Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T02:17:18.383Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of lactation environment and dietary zinc oxide level on the response of group housed weaned pigs to enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) O149 challenge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2017

R. Slade*
Affiliation:
University of Leeds, Leeds, Yorkshire, United Kingdom
S. Carroll
Affiliation:
University of Leeds, Leeds, Yorkshire, United Kingdom
F. Reynolds
Affiliation:
University of Leeds, Leeds, Yorkshire, United Kingdom
K. White
Affiliation:
University of Leeds, Leeds, Yorkshire, United Kingdom
I. Wellock
Affiliation:
SAC, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
I. Kyriasakis
Affiliation:
SAC, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
H. Miller
Affiliation:
University of Leeds, Leeds, Yorkshire, United Kingdom
Get access

Extract

Proliferation of ETEC in the small intestine is recognised as the predominant cause of post-weaning colibacillosis (Marquardt et al., 1999). Established ETEC secrete toxins that disrupt normal enterocyte function and lead to diarrhoea, dehydration, poor performance and increased mortality. Zinc oxide (ZnO) addition to the diet increases small intestine mucosal growth and promotes normal intestinal function. In turn the incidence and/or severity of diarrhoea is reduced and performance is improved (Li et al., 2001, Ragland et al., 2006). Pre-weaning environment also influences performance with outdoor reared pigs growing faster to weaning than indoor reared contemporaries (Miller et al., 2007) but are outdoor reared pigs able to cope with ETEC challenge at weaning? The current experiment compared the responses of group-housed pigs weaned from different lactation environments and fed diets differing in ZnO content to a prescribed ETEC challenge.

Type
Theatre Presentations
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Li, B. T., Van Kessel, A. G., Caine, W. R., Huang, S. X., and Kirkwood, R. N.. 2001. Canadian Journal of Animal Science. 81:511–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marquardt, R. R., Jin, L. Z., Kim, J. W., Fang, L., Frohlich, A. A., and Baidoo, S. K.. 1999. Immunology and Medical Microbiology. 23(4):283–288.Google Scholar
Miller, H. M., Carroll, S. M., Reynolds, F. H., and Slade, R. D.. 2007. Livestock Science. 108(1-3):124–127.Google Scholar
Ragland, D., Schneider, J. R., Amas, S. F., and Hill, M.. 2006. Journal of Swine Health and Production. 14(2):82–88.Google Scholar