Table 3.
Effect of fat encapsulation on growth performance of nursery pigs
| Treatments | P value | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item | Control1 | Palm oil | Encapsulated palm oil1 | Coconut oil | Encapsulated coconut oil1 | SEM2 | Fat source3 | Encapsulation4 | Fat source × encapsulation |
| BW, kg | |||||||||
| Day 0 | 8.28 | 8.10 | 8.19 | 8.27 | 8.32 | 0.17 | 0.71 | 0.86 | 0.96 |
| Day 14 | 11.88 | 11.07 | 12.36 | 11.75 | 12.23 | 0.20 | 0.51 | 0.04 | 0.32 |
| Day 28 | 16.28 | 15.35 | 17.09 | 16.42 | 17.21 | 0.25 | 0.20 | 0.01 | 0.30 |
| ADG, g | |||||||||
| Days 0 to 14 | 221b | 177c | 263a | 213bc | 243ab | 8 | 0.53 | <0.001 | 0.05 |
| Days 15 to 28 | 314 | 305 | 337 | 333 | 356 | 7 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.67 |
| Days 0 to 28 | 268bc | 241c | 300a | 273ab | 300a | 6 | 0.10 | <0.001 | 0.09 |
| ADFI, g | |||||||||
| Days 0 to 14 | 322 | 285 | 315 | 316 | 337 | 9 | 0.21 | 0.22 | 0.82 |
| Days 15 to 28 | 533 | 549 | 558 | 525 | 532 | 11 | 0.36 | 0.76 | 0.97 |
| Days 0 to 28 | 427 | 417 | 437 | 420 | 435 | 7 | 0.96 | 0.30 | 0.86 |
| G:F, kg/kg | |||||||||
| Day 0 to 14 | 0.68bc | 0.62c | 0.79a | 0.68bc | 0.72ab | 0.01 | 0.85 | 0.001 | 0.04 |
| Days 15 to 28 | 0.59bc | 0.56c | 0.60abc | 0.63ab | 0.67a | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.15 | 0.67 |
| Days 0 to 28 | 0.63b | 0.57c | 0.67ab | 0.65ab | 0.69a | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.007 | 0.16 |
| Diarrhea incidence, % | |||||||||
| Day 0 to 28 | 10.68b | 14.44a | 7.46bc | 10.49b | 6.61c | 0.71 | 0.06 | <0.001 | 0.22 |
a–cWithin a row, means with differing superscripts differ (P < 0.05). The linear model used included block (BW), treatment, and block × treatment to evaluate the difference among five treatments, P value is not shown.
1Control diet contains 6.0% soybean oil; encapsulated palm oil (granular, containing 80% palm oil), encapsulated coconut oil (granular, containing 80% coconut oil).
2SEM is for treatment within the same row.
3Palm oil vs. coconut oil.
4Encapsulation vs. not.