Effects of dietary probiotic, liquid feed and nutritional concentration on the growth performance, nutrient digestibility and fecal score of weaning piglets

Article information

Asian-Australas J Anim Sci.. 2020;33(10):1617-1623
Publication date (electronic) : 2019 November 12
doi : https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.19.0473
1Department of Animal Resource and Science, Dankook University, Cheonan 31116, Korea
2Kemin Industries (China) Co., Ltd. Sanzao, Zhuhai 519040, China
3All The Best Co., Ltd. Seoul 05399, Korea
*Corresponding Author: In Ho Kim, Tel: +82-41-550-3652, Fax: +82-41-565-2949, E-mail: inhokim@dankook.ac.kr
Received 2019 June 8; Revised 2019 August 27; Accepted 2019 October 30.

Abstract

Objective

This study was conducted to investigate the effects of dietary probiotic blend and liquid feed program at different nutritional densities on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, fecal score of weaning piglets.

Methods

A total of 120 weaning pigs with an initial body weight of 7.05±0.93 kg per pig (21 days of age) were randomly allocated into 1 of the following 8 dietary treatments (3 replicates per treatment with 5 pigs per replicate) in a 2×2×2 factorial arrangement (nutrition levels: apparent metabolic energy [AME] = 3,500 kcal/kg, crude protein [CP] = 20% vs AME = 3,400 kcal/kg, CP = 19.42%; feed types:dry vs wet; probiotics levels: 0 mg/kg vs 300 mg/kg).

Results

During d 5 to d 15, greater average daily gain (ADG) and average daily feed intake (ADFI) (p<0.05) were observed in probiotics treatments. During d 15 to d 25, gain:feed (G:F) ratio (p<0.05) were significantly improved in probiotics, wet feed and high nutrition diet. Moreover, two interactions i) between nutrition levels and feed types, and ii) between nutrition levels and probiotics were found in G:F ratio. Furthermore, there was a significant positive interaction on G:F among those 3 factors (p<0.05). Overall, increasing ADG, ADFI, and G:F ratio were detected in probiotics treatment significantly (p<0.05). Besides, an obvious reduction on fecal score was observed in probiotics treatment from d 0 to d 5 (p<0.05). There was an interactive effect on fecal score between feed types and nutrition concentrations from d 5 to d 25 (p<0.05).

Conclusion

These results indicated that probiotics supplementation could benefit growth performance and reduce the frequency of watery feces. Besides, wet feed program (feed:water = 1:1.25) could improve the G:F. The effect of liquid feed or probiotic could be influenced by dietary nutrition density in weaned piglets. An increased value of G:F was obtained when wet feeding a high nutrition diet (100 kcal higher than NRC 2012 recommendations) was supplemented with probiotics for 15 to 25 days.

INTRODUCTION

Gastrointestinal disturbances immediately post weaning can cause heavy economic loss in the pig industry. The weaning transition is a complex period during which the piglets have to cope with abrupt separation from their mothers and adapt to new environment where they are mixed with other litters. In addition, their diet will be switched from highly-digestible (liquid) milk to a less digestible and more-complex solid feed during this transition. Weaned at an early age (21 to 35 d) in intensive production systems has probably exacerbated the level of general stress in these immature animals [1].

In the past decade, various nutritional methods or solutions to minimize the weaning losses have been tested, some of which have been widely implemented in practice. Probiotics, which is a modulator to increase many active behaviors, plays an important role in gut-brain axis regulation [2]. Many references demonstrate different probiotics capacities can enhance productivity in weaning piglets and increase gain:feed (G:F) ratio [3], average daily gain (ADG) [4] and nutrient digestibility [5]. Direct action of the probiotics can achieve a higher bioavailability of feed nutrients, indirect gut health modulation (relieving weaning stress, preventing diarrhea, improving the intestinal microbiota profile, etc.) or perhaps a combination of both may be involved [6]. Liquid feed diets have been widely used in western and southern Europe for 20 years, especially in France and Italy [7]. There has been an increase in the use of fermented liquid and liquid feed in the European Union (EU) since the ban on the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in pig feed [8]. Piglets grew faster on the liquid diet due to a higher feed intake (FI), a better transition from milk feeding and lower risk of dehydration [9]. With the advancement of additives and feeding technology, probiotics and liquid feeding would be used in most swine farms. However, what nutritionists always focus on is the formulation designs. Various nutrition levels and the liquid feed program might influence the effects of additives in pigs. Therefore, we hypothesized there might be an interaction among nutrition levels, the liquid feeding program and probiotics. However, no research has been carried out to determine the interaction among probiotics, the liquid feeding program and nutrition designs. Consequently, the objective of the study is to determine effects of dietary probiotic blend and liquid feed program at different nutritional densities on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, fecal score in weaning piglets.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The protocols used for the current experiment were approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee of Dankook University, Korea.

