Aditivos alimentares n alimentação de leitões desmamados: desempenho zootécnico e indicadores de saúde intestinal.

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the efficiency of adding blends of combined feed additives to diets for nursery piglets on zootechnical performance, apparent nutrient digestibility, and gut health indicators. A total of 144 whole male piglets (6.93 ± 0.049 kg BW) were allocated in a randomized block design within 4 treatments composed of 1) negative control (NC, free of feed additive and an antibiotic), 2) antibiotic (amoxicillin + norfloxacin) as a positive control (PC), 3) diet containing a blend of sodium butyrate + hydrolyzed dehydrated yeast + zinc proteinate (VL), or 4) diet based on VL + blend of hydrolyzed brewer's yeast + yeast cell wall (VL + AT), with twelve repetitions of three animals per stall. . Piglets fed VL + AT had worse (P = 0.037) feed conversion compared to CN in the pre-starter phase. Piglets fed the CP and VL diets had higher (P < 0.05) nutrient digestibility coefficients compared to animals fed the VL + AT diet. However, the animals that received VL had an increase (P < 0.000), in digestible protein compared to the other treatments, and lower (P = 0.020), digestible organic matter was obtained in piglets from the VL + AT treatment than the other treatments. For the pre-starter phase, there was a reduction (P = 0.044) in the occurrence of diarrhea in piglets receiving VL or VL + AT compared to CP. In the early phase, an improvement in the occurrence of diarrhea was observed (P = 0.000) in animals receiving VL + AT or CP when compared to the other treatments. Piglets consuming the VL + AT diet had (P = 0.030) higher pH of stomach contents compared to the other treatments. In addition, animals consuming VL + AT had (P = 0.009) a reduction in jejunal enterobacteriaceae compared to those receiving the CP treatment. In the pre-starter phase, piglets fed CN had (P = 0.001) higher plasma urea concentration when compared to those fed CP. In the early phase, piglets fed VL + AT had (P = 0.011) lower concentration of eosinophils compared to the CN treatment. There was a treatment difference (P = 0.048) in the relative weight of the small intestine, in which animals consuming CN diets showed higher weight than those on CP treatment, but lower (P = 0.002) spleen weight compared to those consuming VL. Piglets48 fed VL + AT diets had (P = 0.034) higher villi in the jejunum than those fed either CP or VL. Also, a greater (P = 0.046) crypt depth in the ileum was observed for the VL treatment compared to VL + AT and an increase (P = 0.015) in the AV:CP ratio of the VL + AT treatment compared to VL. There was an effect (P = 0.046) of increased calyceal cells in the jejunum for the VL + AT treatment than in animals fed CN and a decrease (P = 0.045) of tissue necrosis in piglets from the VL or VL + AT treatments compared to CN or CP. In conclusion, the complex blend of additives in piglet diets did not improve performance and nutrient digestibility, although it seems to be the most promising combination in developing the structure and mitigating the damage of the intestinal epithelium and diarrheal disorders, as well as a reduction of enterobacteria, as in the concentration of eosinophils. In addition, a simple blend in piglet diets affected nutrient digestibility and tissue necrosis, and spleen weight as an attempt to aid the immune system.