Table 3.

Effect of clays on growth performance of pigs experimentally infected with a pathogenic E. coli¹

	Treatment2									P-value
	Sham				E. coli					Main effect3			CON vs. SM4
Item	CON	SMA	SMB	ZEO	CON	SMA	SMB	ZEO	SEM	E. coli	Diet	E x D	Sham	E. coli
d −6 to 0
ADG, g	6.25	29.17	−2.08	−25.00	12.50	−25.00	33.33	8.33	42.4	0.80	0.86	0.38	0.87	0.84
ADFI, g	394	442	319	367	421	421	329	406	212	0.74	0.31	0.96	0.79	0.60
d 0 to 5
ADG, g	237	180	157	187	137	132	122	85	63.71	< 0.01	0.52	0.73	0.16	0.58
ADFI, g	715	715	557	632	632	627	455	517	193	0.11	0.15	1.00	0.42	0.32
G:F5	0.34	0.26	0.33	0.32	0.23	0.24	0.24	0.24	0.048	0.11	0.95	0.92	0.64	0.95

¹n = 8 pigs/treatment.

²Sham = unchallenged; E. coli = E. coli challenged; CON = control diet; SMA = 0.3% smectite A; SMB = 0.3% smectite B; ZEO = 0.3% zeolite.

³E. coli = E. coli challenge effect; Diet = diet effect; E x D = interaction between E. coli and diet effects.

⁴Contrast between CON and all clay treatments within challenge treatments.

⁵G:F was not reported for period −6 to 0 because of the negative values for ADG.