| Literature DB >> 32318659 |
Zhong-Ning Lin1, Li Ye2, Zhen-Wu Li1, Xiu-Sheng Huang1, Zheng Lu1, You-Quan Yang1, Huan-Wei Xing3,4, Jie-Ying Bai3, Zhao-Yang Ying1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since the use of antibiotics in animal feed has become a critical concern worldwide due to severe threats to human health and environment, we are in need of finding alternatives to antibiotics in pig breeding, maintaining the health of pigs, and getting high-quality pork. As traditional Chinese herbs (TCH) are rich natural resources in China and show great benefits to human health we propose to transfer this abundant resource into animal production industry as additives.Entities:
Keywords: Chinese herb feed additive; growth performance; meat quality; pig
Year: 2020 PMID: 32318659 PMCID: PMC7167239 DOI: 10.1002/ame2.12104
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animal Model Exp Med ISSN: 2576-2095
Ingredient composition and analyzed nutrient contents of antibiotic‐free basal diet
| 30‐60 (kg) | 60‐120 (kg) | |
|---|---|---|
| Corn (%) | 65 | 65 |
| Wheat bran (%) | 10 | 13 |
| Soybean meal (%) | 20 | 17 |
| Premix compound (%) | 5 | 5 |
| Total (%) | 100 | 100 |
| Digestible energy (MJ/kg) | 12.97 | 12.97 |
| Crude protein (%) | 16.4 | 14.5 |
| Lysine (%) | 0.82 | 0.7 |
| Calcium (%) | 0.55 | 0.7 |
| Phosphorus (%) | 0.45 | 0.4 |
Effects of different Chinese herb feed additive treatments on the growth performance of swine
| Group A | Group B | Group C | NC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total feed (kg) | 371.28 | 363.48 | 372.36 | 366.36 |
| ADFI (kg/pig) | 3.09 | 3.03 | 3.10 | 3.05 |
| Total Chinese herb feed additive (kg) | 3.65 | 3.65 | 3.65 | 0 |
| Ratio of Chinese herb feed additive (%) | 0.98 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 0 |
| Initial BW (kg) | 38.52 ± 5.38 | 38.20 ± 2.84 | 37.78 ± 3.55 | 37.92 ± 3.18 |
| Final BW (kg) | 137.75 ± 7.60 | 126.75 ± 8.59 | 133.00 ± 6.18 | 118.75 ± 7.26 |
| Average gain (kg) | 99.22 ± 3.81 | 88.55 ± 6.29 | 95.22 ± 2.89 | 80.82 ± 4.46 |
| ADG (kg/pig) | 0.83 ± 0.03 | 0.74 ± 0.05 | 0.79 ± 0.02 | 0.67 ± 0.04 |
| F/G | 3.75 ± 0.15 | 4.12 ± 0.31 | 3.91 ± 0.12 | 4.54 ± 0.26 |
| F/G (compared with NC) | ↓17.56% (0.79) | ↓9.31% (0.42) | ↓13.86% (0.63) |
Abbreviations: ADFI, average daily feed intake; ADG, average daily gain; BW, body weight; NC, negative control; F/G, feed/gain ratio.
P < .05.
P < .01.
P < .001.
Effects of different Chinese herb feed additive treatments on the meat quality of swine
| Group A | Group B | Group C | NC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loin eye area (cm2) | 156.10 ± 8.48a | 152.80 ± 11.58ab | 159.50 ± 15.61a | 138.20 ± 7.43b |
| PH1 | 6.38 ± 0.19 | 6.34 ± 0.29 | 6.13 ± 0.22 | 6.09 ± 0.19 |
| PH24 | 5.51 ± 0.14 | 5.47 ± 0.17 | 5.52 ± 0.28 | 5.76 ± 0.17 |
| Drip loss rate (%) | 2.27 ± 0.25a | 2.67 ± 0.76ab | 2.14 ± 0.29a | 3.24 ± 0.84b |
| Cooked meat percentage (%) | 27.96 ± 1.08 | 27.53 ± 1.22 | 27.71 ± 1.39 | 26.81 ± 1.01 |
| Total protein (g/100 g) | 82.85 ± 1.05a | 79.55 ± 2.05b | 82.05 ± 1.85ab | 79.25 ± 0.65b |
| Total amino acids (g/100 g) | 77.32 ± 0.98 | 74.23 ± 1.88 | 76.06 ± 2.02 | 73.175 ± 1.32 |
| Total lipid (g/100 g) | 8.45 ± 0.35 | 8.35 ± 1.15 | 8.70 ± 1.90 | 7.40 ± 1.50 |
| Crude ash (g/100 g) | 5.90 ± 0.261 | 6.28 ± 0.24 | 6.38 ± 0.44 | 5.82 ± 0.15 |
| Calcium (mg/100 g) | 1.42 ± 0.29 | 1.54 ± 0.13 | 1.50 ± 0.13 | 1.48 ± 0.02 |
| Phosphorus (mg/100 g) | 671.28 ± 9.14b | 736.15 ± 6.394a | 755.36 ± 10.20a | 725.50 ± 23.84a |
Different letters (a, b) indicate differences between groups (P < .05).