Animal, diet, experimental design

A total of 120 weaning pigs (21 days of age) with an initial body weight (BW) of 7.05±0.93 kg per pig were randomly allocated into 1 of 8 dietary treatments (3 replicates per treatment with 5 pigs per replicate) in a 2×2×2 factorial arrangement with 2 levels of nutrition density apparent metabolic energy (AME) = 14.63 kJ/kg or 3,500 kcal/kg, CP = 20% vs AME = 14.23 kJ/kg or 3,400 kcal/kg, CP = 19.42%), 2 types of feed (dry vs wet), the liquid feed was prepared by mixing meal and water in a 1:2.5 ratio. The 2 levels of probiotics (0 mg/kg vs 300 mg/kg) were provided by Daehan feed mill company (Bacillus subtilis 2×108 colony-forming unit [CFU]/g, Enterococcus faecium 2×108 CFU/g). The 8 experimental diets were: TRT1, high nutrition × dry type without probiotics; TRT2, high nutrition × dry type with probiotics; TRT3, high nutrition × wet type without probiotics; TRT4, high nutrition × wet type with probiotics; TRT5, low nutrition × dry type without probiotics; TRT6, low nutrition × dry type with probiotics; TRT7, low nutrition × wet type without probiotics; TRT8, low nutrition × wet type with probiotics. This research was divided into three periods: Phase 1, d 0 to 5; Phase 2, d 5 to 15; Phase 3, d 15 to 25. All diets were formulated to contain approximately equal amounts of essential amino acids and the amino acid was on standard ileal digestibility basis. Ca, absorbable P, and Na, based on the analytical data from the feedstuffs. Different nutrition concentration diets meet or exceed the requirements suggested by the National Research Council (NRC [10]) (Table 1).

Diet compositions (as fed basis)

Chromic oxide (Cr2O3) was added to each diet at 0.2% as an indigestible marker to evaluate the nutrient digestibility on d 5, d 15, and d 25. Pigs were housed in an environmentally controlled nursery facility with slatted plastic flooring and a mechanical ventilation system. The temperature of the room was maintained at approximately 30°C for the first week of the experiment, after which it was reduced by 1°C per week over the next 4 weeks. Each pen (1.8 × 1.0 m) was equipped with a self-feeder and a nipple waterer to allow ad libitum access to feed and water throughout the experimental period.

Sampling and measurements

The individual pig BW and feed consumption from each pen was monitored to calculate the ADG, average daily feed intake (ADFI) and G:F ratio on 0, d 5, d 15, and d 25. Fecal samples were collected from two pigs in each pen (1 gilt and 1 barrow) on the d 5, d 15, and d 25 of the experiment to determine the apparent total tract digestibility of dry matter (DM), N, and energy.

Feed samples were dried at 70°C for 72 h, after which they were ground to pass through a 1-mm screen. The DM and N concentrations were determined according to the AOAC [11]. Representative samples of each ingredient were hydrolyzed for 23 h at 110 1°C with or without performic acid oxidation for Cys and Met, and other AA, respectively, and AA was separated by ion exchange chromatography and quantified by photometric detection after ninhydrin reaction European Commission [12].

The fecal score was determined by the average value of five pigs of each pen by using a 5-grade score system [13]. The standard of this system is as following: 1 = hard, dry pellets in a small, hard mass; 2 = hard, formed stool that remains firm and soft; 3 = soft, formed and moist stool that retains its shape; 4 = soft, unformed stool that assumes the shape of the container; 5 = watery, liquid stool that can be poured. Scores were recorded on a pen basis following observations of individual pigs and signs of stool consistency in the pen.

