Abstract
The objective of this experiment was to compare the effects of spray-dried plasma protein (SDPP) and dried egg protein (DEP), without (AB−) or with (AB+) in-feed antibiotics, on growth performance and markers of intestinal health in nursery pigs raised in commercial conditions. This 42-d experiment utilized 1,230 pigs (4.93 ± 0.04 kg body weight; approximately 15–18 d of age). Pigs were randomly assigned to one of six dietary treatments that were arranged as a 2 × 3 factorial of in-feed antibiotics (AB− vs. AB+) and a specialty protein additive (none [CON], porcine SDPP, or DEP). Diets were fed in four phases with phases 3 and 4 as a common diet across all treatments. Specialty protein additives were fed in phases 1 (0–13 d; 3% SDPP, and 0.20% DEP) and 2 (13–26 d; 2% SDPP, and 0.10% DEP). Antibiotics were fed in phases 1–3 (662 mg chlortetracycline [CTC]/kg, 28 mg carbadox/kg, and 441 mg CTC/kg, respectively). Ileal tissue and blood samples were collected from 48 pigs (8 per treatment) on d 20. Data were analyzed using PROC MIXED of SAS (9.4) with pen as the experimental unit; protein additives, antibiotics, and their interaction were fixed effects and block was a random effect. The pigs experienced naturally occurring health challenges in weeks 2 and 4. In the AB− diets, SDPP and DEP increased average daily gain (ADG; P = 0.036) and average daily feed intake (ADFI; P = 0.040) compared to CON; in the AB+ diets, neither SDPP nor DEP increased ADG or ADFI compared to CON but SDPP did increase these parameters over DEP. The SDPP and DEP diets decreased the number of individual medical treatments compared to CON (P = 0.001). The AB+ increased ileal mucosal interleukin (IL)-1 receptor antagonist (P = 0.017). Feeding DEP reduced the concentration of mucosal IL-1β compared to CON, but not SDPP (P = 0.022). There was a trend for SDPP and DEP to increase villus height:crypt depth compared to CON (P = 0.066). Neither antibiotics or protein additive affected serum malondialdehyde concentration or ileal mRNA abundance of claudin-3 or 4, occludin, or zonula occludens-1 (P > 0.10). In conclusion, SDPP and DEP improved growth performance of weaned pigs in the absence of antibiotics but neither improved growth compared to CON when feeding standard antibiotic levels. The specialty proteins had a positive effect on health; specialty proteins and antibiotics were able to modulate some markers of intestinal inflammation and morphology.
Highlights
The weaning process exposes pigs to a multitude of stressors such as dietary and environmental changes, social stress, and an unpredictable array of pathogens
The specialty proteins had a positive effect on health; specialty proteins and antibiotics were able to modulate some markers of intestinal inflammation and morphology
The objective of this experiment was to compare the effects of spray-dried plasma protein (SDPP) and dried egg protein (DEP), without (AB−) or with (AB+) in-feed antibiotics, on growth performance and markers of intestinal health in nursery pigs raised in commercial conditions
Summary
The weaning process exposes pigs to a multitude of stressors such as dietary and environmental changes, social stress, and an unpredictable array of pathogens The combination of these stressors typically results in reduced growth rate and feed intake as well as impaired function and integrity of the gut (Lallès et al, 2004; Pluske, 2013; Li et al, 2019). It has been hypothesized that these improvements are the result of increased feed intake, the protective effects of the constituent immunoglobulin rich fraction, and modulation of the immune response and gut barrier structure (Pierce et al, 2005; Peace et al, 2011) This proposed mode of action, as well as reports that SDPP improves performance of unhealthy and/or environmentally challenged pigs, suggests that SDPP could be used to limit or reduce antibiotics in nursery diets (Torrallardona et al, 2002). The cost of this ingredient and a desire by some producers to reduce animal products in their feed have prompted the industry to look for alternatives to SDPP (Patterson et al, 2010; Gerber et al, 2014)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have