Table 4.
Effects of dietary treatments on fecal microbial concentrations in challenged piglets (cfu/ml)1
| Week | Treatments2
|
SE3 | p-value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NC | PC | T1 | T2 | |||
| S. typhimurium | ||||||
| 1 | 4.09 | 3.54 | 3.68 | 4.04 | 0.37 | 0.26 |
| 2 | 4.09a | 1.88b | 3.82a | 4.37a | 0.52 | <0.01 |
| 3 | 4.26a | 1.33b | 3.66a | 3.99a | 0.42 | <0.01 |
| 4 | 4.34a | 0.80c | 3.34b | 3.39b | 0.44 | <0.0001 |
| E. coli | ||||||
| 1 | 4.88 | 5.09 | 5.46 | 5.45 | 0.33 | 0.16 |
| 2 | 5.64 | 5.19 | 5.58 | 5.75 | 0.35 | 0.29 |
| 3 | 6.08a | 5.06b | 5.34b | 5.25b | 0.27 | 0.01 |
| 4 | 6.23a | 5.07b | 5.26b | 5.13b | 0.18 | <0.01 |
| Lactobacillus spp. | ||||||
| 1 | 7.04a | 6.23b | 7.21a | 6.62ab | 0.39 | 0.05 |
| 2 | 7.24 | 6.73 | 7.33 | 7.29 | 0.32 | 0.15 |
| 3 | 7.12ab | 6.55b | 7.08ab | 7.50a | 0.36 | 0.07 |
| 4 | 6.95b | 7.18b | 6.79b | 7.71a | 0.27 | 0.01 |
| Bacillus spp. | ||||||
| 1 | 5.91 | 6.01 | 6.17 | 6.21 | 0.25 | 0.46 |
| 2 | 6.33 | 6.53 | 6.37 | 6.64 | 0.39 | 0.76 |
| 3 | 6.38 | 6.43 | 6.29 | 6.56 | 0.44 | 0.90 |
| 4 | 6.22 | 6.23 | 6.10 | 6.75 | 0.54 | 0.51 |
a,b
Means in a row with no common superscripts significantly differ (p<0.05) or tend to differ (p<0.10).
1
Values represent the means of three pens with four pigs per pen.
2
NC (Negative control), basal diet; PC (Positive control), basal diet+0.002% Apramycin; T1, basal diet+0.2% Respig (containing resveratrol); T2, basal diet+0.0125% Biomin PEP; (essential oils blend).
3
Pooled standard error.