4.7 Article

Effects of Weaning Age and Creep Feed Type on Growth Performance and Gut Maturation in Weaned Piglets

期刊

ANIMALS
卷 13, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ani13111851

关键词

piglets; weaning; enzyme activity; absorption; growth performance; liquid feed

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate the effects of weaning time (week 4 vs week 5) and feed type (liquid vs dry) on growth performance, disaccharidase activity, and nutrient transporter expression after weaning. The results showed that pigs fed liquid feed had lower maltase activity but higher expression of SGLT-1. Pigs weaned in week 5 were heavier than those weaned in week 4. Overall, liquid feed promoted weight gain during the early post-weaning period and at nine weeks.
The objective was to study the effects of weaning in week 5 (W5) vs. week 4 (W4), as well as liquid (LF) vs. dry feed (DF), on growth performance, disaccharidase activity and nutrient transporter expression after weaning. The experiment included 12,923 pigs fed LF or DF in the pre-weaning period and a subpopulation of 15 pigs from each group, W4DF, W4LF, W5DF and W5LF, which were weighed and euthanized five days after weaning. The proximal part of the small intestine was analyzed for maltase, lactase and sucrase activity and the expression of SGLT-1, GLUT-2 and PepT-1. Pigs fed LF displayed less maltase activity (2100 vs. 2729 U/mg protein, p < 0.05) but an increased expression of SGLT-1 (?Ct: 5.22 vs. 6.21, p = 0.01). Pigs weaned in W5 were heavier than those weaned in W4 (9.35 vs. 7.11 kg BW, p = 0.05), and pigs fed LF were heavier than those fed DF (8.55 vs. 7.91 kg BW, p = 0.05) five days after weaning in the subpopulation. LF pigs (21.8 kg) were heavier than DF pigs (20.6 kg) (SE 0.108, p < 0.0001), and W4 pigs (21.0 kg) were lighter than W5 pigs (21.5 kg) (SE 0.108, p = 0.01) at nine weeks. LF increased weight gain in the early post-weaning period and at nine weeks, although this was apparently not explained by accelerated gut maturation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据