Table 2.

Effect of KR-32 on growth performance of piglets challenged with or without enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) K88

Item	Exp. 1				Exp. 2
	Treatment group1		SEM	P-value	Treatment group2			SEM	P-value
	CON-1	APK			CON-2	K88	K88 + APK
BW, kg
Initial BW, day 1	6.73	6.62	0.13	0.718	7.94	7.79	7.55	0.09	0.191
Final BW, day 7	7.66	7.59	0.15	0.837	10.09a	7.97b	8.25b	0.28	<0.01
ADG, g	154	160	15.85	0.863	358a	43b	116c	37	<0.01
ADFI, g	367	355	0.01	0.542	518a	181b	206b	41	<0.01
G:F3	0.35	0.42	0.40	0.608	0.68a	0.07b	0.51a	2.62	0.088

^a–cMeans within a row with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05).

¹CON-1 = piglets with an intraperitoneal (i.p.) injection of an equivalent volume (1 mL) of PBS; APK = piglets with an i.p. injection of antimicrobial peptide KR-32. n = 6 for the CON-1 group and n = 6 for the APK group.

²CON-2 = piglets with an oral administration of fresh Luria–Bertani broth (50 mL) followed by an i.p. injection of an equivalent volume of PBS; K88 = piglets orally challenged with 1 × 10¹⁰ cfu ETEC K88 on day 1 followed by an i.p. injection of an equivalent volume (1 mL) of PBS; K88 + APK = piglets orally challenged with 1 × 10¹⁰ cfu ETEC K88 on day 1 followed by an i.p. injection of 0.6 mg/kg KR-32. n = 6 for the CON-2 group, n = 5 for the K88 group, and n = 5 for the K88 + APK group.

³G:F = gain:feed.