4.5 Article

Effect of acidified feed on the prevalence of Salmonella in market-age pigs

期刊

ZOONOSES AND PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 54, 期 8, 页码 314-319

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1863-2378.2007.01069.x

关键词

acidified feed; fattening period; pig; prevention and control; Salmonella infections

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two trials were carried out to determine the effect of feed acidification upon Salmonella carriage in market-age pigs. In the first trial, the administration for the last 14 weeks of the fattening period of a commercial pelleted feed added with 0.6% lactic acid plus 0.6% formic acid (Lac-Formic-1.2) was compared to an unacidified standard diet (STD). A second experiment was carried out in two herds of growing pigs (Herd I, 3000 pigs; Herd II, 900 pigs) in which three different diets were assayed during the last 8-9 weeks of the fattening period: a diet containing 0.8% formic acid (Formic-0.8), a diet containing 0.4% lactic acid plus 0.4% formic acid (Lac-Formic-0.8) and a STD. In the first experiment, serological evolution of the infection was examined by ELISA and microbiological cultures (rectal samples and mesenteric lymph nodes) were also done. Feed intake by pen and the individual weight of the animals were also measured. In the second trial, blood, rectal samples and mesenteric lymph nodes were collected at slaughter in both herds (30 pigs per experimental group). In the first experiment, the acidified diet (Lac-Formic-1.2) reduced Salmonella carriers in mesenteric lymph nodes (Fisher's exact P < 0.01). In the second trial, Lac-Formic-0.8 diet significantly reduced Salmonella seroprevalence compared to the STD (P = 0.001) in both herds. Also Lac-Formic-0.8 and Formic-0.8 diets in Herd II showed a lower faecal excretion and Salmonella carriage in mesenteric lymph nodes than the STD (P < 0.05). Our results suggest that the administration of a combination of lactic and formic acids at the levels used in this study could be used to reduce Salmonella prevalence in finishing pigs.

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

4.5
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