| Literature DB >> 12831176 |
Abstract
The ability of feed related measures to prevent or reduce post weaning diarrhoea (PWD) was examined in a split litter study including 30 pigs from 6 litters allotted into 5 groups. Four groups were exposed to 3 pathogenic strains of E. coli via the environment at weaning. Three of them were given zinc oxide, lactose+fibres or non-pathogenic strains of E. coil as probiotics. The challenged and the unchallenged control groups were given a standard creep feed. Diarrhoea was observed in all challenged groups but not among uninfected animals, and the incidence of diarrhoea was lower in the group given nonpathogenic E. coli compared to all other challenged groups. The severity of PWD also differed between litters. When corrected for mortality due to PWD, a decreased incidence of diarrhoea was also seen in the groups given zinc oxide or lactose+fibres. The dominating serotype of E. coil within faecal samples varied from day to day, also among diarrhoeic pigs, indicating that diarrhoea was not induced by one single serotype alone. The diversity of the faecal coliform populations decreased in all piglets during the first week post weaning, coinciding with an increased similarity between these populations among pigs in the challenged groups. This indicated an influence of the challenge strains, which ceased during the second week. The group given lactose+fibres was least affected with respect to these parameters. In conclusion feed related measures may alleviate symptoms of PWD.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2002 PMID: 12831176 PMCID: PMC1764199 DOI: 10.1186/1751-0147-43-231
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Vet Scand ISSN: 0044-605X Impact factor: 1.695
The experimental design of a study aiming to scrutinise the effect of different feed related prophylactic measures in pigs exposed to three pathogenic serotypes of E. coli via the environment. The pigs were weaned on living day 35.
| Exposed to | Feed | ||||||
| Group | Pathogenic | Non-pathogenic | Structure | Heat processed (75°C for 20 sek) | Protein (%) | ZnO (2500 ppm) | Lactose |
| A | - | - | Pelletedc | Yes | 15.5 | - | - |
| B | Yesa | - | Pelletedc | Yes | 15.5 | Yes | - |
| C | Yesa | - | Meald | - | 14.5 | - | Yes |
| D | Yesa | - | Pelletedc | Yes | 15.5 | - | - |
| E | Yes | Yesb | Pelletedc | Yes | 15.5 | - | - |
a) E. coli O147; K89, STb at the day of weaning;
E. coli O141; K85, STb, VT2 and E. coli O149; K91, K88, STa, STb, LT three days post weaning
b) A mixture of 106 CFU of each of 60 defined non pathogenic strains of E. coli given per os.
c) Startgris Fiber, Lantmännen, Svalöv, Sweden
d) Meal feed with lactose, dietary fibres and char cole (Nibble, Tillberga, Sweden)
Results obtained from 6 control animals and 24 piglets exposed to three pathogenic strains of E. coli at weaning on living day 35. The different prophylactic regimes used in the in the study are described in Table 1. Demonstration of rotavirus and/or the challenge strains of E. coli in faeces are shown on daily bases. Days with diarrhoea are shaded.
| F4 | Sampling day (Day 0 = day of weaning) | |||||||||||||||
| Piglet | Receptor | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| A:1 | Neg | |||||||||||||||
| A:2 | Neg | |||||||||||||||
| A:3 | Pos | |||||||||||||||
| A:4 | Pos | |||||||||||||||
| A:5 | Pos | |||||||||||||||
| A:6 | Pos | |||||||||||||||
| B:1 | Pos | 12 | 7 | 7,1,9 | ||||||||||||
| B:2 | Neg | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| B:3 | Pos | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| B:4 | Pos | |||||||||||||||
| B:5 | Pos | 7 | ||||||||||||||
| B:6 | Pos | |||||||||||||||
| C:1 | Neg | |||||||||||||||
| C:2 | Neg | |||||||||||||||
| C:3 | Pos | 7 | ||||||||||||||
| C:4 | Pos | |||||||||||||||
| C:5 | Pos | 7 | 7,9 | |||||||||||||
| C:6 | Pos | Dead | ||||||||||||||
| D:1 | Pos | 7 | 7 | |||||||||||||
| D:2 | Neg | 7 | 7 | |||||||||||||
| D:3 | Pos | 7 | 1,7 | |||||||||||||
| D:4 | Pos | 7, | ||||||||||||||
| D:5 | Neg | 9 | ||||||||||||||
| D:6 | Pos | 7 | -------------Piglet (D6) dead from day 6 post weaning------------- | |||||||||||||
| E:1 | Neg | 9 | 9 | |||||||||||||
| E:2 | Neg | |||||||||||||||
| E:3 | Pos | |||||||||||||||
| E:4 | Pos | 9 | 1 | |||||||||||||
| E:5 | Neg | 9 | ||||||||||||||
| E:6 | Pos | |||||||||||||||
Diarrhoea: light grey = "diarrhoea"; dark grey = "watery diarrhoea".
