Literature DB >> 15890806

Feed physical form and formic acid addition to the feed affect the gastrointestinal ecology and growth performance of growing pigs.

N Canibe1, O Højberg, S Højsgaard, B B Jensen.   

Abstract

The effect of feeding a coarsely ground meal (COARSE) and a finely ground pelleted diet with 1.8% (as-fed basis) added formic acid (ACID) was compared with feeding a standard finely ground pelleted diet (STD) on the gastrointestinal ecology of growing pigs at different intervals after feeding. One hundred five castrated male growing-finishing pigs (initial BW 27 kg) were used. At a BW of 63 kg, 60 pigs were killed 0.5, 2.5, 4.5, 6.5, and 8.5 h after feeding, and samples from the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) were obtained. The remaining 45 pigs were kept on the experimental diets to a BW of 99 kg. Feeding the three diets resulted in a similar pattern of gastric pH with time, (i.e., highest pH values 0.5 h after feeding and decreasing values at the following sampling times, to reach a value of 2.12 at 8.5 h after feeding). The pH of the gastric digesta of pigs fed the ACID diet was below 4 at all sampling times, whereas the digesta from the other two dietary groups had values above pH 4 at the first sampling times. Feeding the ACID diet decreased the counts of total anaerobes in the proximal GIT (P < or = 0.007), and of lactic acid bacteria (P < or = 0.001), enterobacteria (P < or = 0.02), and yeasts (P < or = 0.01) along the GIT compared with feeding the other two diets. Feeding the COARSE diet stimulated the growth of total anaerobes and lactic acid bacteria in the stomach and distal small intestine increased the microbial diversity mainly in the stomach (P = 0.001), compared with feeding the other two diets (P < or = 0.09), and decreased the number of enterobacteria in the cecum compared with the STD diet (P = 0.03), with the same tendency in the mid-colon (P = 0.07). The concentration of lactic acid in the stomach was highest in the pigs fed the COARSE diet compared with the other two groups (P < 0.05). The concentration of formic acid was highest in the stomach and all segments of the small intestine of the pigs fed the ACID diet compared with those fed the STD and COARSE diets (P < 0.05). The results from this study suggest that feeding a coarsely ground diet and a finely ground diet with added formic acid affect the gastrointestinal ecology of pigs mainly by changing the environment in the proximal GIT. The presence of organic acids in the proximal GIT is a crucial factor contributing to the decrease in the number of enterobacteria along the GIT. The time after feeding at which samples are taken to measure characteristics describing the gastrointestinal ecology affects the results from the stomach and small intestine.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15890806     DOI: 10.2527/2005.8361287x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Sci        ISSN: 0021-8812            Impact factor:   3.159


  24 in total

Review 1.  Review on Preventive Measures to Reduce Post-Weaning Diarrhoea in Piglets.

Authors:  Nuria Canibe; Ole Højberg; Hanne Kongsted; Darya Vodolazska; Charlotte Lauridsen; Tina Skau Nielsen; Anna A Schönherz
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2022-09-27       Impact factor: 3.231

2.  Salmonella Shedding in Slaughter Pigs and the Use of Esterified Formic Acid in the Drinking Water as a Potential Abattoir-Based Mitigation Measure.

Authors:  María Bernad-Roche; Alejandro Casanova-Higes; Clara María Marín-Alcalá; Raúl Carlos Mainar-Jaime
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-23       Impact factor: 3.231

3.  The effect of the combination of acids and tannin in diet on the performance and selected biochemical, haematological and antioxidant enzyme parameters in grower pigs.

Authors:  Marina Stukelj; Zdravko Valencak; Mladen Krsnik; Alenka Nemec Svete
Journal:  Acta Vet Scand       Date:  2010-03-06       Impact factor: 1.695

4.  Bioavailability of trace elements in beans and zinc-biofortified wheat in pigs.

Authors:  Dorthe Carlson; Jan Værum Nørgaard; Bulent Torun; Ismail Cakmak; Hanne Damgaard Poulsen
Journal:  Biol Trace Elem Res       Date:  2012-05-26       Impact factor: 3.738

5.  Characterization of the Fecal Microbial Communities of Duroc Pigs Using 16S rRNA Gene Pyrosequencing.

Authors:  Edward Alain B Pajarillo; Jong Pyo Chae; Marilen P Balolong; Hyeun Bum Kim; Kang-Seok Seo; Dae-Kyung Kang
Journal:  Asian-Australas J Anim Sci       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 2.509

6.  Rumen microbiome from steers differing in feed efficiency.

Authors:  Phillip R Myer; Timothy P L Smith; James E Wells; Larry A Kuehn; Harvey C Freetly
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-01       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Effects of different diet alternatives to replace the use of pharmacological levels of zinc on growth performance and fecal dry matter of weanling pigs.

Authors:  Fernanda Laskoski; Mike D Tokach; Jason C Woodworth; Joel M DeRouchey; Steve S Dritz; Jordan T Gebhardt; Robert D Goodband; Jamil E G Faccin; Fernando P Bortolozzo
Journal:  Transl Anim Sci       Date:  2021-04-29

8.  The effect of feeding Bt MON810 maize to pigs for 110 days on intestinal microbiota.

Authors:  Stefan G Buzoianu; Maria C Walsh; Mary C Rea; Orla O'Sullivan; Fiona Crispie; Paul D Cotter; R Paul Ross; Gillian E Gardiner; Peadar G Lawlor
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-05-04       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Evaluation of the bacterial diversity in the feces of cattle using 16S rDNA bacterial tag-encoded FLX amplicon pyrosequencing (bTEFAP).

Authors:  Scot E Dowd; Todd R Callaway; Randall D Wolcott; Yan Sun; Trevor McKeehan; Robert G Hagevoort; Thomas S Edrington
Journal:  BMC Microbiol       Date:  2008-07-24       Impact factor: 3.605

10.  Changes in bacterial population of gastrointestinal tract of weaned pigs fed with different additives.

Authors:  Mercè Roca; Miquel Nofrarías; Natàlia Majó; Ana María Pérez de Rozas; Joaquim Segalés; Marisol Castillo; Susana María Martín-Orúe; Anna Espinal; Joan Pujols; Ignacio Badiola
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-01-19       Impact factor: 3.411

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.