Skip to main content

Table 3 Effect of clays on growth performance of pigs experimentally infected with a pathogenic E. coli 1

From: Escherichia coli challenge and one type of smectite alter intestinal barrier of pigs

 

Treatment2

 

P-value

 

Sham

E. coli

 

Main effect3

CON vs. SM4

Item

CON

SMA

SMB

ZEO

CON

SMA

SMB

ZEO

SEM

E. coli

Diet

E x D

Sham

E. coli

d −6 to 0

              

ADG, g

6.25

29.17

−2.08

−25.00

12.50

−25.00

33.33

8.33

42.4

0.80

0.86

0.38

0.87

0.84

ADFI, g

394

442

319

367

421

421

329

406

212

0.74

0.31

0.96

0.79

0.60

d 0 to 5

              

ADG, g

237

180

157

187

137

132

122

85

63.71

< 0.01

0.52

0.73

0.16

0.58

ADFI, g

715

715

557

632

632

627

455

517

193

0.11

0.15

1.00

0.42

0.32

G:F5

0.34

0.26

0.33

0.32

0.23

0.24

0.24

0.24

0.048

0.11

0.95

0.92

0.64

0.95

  1. 1n = 8 pigs/treatment.
  2. 2Sham = unchallenged; E. coli = E. coli challenged; CON = control diet; SMA = 0.3% smectite A; SMB = 0.3% smectite B; ZEO = 0.3% zeolite.
  3. 3E. coli = E. coli challenge effect; Diet = diet effect; E x D = interaction between E. coli and diet effects.
  4. 4Contrast between CON and all clay treatments within challenge treatments.
  5. 5G:F was not reported for period −6 to 0 because of the negative values for ADG.
Back to article page

Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology

ISSN: 2049-1891