Table 8.
Effect of dietary DMY supplementation on intestinal bacteria in digesta of cecum and colon in weaned piglets upon ETEC challenge.1
| Items | Treatments2 | SEM | p-value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CON | ECON | EDMY | |||
| Cecum | |||||
| Total bacteria, copies/g | 11.09 | 10.98 | 10.94 | 0.03 | 0.10 |
| Escherichia coli, copies/g | 8.21a | 10.11a | 8.53b | 0.26 | 0.03 |
| Lactobacillus, copies/g | 8.59 | 8.77 | 8.36 | 0.11 | 0.33 |
| Bifidobacterium, copies/g | 7.03 | 6.83 | 7.37 | 0.24 | 0.68 |
| Bacillus, copies/g | 9.24 | 9.44 | 9.64 | 0.08 | 0.15 |
| Colon | |||||
| Total bacteria, copies/g | 11.18b | 11.45a | 11.31ab | 0.05 | 0.03 |
| Escherichia coli, copies/g | 8.84b | 10.52a | 9.34ab | 0.27 | <0.01 |
| Lactobacillus, copies/g | 8.70 | 8.49 | 8.94 | 0.15 | 0.46 |
| Bifidobacterium, copies/g | 7.48 | 7.25 | 7.77 | 0.26 | 0.73 |
| Bacillus, copies/g | 9.59 | 9.41 | 9.71 | 0.07 | 0.18 |
Data are means of eight replicates per treatment.
CON, pigs were fed with a basal diet; ECON, pigs were fed with a basal diet and challenged by ETEC; EDMY, pigs were fed with a DMY-containing diet and challenged by ETEC.
a,bWithin a row, values with different superscript letters differ (p < 0.05).