Statistical analyses

Data were analyzed as a completely randomized block design, with a 2×2×2 factorial arrangement, using general linear model procedure [14]. Variability in the data was expressed as the pooled standard error of mean, and p<0.05 was considered statistically significant, whereas p<0.10 was considered a tendency.

RESULTS

Growth performance and nutrient digestibility of dry matter, energy and nitrogen

The results of growth performance and nutrient digestibility of DM, energy and nitrogen are presented in Table 2, 3, respectively. In the phase 2, ADG and ADFI were greater p< 0.05) in probiotics treatments comparing to the non-probiotics treatments. In the phase 3, probiotics, wet feed and high nutrition diet significantly improved G:F (p<0.05). Besides, those pigs fed high nutrition diet appeared to have greater ADG and G:F than that fed low nutrition diet (p<0.05). Moreover, the interactive influence on G:F appeared not only between nutrition levels and feed types but also between nutrition levels and probiotics (p<0.05). Interestingly, there was a significant probiotics × feed type × nutrition density interaction on G:F (p<0.05). Piglets fed the diet containing probiotics had increased ADG, ADFI, and G:F comparing to that receiving the diet without probiotics (p<0.05). Besides, high nutrition diet significantly raised ADG and ADFI (p<0.05). No interactive response was found through the entire experiments (p>0.05). There was no difference in nutrient digestibility of DM, energy and nitrogen as well (p>0.05).

Effects of feeding program on growth performance in weaning pigs

Effects of feeding program on digestibility in weaning pigs

Fecal score

The results of fecal score are appeared in Table 4. An obvious reduction on fecal score was observed in probiotics treatment from d 0 to d 5 (p<0.05). There was an interactive effect on fecal score between feed types and nutrition concentrations from d 5 to d 25 (p<0.05).

Effects of feeding program on fecal score in weaning pigs

DISCUSSION

The results of this study showed that dietary probiotics blend can increase the ADG, ADFI, and G:F ratio throughout the trial. And the results are accordance with the previous paper of our laboratory [15], which evidenced positive effects on growth performance in the overall period associated with the inclusion of multi-strain probiotics (B. licheniformis and B. subtilis) in the diets. Generally, probiotics or probiotics mixtures could improve ADG [1618] and increase G:F ratio [19, 20] in post-weaned piglets. However, the influence of probiotics on ADFI is inconsistent. In agreement with our results, Nguyen et al [21] documented that increasing the inclusion of the probiotics mixture (Bacillus coagulans, B. licheniformis, B. subtilis, and Clostridium butyricum) levels in the diets linearly increased the ADG and ADFI for day 0 to 7 as well as ADG for day 8 to 21. However, Zhao et al [22] believed probiotics (Lactobacillus reuteri and Lactobacillus plantarum) blend could not affect ADFI. Different probiotics strains and concentration of probiotics might be an important factor affecting the ADFI. Especially, since probiotics also live on nutrient, they might compete with host for nutrients in the diet or make hosts require more feed.

The key factor underlying the poor postweaning performance is the immediate reduction in FI due to the abrupt transition from liquid milk to less digestible feeds [23,24], therefore, sufficient FI is a big challenge for subsequent growth performance. Previous studies indicated liquid feeding reconstituted to 13% DM and fed via liquid feeders in the early weaning period improves FI which resulted in greater body weight gain [25,26]. Whereas, this study showed liquid feed which were reconstituted to 25% DM only enhanced G:F ratio. The difference might result from the different DM. Geary et al [27] reported DM content in the range of 255 to 149 g/kg had no significant effect on DM intake post-weaning 4 weeks. Similarity, when Yang et al [28] fed the piglet liquid feed in a ratio of 1:2 from d 0 to d 28, no difference was found in ADFI, but there was an enhanced G:F. There are three possible reasons for this result. Firstly, water plays a crucial role in the muscle growth, which is a major part of the composition of organ and tissues, so enough water intake could be a reason for better G:F ratio. Secondly, a better transition from milk feeding can reduce the weaning stress and lead to a better G:F ratio. Thirdly, comparing with dry feed treatment, a lower fecal score and a tendency of better energy digestibility in wet feed group presented in this study also contributed to the improved G:F ratio.