1, 7 and 9 = presence of E. coli O141, O147 and O149 respectively. The most frequent serotype is given first. If bolded the challenge strains comprised more than 25 % of the total coliform flora.
R = presence of rotavirus.
Incidence of diarrhea in one uninfected control group and four groups exposed to pathogenic serotypes of E. coli in connection with weaning (I). One infected group was left as an infected control group, while the other three groups were given feed related prophylactics (for details see Table 1). Comparisons with the infected control group are hatched. The table also shows (II) the incidence of diarrhoea in exposed pigs (n = 24) with respect to litter of origin (1–6). For both categories the presence of the F4-receptor in the intestine is given.
| Group/Litter | Ratio F4 Pos/Neg | Pigs | Days | |||||||||
| At risk | With diarrhea | At risk | With diarrhea | Significance of difference | ||||||||
| (n) | (n) | (%) | (n) | (n) | (%) | |||||||
| B | C | D | E | |||||||||
| A: Uninfected control | 4/2 | 6 | 0 | 0% | 84 | 0 | 0% | *** | *** | *** | *** | |
| B: ZnO | 5/1 | 6 | 5 | 83% | 84 | 38 | 45% | ** | ||||
| C: Meal feed | 4/2 | 6 | 5 | 83% | 83 | 30 | 36% | * | ||||
| D: Infected control | 4/2 | 6 | 6 | 100% | 75 | 37 | 49% | ** | ||||
| E: Probiotic | 3/3 | 6 | 6 | 100% | 84 | 20 | 24% | |||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ||||||||
| 1 | 2/2 | 4 | 4 | 100% | 56 | 24 | 43% | * | ||||
| 2 | 0/4 | 4 | 4 | 100% | 56 | 13 | 23% | * | ** | |||
| 3 | 4/0 | 4 | 4 | 100% | 56 | 25 | 45% | |||||
| 4 | 4/0 | 4 | 4 | 100% | 56 | 18 | 32% | * | ||||
| 5 | 2/2 | 4 | 3 | 75% | 56 | 20 | 36% | |||||
| 6 | 4/0 | 4 | 4 | 100% | 46 | 25 | 51% | |||||
Significant differences: * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01 and *** = p < 0.001 (only shown at the row with the lowest group or litter number)
Group wise incidence of diarrhoea when the litter with mortality (litter 6) were excluded from the animals presented in table 3a. Comparisons with the infected control group are hatched.
| Group | Incidence of Days with Diarrhoea (%)and Significance of differences between groups | |||||||||||||||
| Day 1–7 | Day 8–14 | Whole period, Day 1–14 | ||||||||||||||
| (%) | B | C | D | E | (%) | B | C | D | E | (%) | B | C | D | E | ||
| A: Uninfected control | (n = 5) | 0% | *** | *** | *** | * | 0% | *** | *** | *** | *** | 0% | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| B: ZnO | (n = 5) | 43% | *** | 26% | * | 34% | p = 0.06 | |||||||||
| C: Meal feed | (n = 5) | 43% | ** | 23% | * | 33% | * | |||||||||
| D: Infected control | (n = 5) | 49% | *** | 51% | 50% | ** | ||||||||||
| E: Probiotic | (n = 5) | 11% | 43% | 27% | ||||||||||||
Significant differences: * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01 and *** = p < 0.001. (only shown at the row with the lowest group or litter number)
Figure 1The diversity of the faecal coliform flora in one uninfected control group and four groups exposed to pathogenic serotypes of E. coli in connection with weaning. The results are presented as mean diversity values within group in relation to the mean diversity of that group at weaning.
Figure 2Similarity (SP) within group between the individual faecal coliform populations at each sampling occasion. The study comprises one uninfected control group and four groups exposed to pathogenic serotypes of E. coli in connection with weaning. One infected group was left as an infected control group, while the other three groups were given feed related prophylactics (for details see Table 1).
Figure 3Similarity (SP) between the total faecal coliform population of each group and sampling occasion compared to the total coliform population of that group at weaning. The study comprises one uninfected control group and four groups exposed to pathogenic serotypes of E. coli in connection with weaning. One infected group was left as an infected control group, while the other three groups were given feed related prophylactics (for details see Table 1).