Effects of different Chinese herb feed additive treatments on meat amino acid levels of swine (g/100 g)
| Group A | Group B | Group C | NC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thr | 3.78 ± 0.04 | 3.70 ± 0.08 | 3.68 ± 0.16 | 3.65 ± 0.03 |
| Val | 4.02 ± 0.04 | 3.89 ± 0.13 | 3.96 ± 0.16 | 3.84 ± 0.01 |
| Met | 1.95 ± 0.14 | 1.42 ± 0.06 | 1.96 ± 0.07 | 1.37 ± 0.34 |
| Ile | 3.70 ± 0.05 | 3.60 ± 0.11 | 3.70 ± 0.12 | 3.49 ± 0.09 |
| Leu | 6.33 ± 0.04 | 6.10 ± 0.14 | 6.21 ± 0.17 | 5.98 ± 0.07 |
| Lys | 6.96 ± 0.06 | 6.72 ± 0.19 | 6.92 ± 0.31 | 6.70 ± 0.11 |
| Phe | 4.25 ± 0.03 | 4.00 ± 0.08 | 4.06 ± 0.25 | 4.00 ± 0.08 |
| Tyr | 2.66 ± 0.01 | 2.54 ± 0.11 | 2.54 ± 0.01 | 2.42 ± 0.11 |
| Cys | 0.61 ± 0.05 | 0.62 ± 0.08 | 0.65 ± 0.04 | 0.62 ± 0.01 |
| Asp | 7.56 ± 0.12 | 7.34 ± 0.20 | 7.40 ± 0.19 | 7.27 ± 0.10 |
| Glu | 12.56 ± 0.10 | 12.20 ± 0.38 | 12.20 ± 0.29 | 12.02 ± 0.03 |
| Gly | 3.48 ± 0.06 | 3.34 ± 0.10 | 3.53 ± 0.10 | 3.30 ± 0.05 |
| Ala | 4.52 ± 0.04 | 4.40 ± 0.08 | 4.45 ± 0.18 | 4.32 ± 0.04 |
| Arg | 5.10 ± 0.05 | 4.96 ± 0.14 | 5.06 ± 0.08 | 4.92 ± 0.052 |
| His | 3.67 ± 0.06 | 3.52 ± 0.16 | 3.60 ± 0.32 | 3.48 ± 0.17 |
| Ser | 3.09 ± 0.07 | 2.96 ± 0.06 | 2.98 ± 0.06 | 2.94 ± 0.04 |
| Pro | 3.08 ± 0.05 | 2.90 ± 0.09 | 3.07 ± 0.04 | 2.84 ± 0.03 |
| Total amino acids (TAA) | 77.32 ± 0.98 | 74.23 ± 1.88 | 76.06 ± 2.02 | 73.18 ± 1.328 |
| TAA compared with NC | +5.67% | +1.44% | +3.94% | |
| Essential amino acids (EAA) | 30.10 ± 0.39 | 29.44 ± 0.674 | 30.48 ± 1.15 | 29.04 ± 0.76 |
| EAA compared with NC | +6.75% | +1.38% | +4.99% | |
| EAA/TAA | 0.4009 | 0.3965 | 0.4008 | 0.3968 |
| EAA/NEAA | 0.6691 | 0.6571 | 0.6689 | 0.6578 |
| Aromatic amino acid (AAA) | 6.90 ± 0.35 | 6.54 ± 0.35 | 6.70 ± 0.26 | 6.42 ± 0.19 |
| AAA compared with NC | +7.47% | +1.87% | +4.20% | |
| Delicious amino acid (DAA) | 33.22 ± 0.36 | 32.24 ± 0.90 | 32.64 ± 0.42 | 31.82 ± 0.18 |
| DAA compared with NC | +4.40% | +1.32% | +2.54% |
P < .05.
P < .01.
P < .001.