Probiotics and nutrition density showed an interactive relationship in G:F ratio, which meant probiotics improved G:F ratio more dramatically in the high-nutrition diet. Similarly, our previous studies of Meng et al [29] and Yan et al [30] reported supplementation probiotics in high nutrition diets raised nutrient digestibility and reduced fecal gas emissions in growing pigs. And they believed that the interactive effect could be the increased microflora balance, which led to a better metabolism and transformation of feed into body mass. In our viewpoint, piglets fed relatively higher nutrition diet are more likely to suffer nutritional diarrhea, which results from that indigestible substrate inducing an explosive growth of bacteria and a disturbance of the colonization resistance [31]. Normally transient Escherichia coli strains in the gut [32] can multiply and attach. This study confirmed that the reason for positive effect in relatively high nutrition diet might be that probiotics play a role in balancing gut microflora, benefitting intestinal integrity to relieve intestinal stress under high nutrition [33]. However, Lan et al [34] whose paper reported the beneficial effects of probiotics complex supplementation on ADFI is more dramatic with low nutrient density (3,850 kcal/kg vs 4,000 kcal/kg), believed pigs were able to get same energy by increasing FI when low energy diets were provided. The difference interaction between nutrition level and probiotics might be caused by the actual energy in those trial diets and the different growth stages. There was a positive fecal score interaction between high nutrition diet and liquid feed. Relatively, the G:F ratio was improved more dramatically with liquid feed in the high-nutrition diet. Those two results might imply that comparing to NRC [10] nutrition recommendation, a higher nutrition formula should be considered when liquid feed is fed to piglets. Interestingly, there was an interaction on G:F among nutrition levels, probiotics and liquid feed in phase 3. Therefore, supplementation probiotics into liquid diet at high nutrition might be a whole solution to improve growth performance and health status in post-weaning pigs. When piglets are fed in different feeding programs or at various nutrition designs, additives applications should be considered specifically. However, the interaction could not be found in overall growth performance.

CONCLUSION

These results indicated that probiotics in a supplementation diet could benefit growth performance (ADG, ADFI, and G:F) and reduce the frequency of watery feces. Besides, a wet feed program (feed:water = 1:1.25) could improve the G:F. Because there were two positive interactions: one between liquid program and nutrition density, the other between supplementation probiotics and nutrition density, the effect of liquid feed or probiotic could be influenced by dietary nutrition density in weaned piglets. An increasing value of G:F was obtained when wet feeding a high nutrition diet (100 kcal higher than NRC [10] recommendations) was supplemented with probiotics for 15 to 25 days.

Notes

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

We certify that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript. Song Zhang is an employee of Kemin Industries (China) Co., Ltd. and Yoo DH is an employee of All The Best Co., Ltd..

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was carried out with the support of “Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science and Technology Development (Project No. PJ014485012020)” Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea and was supported by the research fund of Dankook university in 2019 for the University Innovation Support Program.

