Table 2.
Effects of API supplementation on the growth performance of ETEC-challenged piglets.
Item | Treatments1 |
SEM |
P-value |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CON | ECON | EANT | E750API | E1500API | P12 | P23 | ||
BW, kg | ||||||||
d 1 | 7.25 | 7.26 | 7.22 | 7.26 | 7.27 | 0.157 | 0.98 | 0.99 |
d 14 | 9.11 | 9.22 | 9.66 | 9.94 | 9.69 | 0.167 | 0.84 | 0.52 |
d 35 | 18.97 | 17.93 | 19.57 | 19.66 | 19.04 | 0.295 | 0.36 | 0.13 |
ADG, g/d | ||||||||
d 1–14 | 133.00 | 139.82b | 174.05ab | 191.58a | 172.65ab | 6.609 | 0.47 | 0.03 |
d 15–35 | 469.74 | 414.48b | 472.32a | 463.20a | 445.26ab | 8.026 | 0.11 | 0.04 |
ADFI, g/d | ||||||||
d 1–14 | 264.69 | 262.94 | 299.91 | 304.61 | 293.53 | 7.181 | 0.93 | 0.16 |
d 15–35 | 685.79 | 656.94 | 689.29 | 695.52 | 671.47 | 10.940 | 0.53 | 0.62 |
F/G, g/g | ||||||||
d 1–14 | 1.99 | 1.88a | 1.74ab | 1.60b | 1.73ab | 0.037 | 0.22 | 0.04 |
d 15–35 | 1.46 | 1.59∗∗a | 1.46b | 1.50b | 1.51ab | 0.015 | <0.01 | 0.02 |
Diarrhea rate, % | ||||||||
d 1–14 | 16.67 | 14.29 | 12.50 | 11.31 | 13.69 | 0.981 | 0.57 | 0.74 |
d 15–35 | 20.00 | 47.08∗∗a | 35.83b | 35.00b | 39.17b | 1.421 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
Diarrhea index | ||||||||
d 1–14 | 0.59 | 0.53a | 0.45ab | 0.33b | 0.40ab | 0.026 | 0.51 | 0.04 |
d 15–35 | 0.49 | 1.29∗∗a | 0.83b | 0.92b | 0.87b | 0.057 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
API = artificial parasin I protein; ETEC = enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli; BW = body weight; ADG = average daily gain; ADFI = average daily feed intake; F/G = feed to gain ratio.
Mean and total SEM are listed in separate columns (n = 6).
CON = basal diet; ECON = basal diet + ETEC; EANT = basal diet + antibiotics + ETEC; E750API = basal diet + 750 mg/kg API + ETEC; E1500API = basal diet + 1500 mg/kg API + ETEC.
P1 is the t-test P-value between CON and ECON group (∗P < 0.05, ∗∗P < 0.01).
P2 is the ANOVA P-value among the ETEC-challenged groups (ECON vs. EANT vs. E750API vs. E1500API). Values with different lowercase letter superscripts within a row mean significant differences (P < 0.05).