Table 3.
Effects of treatment on growth performance in weaned pigs challenged with F18 ETEC
| Treatment1 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item | NC | PC | DFM1 | DFM2 | SEM | P-value |
| BW, kg | ||||||
| dpi −7 | 6.59 | 6.59 | 6.34 | 6.17 | 0.17 | 0.785 |
| dpi 0 | 6.88 | 6.83 | 6.73 | 6.80 | 0.17 | 0.990 |
| dpi 10 | 10.78a | 9.22b | 8.55b | 9.17b | 0.17 | <0.001 |
| dpi −7 to 0 | ||||||
| ADG, kg | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.09 | 0.01 | 0.466 |
| ADFI, kg | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.01 | 0.859 |
| G:F2 | 0.45b | 0.34b | 0.67ab | 0.79a | 0.06 | 0.035 |
| dpi 1 to 10 | ||||||
| ADG, kg | 0.39a | 0.19b | 0.15b | 0.22b | 0.01 | <0.001 |
| ADFI, kg | 0.49a | 0.33b | 0.19b | 0.33b | 0.01 | <0.001 |
| G:F | 0.81 | 0.54 | 0.51 | 0.65 | 0.06 | 0.203 |
1NC (n = 10); PC (n = 9); DFM 1 = PC + direct-fed microbial 1 (n = 8; three strains of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens; 7.5 × 105 cfu/g of feed); DFM 2 = PC + direct-fed microbial 2 (n = 7; two strains of B. amyloliquefaciens and one strain of Bacillus subtilis; 1.5 × 105 cfu/g of feed). Supplementation rates were based on manufacturer’s recommendations (Danisco Animal Nutrition).
2Interpretation of G:F should be cautious because values less than −1.4 were removed from analysis (2 numbers prechallenge from PC and DFM1). Additionally, three pigs in PC had G:F ranging from −0.47 to −0.07 and one pig from DFM1 had a G:F = −0.56. Five pigs with G:F > 1 from both DFM treatments during dpi −7 to 0 were included in the analysis.
a,bMeans with differing superscripts indicate a significant (P < 0.05) difference.