References

1. Lalle’s JP, Paolo B, Hauke S, Stokes CR. Nutritional management of gut health in pigs around weaning. Proc Nutr Soc 2007;66:260–8. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665107005484 .
2. Barba-Vidal E, Castillejos L, López-Colom P, Urgell MR, Moreno Muñoz JA, Martín-Orúe SM. Evaluation of the probiotic strain Bifidobacterium longum subsp. infantis CECT 7210 capacities to improve health status and fight digestive pathogens in a piglet model. Front Microbiol 2017;8:533. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.00533 .
3. Shu Q, Qu F, Gill HS, et al. Probiotic treatment using Bifidobacterium lactis HN019 reduces weanling diarrhea associated with rotavirus and Escherichia coli infection in a piglet model. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2001;33:171–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005176-200108000-00014 .
4. Davis ME, Parrott T, Brown DC, et al. Effect of a Bacillus-based direct-fed microbial feed supplement on growth performance and pen cleaning characteristics of growing-finishing pigs. J Anim Sci 2008;86:1459–67. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2007-0603 .
5. Chen YJ, Son KS, Min BJ, Cho JH, Kwon OS, Kim IH. Effects of dietary probiotic on growth performance, nutrients digestibility, blood characteristics and fecal noxious gas content in growing pigs. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2005;18:1464–8. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2005.1464 .
6. Barba-Vidal E, Martin-orue SM, Catilejos L. Practical aspects of the use of probiotics in pig production: a review. Livest Sci 2019;233:84–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2019.02.017 .
7. Meunier-Salaün MC, Chiron J, Etore F, et al. Review: Drinking water for liquid-fed pigs. Animal 2017;11:836–44. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731116002202 .
8. Missotten JAM, Michiels J, Ovyn A, De Smet S, Dierick NA. Fermented liquid feed for pigs. Arch Anim Nutr 2010;64:437–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/1745039X.2010.512725 .
9. Russell PJ, Geary TM, Brooks PH, Campbell A. Performance, water use and effluent output of weaner pigs fed ad libitum with either dry pellets or liquid feed and the role of microbial activity in the liquid feed. J Sci Food Agric 1996;72:8–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0010(199609)72:1<8::AID-JSFA646>3.0.CO;2-K .
10. National Research Council (NRC). Nutrient requirement of pigs 10th ednth ed. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press; 2012.
11. AOAC. Official methods of analysis 19th edth ed. Washington, DC, USA: AOAC Int; 2012.
12. European Commission. Commission Directive 98/64/EC of 3 September 1998 establishing Community methods of analysis for the determination of amino-acids, crude oils and fats, and olaquindox in feeding stuffs and amending Directive 71/393/EEC Off J Eur Commun; 1998. p. 14–28. Eur-Lex—31998L0064.
13. Hu CH, Gu LY, Luan ZS, Song J, Zhu K. Effects of montmorillonite–zinc oxide hybrid on performance, diarrhea, intestinal permeability and morphology of weanling pigs. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2012;177:108–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.07.028 .
14. SAS Institute. SAS user’s guide: statistics Version 7.0 ed Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute Inc; 1998.
15. Lan RX, Lee SI, Kim IH. Effects of multistrain probiotics on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, blood profiles, faecal microbial shedding, faecal score and noxious gas emission in weaning pigs. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 2016;11:1130–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.12501 .
16. Bhandari SK, Xu B, Nyachoti CM, Giesting DW, Krause DO. Evaluation of alternatives to antibiotics using an Escherichia coli K88+ model of piglet diarrhea: effects on gut microbial ecology. J Anim Sci 2008;86:836–47. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2006-822 .
17. Gebru E, Lee JS, Son JC, et al. Effect of probiotic, bacteriophage, or organic acid-supplemented feeds or fermented soybean meal on the growth performance, acute-phase response, and bacterial shedding of grower pigs challenged with Salmonella enterica serotype Typhimurium. J Anim Sci 2010;88:3880–6. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-2939 .
18. Davis ME, Parrott T, Brown DC, et al. Effect of a Bacillus-based direct-fed microbial feed supplement on growth performance and pen cleaning characteristics of growing-finishing pigs. J Anim Sci 2008;86:1459–67. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2007-0603 .
19. Shu Q, Qu F, Gill H. Probiotic treatment using Bifidobacterium lactis HN019 reduces weanling diarrhea associated with rotavirus and Escherichia coli infection in a piglet model. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2001;33:171–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005176-200108000-00014 .
20. Taras D, Vahjen W, Macha M, Simon O. Response of performance characteristics and fecal consistency to long-lasting dietary supplementation with the probiotic strain Bacillus cereus var. toyoi to sows and piglets. Arch Anim Nutr 2005;59:405–17.
21. Nguyen DH, Nyachoti CM, Kim IH. Evaluation of effect of probiotics mixture supplementation on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, faecal bacterial enumeration, and noxious gas emission in weaning pigs. Ital J Anim Sci 2019;18:466–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2018.1537726 .
22. Zhao PY, Kim IH. Effect of direct-fed microbial on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, fecal noxious gas emission, fecal microbial flora and diarrhea score in weanling pigs. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2015;200:86–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2014.12.010 .
23. Zijlstra RT, Whang KY, Easter RA, Odle J. Effect of feeding a milk replacer to early-weaned pigs on growth, body composition, and small intestinal morphology compared with suckled littermates. J Anim Sci 1996;74:2948–59. https://doi.org/10.2527/1996.74122948x .
24. Mccracken BA, Spurlock ME, Roos MA, Zuckermann FA, Gaskins HR. Weaning anorexia may contribute to local inflammation in the piglet small intestine. J Nutr 1999;129:613–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/129.3.613 .
25. Kim JH, Heo KN, Odle J, Han K, Harrell RJ. Liquid diets accelerate the growth of early-weaned pigs and the effects are maintained to market weight. J Anim Sci 2001;79:427–34. https://doi.org/10.2527/2001.792427x .
26. Price KL, Lin X, Van Heugten E, Odle R, Willis G, Odle J. Diet physical form, fatty acid chain length, and emulsification alter fat utilization and growth of newly weaned pigs. J Anim Sci 2013;91:783–92. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2012-5307 .
27. Geary TM, Brooks PH, Morgan DT, Campbell A, Russell PJ. Performance of weaner pigs fed ad libitum with liquid feed at different dry matter concentrations. J Sci Food Agric 1996;72:17–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0010(199609)72:1<17::AID-JSFA598>3.0.CO;2-3 .
28. Yang JS, Lee JH, Ko TG, et al. Effects of wet feeding of processed diets on performance, morphological changes in the small intestine and nutrient digestibility in weaned pigs. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2001;14:1308–15. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2001.1308 .
29. Meng QW, Yan L, Ao X, et al. Influence of probiotics in different energy and nutrient density diets on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, meat quality, and blood characteristics in growing-finishing pigs. J Anim Sci 2010;88:3320–6. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2009-2308 .
30. Yan L, Kim IH. Effect of probiotics supplementation in diets with different nutrient densities on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, blood characteristics, faecal microbial population and faecal noxious gas content in growing pigs. J Appl Anim Res 2013;41:23–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2012.739092 .
31. Hopwood DE, Hampson DJ. Interactions between the intestinal microflora, diet and diarrhoea, and their influences on piglet health in the immediate post-weaning period. In : Pluske JR, Dividich J, Verstegen MWA, eds. Weaning the pig Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers; 2003. p. 199–218.
32. Nabuurs MJA. Etiology and pathogenic studies on post weaning diarrhea [PhD thesis] Utrecht, The Netherlands: State University Utrecht; 1991.
33. Dong XL, Zhang NF, Zhou M, Tu Y, Deng K, Diao Q. Effects of dietary probiotics on growth performance, faecal microbiota and serum profiles in weaned piglets. Anim Prod Sci 2013;54:616–21. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN12372 .
34. Lan RX, Tran HN, Kim IH. Effects of probiotic supplementation in different nutrient density diets on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, blood profiles, fecal microflora and noxious gas emission in weaning pig. J Sci Food Agric 2017;97:1335–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.7871 .

