Skip to main content

Advertisement

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.