Effects of different Chinese herb feed additive treatments on serum biochemical parameters in swine
| Group A | Group B | Group C | NC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP (g/L) | 70.70 ± 2.60 | 66.20 ± 4.80 | 70.40 ± 5.60 | 66.60 ± 3.00 |
| ALB (g/L) | 52.40 ± 2.50 | 51.60 ± 3.70 | 48.70 ± 0.80 | 50.00 ± 1.00 |
| GLO (g/L) | 17.00 ± 1.90 | 15.20 ± 5.50 | 19.70 ± 3.80 | 16.40 ± 2.90 |
| A/G | 3.10 ± 0.40 | 3.80 ± 1.40 | 2.60 ± 0.50 | 3.10 ± 0.50 |
| ALT (U/L) | 49.50 ± 10.50 | 50.20 ± 16.90 | 52.00 ± 4.70 | 56.00 ± 9.80 |
| AST (U/L) | 38.80 ± 21.20 | 39.00 ± 13.00 | 33.80 ± 10.30 | 60.00 ± 25.00 |
| AST/ALT | 0.80 ± 0.20 | 0.80 ± 0.40 | 0.70 ± 0.20 | 1.10 ± 0.60 |
| ALP (U/L) | 126.50 ± 36.60 | 124.80 ± 30.20 | 126.80 ± 37.30 | 118.50 ± 25.30 |
| GTP (U/L) | 32.50 ± 20.30 | 34.00 ± 9.80 | 36.80 ± 14.90 | 45.50 ± 10.80 |
| BUN (mM) | 3.48 ± 0.41 | 3.32 ± 0.42 | 4.36 ± 0.96 | 3.43 ± 0.41 |
| CREA (µM) | 128.30 ± 5.60 | 134.40 ± 12.00 | 121.40 ± 11.10 | 123.00 ± 7.60 |
| TC (mM) | 2.15 ± 0.37 | 2.10 ± 0.14 | 1.90 ± 0.36 | 2.90 ± 0.28 |
| TG (mM) | 0.48 ± 0.05 | 0.42 ± 0.05 | 0.42 ± 0.13 | 0.55 ± 0.06 |
| HDLC (mM) | 1.10 ± 0.14 | 1.02 ± 0.08 | 1.03 ± 0.05 | 1.05 ± 0.07 |
| LDLC (mM) | 1.08 ± 0.07 | 1.07 ± 0.15 | 1.10 ± 0.12 | 1.24 ± 0.23 |
| GLU (mM) | 4.65 ± 0.44 | 4.47 ± 0.20 | 4.22 ± 0.75 | 4.09 ± 0.14 |
| AMS (U/L) | 2127.80 ± 110.40 | 2676.80 ± 916.00 | 2706.80 ± 916.00 | 3062.20 ± 512.90 |
| K (mM) | 4.65 ± 0.27 | 5.11 ± 0.49 | 4.90 ± 0.48 | 4.70 ± 0.59 |
| Na (mM) | 145.50 ± 1.20 | 146.80 ± 0.80 | 146.80 ± 1.30 | 145.30 ± 1.00 |
Abbreviations: A/G, albumin/globulin ratio; ALB, albumin; ALP, alkaline phosphatase; ALT, glutamic‐pyruvic transaminase; AMS, serum amylase; AST, glutamic‐oxalacetic transaminase; BUN, blood urea nitrogen; CREA, creatinine; GTP, glutamyltranspeptidase; GLO, globulin; GLU, glucose; HDLC, high‐density lipoprotein; LDLC, low‐density lipoprotein; TC, total cholesterol; TG, triglycerides; TP, total protein.
P < .05.
P < .01.
P < .001.
Effects of different Chinese herb feed additive treatments on small intestinal morphology in swine
| Group A | Group B | Group C | Group NC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ileum | ||||
| Villus height, (µm) | 362.93 ± 53.38 | 333.34 ± 35.12 | 336.39 ± 32.52 | 324.11 ± 63.80 |
| Crypt depth, (µm) | 336.26 ± 19.25 | 338.05 ± 37.49 | 328.50 ± 36.91 | 370.10 ± 73.46 |
| Villus height:crypt depth, (μm:μm) | 1.08 ± 0.12 | 1.00 ± 0.21 | 1.05 ± 0.16 | 0.90 ± 0.26 |
| Jejunum | ||||
| Villus height, (µm) | 278.74 ± 52.16 | 272.54 ± 50.46 | 278.13 ± 43.66 | 256.89 ± 84.36 |
| Crypt depth, (µm) | 257.44 ± 50.86 | 290.20 ± 99.08 | 249.75 ± 58.97 | 287.27 ± 85.78 |
| Villus height:crypt depth, (μm:μm) | 1.14 ± 0.25 | 1.03 ± 0.35 | 1.14 ± 0.16 | 0.90 ± 0.17 |
| Duodenum | ||||
| Villus height, (µm) | 309.49 ± 59.08 | 286.28 ± 58.05 | 301.14 ± 68.55 | 273.92 ± 57.19 |
| Crypt depth, (µm) | 276.42 ± 42.20 | 264.45 ± 43.56 | 264.61 ± 54.32 | 280.07 ± 68.74 |
| Villus height:crypt depth, (μm:μm) | 1.15 ± 0.32 | 1.08 ± 0.13 | 1.14 ± 0.28 | 0.99 ± 0.07 |
FIGURE 1Immunohistochemistry of the ileum, jejunum, and duodenum of swine. The intestinal tissues were dehydrated to make paraffin slides, which were stained with hematoxylin‐eosin (HE). Under an optical microscope (100×), images of the ileum, jejunum, and duodenum were captured. Scale bar: 500 µm