Article information Continued

Table 1

Diet compositions (as fed basis)

Item High nutrition diet Low nutrition diet
Yellow corn 33.32 36.95
Extruded corn 20.00 20.00
Whey powder (78%) 7.00 7.00
Soybean meal (46%) 8.28 5.98
Fermented soybean meal 5.00 5.00
Extruded soybean meal 5.00 5.00
Skimmed milk powder 7.00 7.00
Fish meal 3.00 3.00
Sugar 2.00 2.00
Glucose 2.00 2.00
SDPP 3.00 3.00
Soy oil 1.33 0.00
Limestone 0.55 0.55
MCP 0.68 0.72
Salt 0.10 0.10
Lysine-HCl (98.5%) 0.44 0.42
DL-methionine (99%) 0.30 0.29
L-threonine (98.5%) 0.20 0.19
L-tryptophan (10%) 0.30 0.30
Choline (50%) 0.10 0.10
Vitamin premix1) 0.20 0.20
Mineral premix2) 0.20 0.20
Total 100.0 100.0
Calculated composition3) (%)
 CP 20.00 19.42
 Crude fat 4.70 3.42
 Ash 5.49 6.05
 AME (kcal/kg) 3500 3400
 Ca 0.7 0.7
 AP 0.5 0.5
 Lys 1.58 1.55
Apparent ileal digestible amino acid
 SID-Lys 1.48 1.45
 ME/CP 175 175
 CP/SID-Lys 13.79 13.79
 SID-TSAA/SID-Lys 0.60 0.60
 SID-Thr/SID-Lys 0.62 0.62
 SID-Trp/SID-Lys 0.17 0.17

SDPP, spray-dried porcine plasma; MCP, monocalcium phosphate; AME, apparent metabolic energy; SID, standard ileal digestibility; CP, crude protein; TSAA, total sulfur amino acid.

1)

Supplied per kg diet: 4,000 IU vitamin A, 800 IU vitamin D3, 171 IU vitamin E, 2 mg vitamin K, 4 mg vitamin B2, 1 mg vitamin B6, 16 μg vitamin B12, 11 mg pantothenic acid, 20 mg niacin and 0.08 mg biotin.

