. 2021 Sep 14;8:82–90. doi: 10.1016/j.aninu.2021.04.003

Table 4.

Effect of additives and NE challenge on pH on d 16 and 21.¹

Item	UCC	NE challenged²					SEM	P-value
Item	UCC	CHC	BAC	SMP	SMF	SHM	SEM	P-value
Day 16
Crop	4.97	4.72	4.86	5.11	4.94	4.89	0.09	0.084
Gizzard	2.69	2.83	2.81	2.75	2.76	2.76	0.11	0.945
Duodenum	5.84	5.72	5.73	5.78	5.66	5.75	0.05	0.231
Jejunum	5.79	5.60	5.65	5.72	5.67	5.63	0.06	0.264
Ileum	5.56^a	5.31^bc	5.29^bc	5.47^ab	5.13^c	5.31^bc	0.07	0.001
Caeca	5.51	5.57	5.52	5.47	5.50	5.49	0.08	0.969
Day 21
Crop	4.75	4.85	4.95	4.87	4.92	4.86	0.09	0.717
Gizzard	2.57	2.82	2.76	2.86	2.65	2.88	0.11	0.310
Duodenum	5.92	5.97	5.92	5.85	5.94	5.73	0.06	0.068
Jejunum	6.04	6.05	6.05	6.12	6.05	5.97	0.04	0.224
Ileum	5.71	5.77	5.69	5.69	5.81	5.76	0.07	0.736
Caeca	5.85^b	6.08^a	6.14^a	6.21^a	6.04^ab	6.17^a	0.07	0.017

NE = necrotic enteritis.

^{a – c} Values in a row with no common superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05). Mean values are based on 2 birds per replicate and 13 replicates per treatment.

UCC, unchallenged control; CHC, challenged control; BAC, zinc bacitracin; SMP, a blend of short-chain fatty acids (SCFA), medium-chain fatty acids (MCFA) and phenolic compound; SMF, a blend of buffered SCFA with MCFA; SHM, a blend of buffered SCFA with a high concentration of MCFA.

NE challenged birds were gavaged with Eimeria spp. at d 9 and C. perfringens at d 14.