for 21 d (Phases 1 and 2; days −21 to 0), followed by a 21-d experimental period (Phase 3; days 0 to 21) where treatment diets were fed
Summary
The weaning transition is a time of great stress and drastic changes in the piglet’s digestive abilities. Alterations in diet composition, comingling, and exposure to pathogens collectively induce health challenges such as post-weaning diarrhea and cause performance reductions. Animal scientists are searching for alternatives – such as dietary acidifiers. These compounds, classified as organic or inorganic acids, are thought to improve growth performance by reducing gastric pH and limiting the growth of harmful enteric pathogens. Literature is generally supportive of acidifiers improving nursery pig growth performance, but there has been little direct comparison of commercially available acidifier blends and commonly used antimicrobials. The objective of this experiment was to evaluate three dietary acidifiers and their impacts on nursery pig growth performance, fecal score, and fecal microbial populations when compared with two feed-based antibiotics
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