2)

Supplied per kg diet: 220 mg Cu, 175 mg Fe, 191 mg Zn, 89 mg Mn, 0.3 mg I, 0.5 mg Co and 0.4 mg Se.

3)

Calculated values.

Table 2

Effects of feeding program on growth performance in weaning pigs

Items TRT11) TRT21) TRT31) TRT41) TRT51) TRT61) TRT71) TRT81) SEM p-value2)



High nutrition density Low nutrition density Probiotics Feed type Nutrition density Probiotics × feed type Feed type × nutrition density Probiotics × nutrition density Interaction


Dry type Wet type Dry type Wet type


NC Probiotics NC Probiotics NC Probiotics NC Probiotics
Body weight (kg)
 Initial 7.08 7.08 7.07 7.05 7.04 7.04 7.02 7.02 0.61 0.930 0.963 0.985 0.997 0.991 0.994 0.994
 Phase13) 8.09 8.16 8.13 8.16 8.16 8.09 8.03 8.11 0.63 0.940 0.966 0.951 0.928 0.957 0.963 0.913
 Phase23) 10.75 10.95 10.82 11.22 10.12 10.35 10.20 10.54 0.69 0.216 0.755 0.557 0.975 0.874 0.988 0.964
 Phase33) 13.56 15.15 14.38 15.84 12.79 14.11 12.93 14.31 1.02 0.118 0.535 0.064 0.690 0.982 0.906 0.951
Phase1
 ADG (g) 201 216 213 221 224 211 201 218 18 0.970 0.980 0.608 0.532 0.634 0.716 0.485
 ADFI (g) 212 217 239 237 234 233 219 239 20 0.739 0.515 0.697 0.336 0.818 0.765 0.631
 G:F 0.968 0.998 0.889 0.930 0.960 0.907 0.917 0.916 0.032 0.366 0.063 0.864 0.234 0.495 0.197 0.663
Phase2
 ADG (g) 266 279 269 307 196 225 217 243 20 <0.001 0.248 0.083 0.891 0.723 0.945 0.616
 ADFI (g) 332 349 314 424 266 315 290 329 24 0.005 0.183 0.106 0.768 0.238 0.560 0.145
 G:F 0.800 0.802 0.859 0.723 0.738 0.727 0.751 0.738 0.046 0.099 0.986 0.242 0.739 0.300 0.415 0.313
Phase3
 ADG (g) 281 419 356 461 267 376 273 376 42 0.078 0.323 0.002 0.366 0.751 0.805 0.826
 ADFI (g) 418 623 529 669 452 551 403 565 61 0.141 0.486 0.003 0.283 0.986 0.634 0.470
 G:F 0.668 0.674 0.672 0.690 0.587 0.684 0.676 0.666 0.010 0.005 0.006 0.001 0.093 0.004 0.042 <0.001
Overall
 ADG (g) 259 323 292 352 230 283 236 291 21 0.007 0.220 0.002 0.448 0.978 0.815 0.918
 ADFI (g) 342 432 385 484 334 393 321 405 28 0.031 0.256 <0.001 0.249 0.666 0.569 0.851
 G:F 0.756 0.747 0.763 0.726 0.687 0.720 0.736 0.719 0.016 0.011 0.482 0.509 0.196 0.105 0.182 0.625

SEM, pooled standard error of means; NC, negative control; ADG, average daily gain; ADFI, average daily feed intake; G:F, gain:feed.

1)

TRT1, high nutrition density feed × dry type × none; TRT2, high nutrition density feed × dry type × probiotics; TRT3, high nutrition density feed × wet type × none; TRT4, high nutrition density feed × wet type × probiotics; TRT5, low nutrition density feed × dry type × none; TRT6, low nutrition density feed × dry type × probiotics; TRT7, low nutrition density feed × wet type × none; TRT8, low nutrition density feed × wet type × probiotics.

2)

p<0.05 was considered statistically significant, whereas p<0.10 was considered a tendency.

3)

Phase 1, 0 to 5days; Phase 2, 5 to 15 days; Phase 3, 15 to 25 days.

