Acid based Eubiotics as Natural Alternatives to Therapeutic Zinc Oxide in Newly Weaned Piglets
Published: August 9, 2019
By: H. Hall1, M. Nyachoti 2 and D. Harrington 1. / 1 Anpario PLC, Manton Wood Enterprise Park, S80 2RS, UK; 2 University of Manitoba, Manitoba, R3T 2N2, Canada.
Background and objectives
The recent EU ban on therapeutic levels of zinc in animal diets has led to concern regarding potential performance losses and animal welfare. Potential alternatives such as organic acids have been shown to be beneficial in reducing gram negative bacterial and promote digestibility (Canibe et al., 2001; Mroz, 2005). These properties may also help in the replacement of zinc oxide (Roselli et al., 2005). The aim of the study was to evaluate two acid based eubiotics (ABE) in replacement for therapeutic zinc oxide in an E. coli challenge piglet study.
The recent EU ban on therapeutic levels of zinc in animal diets has led to concern regarding potential performance losses and animal welfare. Potential alternatives such as organic acids have been shown to be beneficial in reducing gram negative bacterial and promote digestibility (Canibe et al., 2001; Mroz, 2005). These properties may also help in the replacement of zinc oxide (Roselli et al., 2005). The aim of the study was to evaluate two acid based eubiotics (ABE) in replacement for therapeutic zinc oxide in an E. coli challenge piglet study.
Materials and methods
Forty eight piglets (genetics; PIC (Yorkshire × Landrace) × Duroc)) were allocated to treatment diets at weaning (21 days) for a duration of 28 days in a random block design (2 pigs per pen, 6 replicates). All diets were formulated in excess of nutritional recommendations (NRC 2012) and were provided ab lib. Treatments were; Control (CON), basal diet, no additives; ABE 1, 3kg/t inclusion of a blend of formic and propionic acids on a mineral carrier (pHorce, Anpario plc, Worksop, UK) ABE 2, 4kg/t inclusion of a blend of formic and propionic acids and plant extracts on a mineral carrier (Genex Weaner, Anpario plc, Worksop, UK); Zinc oxide (ZnO) commercially available 3kg/t. Eight days post weaning (29 days of age), all piglets were challenged with 6 mL (6.1 × 109 cfu/mL) ETEC (E. coli, strain K88+). Body weight and feed intake were measured weekly and diarrhea scores and feacal pH was measured on D7, 14 and 28; data was evaluated using ANOVA using JMP Pro 13 (JMP.inc, SAS).
Forty eight piglets (genetics; PIC (Yorkshire × Landrace) × Duroc)) were allocated to treatment diets at weaning (21 days) for a duration of 28 days in a random block design (2 pigs per pen, 6 replicates). All diets were formulated in excess of nutritional recommendations (NRC 2012) and were provided ab lib. Treatments were; Control (CON), basal diet, no additives; ABE 1, 3kg/t inclusion of a blend of formic and propionic acids on a mineral carrier (pHorce, Anpario plc, Worksop, UK) ABE 2, 4kg/t inclusion of a blend of formic and propionic acids and plant extracts on a mineral carrier (Genex Weaner, Anpario plc, Worksop, UK); Zinc oxide (ZnO) commercially available 3kg/t. Eight days post weaning (29 days of age), all piglets were challenged with 6 mL (6.1 × 109 cfu/mL) ETEC (E. coli, strain K88+). Body weight and feed intake were measured weekly and diarrhea scores and feacal pH was measured on D7, 14 and 28; data was evaluated using ANOVA using JMP Pro 13 (JMP.inc, SAS).
Results
Feed intake and feed conversion ratio (FCR) were not affected by treatment. Over the trial period (0-28 days) a significant (p<0.05) improvement of 2.11kg in final body weight was seen between ABE 2 and the CON group, ABE 1 and ZNO were statistically similar to ABE 2. Highest average daily gain was seen in ABE 2 group and was the only treatment which was significantly different to CON at D28 (p<0.05) (fig.1). Diarrhea scores were not significantly affected by treatment but were numerically lower 6 hours after challenge in ABE 1 and ABE 2 compared to the ZNO group. Faecal pH was significantly reduced at D28 with ABE 2 being significantly lower compared to ZnO, ABE 1 and CON (fig.2.).
Feed intake and feed conversion ratio (FCR) were not affected by treatment. Over the trial period (0-28 days) a significant (p<0.05) improvement of 2.11kg in final body weight was seen between ABE 2 and the CON group, ABE 1 and ZNO were statistically similar to ABE 2. Highest average daily gain was seen in ABE 2 group and was the only treatment which was significantly different to CON at D28 (p<0.05) (fig.1). Diarrhea scores were not significantly affected by treatment but were numerically lower 6 hours after challenge in ABE 1 and ABE 2 compared to the ZNO group. Faecal pH was significantly reduced at D28 with ABE 2 being significantly lower compared to ZnO, ABE 1 and CON (fig.2.).
Discussion and Conclusion
The ABE 1 resulted in similar growth performance and digesta pH to the zinc oxide treatment. ABE 2 gave a numerical improvement in comparison to zinc treatment and digesta pH also significantly reduced, which can improve diet digestibility and help maintain good gut health. Using material costs at the time of the study the eubiotic treatments provided an economical benefit over the control and zinc oxide treatments.
Poster presented at Zero Zinc Summit 2019.
References
References
Canibe, N., Engberg, R.M. and Jensen, B.B., 2001. An overview of the effect of organic acids on gut flora and gut health.
Mroz, Z., 2005. Advances in pork production, 16(1), pp.169-182. Nutrient Requirements of Swine: Eleventh Revised Edition (2012).
Roselli, M., Finamore, A., Britti, M.S., Bosi, P., Oswald, I. and Mengheri, E., 2005. Animal Research, 54(3), pp.203-218.
Related topics:
Authors:
Anpario
Anpario
Recommend
Comment
Share
29 de octubre de 2019
Heidi, your comments confirm my considerations regarding the low number of animals and repetition that were used in your study. It should be considered that scientific rigor in the work is of fundamental importance to ensure, with a certain degree of confidence, the repeatability of the study results when transferring to farms at field level. As for your question specifically about my experience in this line of research, I don't have it.
Recommend
Reply
19 de octubre de 2019
I agree with Dr Pablo regarding the low number of piglets per experimental unit. I think the number of repetitions (6) is also very low for piglets. These details contribute to increase the coefficient of variation, which may compromise the statistical analysis of the data. Interestingly, although there was no significant variation in consumption and feed conversion, weight gain varied significantly. How to justify this improvement in weight gain, without variation in feed conversion or feed intake.
Recommend
Reply
Iowa Select Farms
14 de agosto de 2019
Very interesting but the groups is too small and do not reflect what happens in real life with a large number of pigs per pen. Where there is more factors to trigger digestive problems.
Recommend
Reply
Would you like to discuss another topic? Create a new post to engage with experts in the community.
Featured users in Pig Industry