Table 3

Effects of feeding program on digestibility in weaning pigs

Items (%) TRT11) TRT21) TRT31) TRT41) TRT51) TRT61) TRT71) TRT81) SEM p-value2)



High nutrition density Low nutrition density Probiotics Feed type Nutrition density Probiotics × feed type Feed type × nutrition density Probiotics × nutrition density Interaction


Dry type Wet type Dry type Wet type


NC Probiotics NC Probiotics NC Probiotics NC Probiotics
5 d
 Dry matter 83.31 84.21 84.38 84.77 84.21 84.25 83.50 83.97 0.53 0.245 0.315 0.341 0.637 0.276 0.168 0.750
 Nitrogen 82.64 83.23 83.81 82.58 83.03 83.65 83.64 83.69 0.91 0.156 0.267 0.543 0.104 0.739 0.624 0.448
 Energy 83.86 84.35 84.75 85.36 84.68 83.79 85.31 85.22 0.77 0.265 0.543 0.438 0.681 0.963 0.624 0.541
10 d
 Dry matter 84.50 84.93 83.51 85.06 84.44 83.79 85.04 83.89 0.95 0.854 0.453 0.631 0.360 0.357 0.400 0.509
 Nitrogen 83.57 82.65 83.62 84.31 83.65 84.31 82.86 83.06 0.59 0.804 0.654 0.265 0.664 0.631 0.817 0.168
 Energy 83.83 84.35 84.75 85.36 84.32 85.28 83.31 85.16 0.80 0.647 0.169 0.735 0.261 0.736 0.547 0.440
25 d
 Dry matter 84.34 85.94 85.08 86.89 84.32 84.78 85.43 84.66 0.69 0.122 0.174 0.116 0.725 0.599 0.060 0.458
 Nitrogen 82.61 84.85 83.83 85.05 82.97 83.41 83.60 83.41 0.78 0.187 0.361 0.099 0.724 0.458 0.154 0.863
 Energy 83.97 84.80 84.45 86.01 82.84 84.10 84.42 83.83 0.80 0.078 0.189 0.180 0.863 0.620 0.448 0.257

SEM, pooled Standard error of means; NC, negative control.

1)

TRT1, high nutrition density feed × dry type × none; TRT2, high nutrition density feed × dry type × probiotics; TRT3, high nutrition density feed × wet type × none; TRT4, high nutrition density feed × wet type × probiotics; TRT5, low nutrition density feed × dry type × none; TRT6, low nutrition density feed × dry type × probiotics; TRT7, low nutrition density feed × wet type × none; TRT8, low nutrition density feed × wet type × probiotics.

2)

p<0.05 was considered statistically significant, whereas p<0.10 was considered a tendency.

Table 4

Effects of feeding program on fecal score in weaning pigs

Items TRT11) TRT21) TRT31) TRT41) TRT51) TRT61) TRT71) TRT81) SEM p-value2)



High nutrition density Low nutrition density Probiotics Feed type Nutrition density Probiotics × feed type Feed type × nutrition density Probiotics × nutrition density Interaction


Dry type Wet type Dry type Wet type


NC Probiotics NC Probiotics NC Probiotics NC Probiotics
Fecal score3)
 0–5 d 2.5 2.9 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.9 3.0 0.09 0.039 0.229 0.099 0.624 1.000 0.063 0.229
 5–15 d 3.1 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.06 0.476 0.290 0.476 0.720 0.021 0.476 0.290
 15–25 d 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.1 0.08 0.650 0.184 0.650 0.650 0.003 0.880 0.650

SEM, pooled Standard error of means; NC, negative control.

1)

TRT1, high nutrition density feed × dry type × none; TRT2, high nutrition density feed × dry type × probiotics; TRT3, high nutrition density feed × wet type × none; TRT4, high nutrition density feed × wet type × probiotics; TRT5, low nutrition density feed × dry type × none; TRT6, low nutrition density feed × dry type × probiotics; TRT7, low nutrition density feed × wet type × none; TRT8, low nutrition density feed × wet type × probiotics.

2)

p<0.05 was considered statistically significant, whereas p<0.10 was considered a tendency.

3)

Fecal scores were determined using the following fecal scoring system: 1 hard, dry pellet; 2 firm, formed stool; 3 soft, moist stool that retains shape; 4 soft, unformed stool that assumes shape of container; 5 watery liquid that can be poured.