Ultraviolet irradiation of spray-dried porcine plasma does not affect the growth performance of nursery pigs when compared with nonirradiated bovine plasma
- Citation data:
Journal of Animal Science, ISSN: 1525-3163, Vol: 95, Issue: 7, Page: 3120-3128
- Publication Year:
- Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Ultraviolet light irradiation of spray-dried porcine plasma (SDPP) decreases the risk of disease transmission, but it may decrease the activity of bioactive components in SDPP. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to determine growth performance, morbidity, and mortality responses of nursery pigs fed UV-irradiated SDPP (UV-SDPP) compared with nonirradiated spray-dried bovine plasma (SDBP). Pigs (n = 480; 6.09 ± 2.4 kg initial BW) were blocked by initial BW, and blocks were assigned to pens. the sex ratio was equalized within blocks and pens. Pens were randomly assigned to 1 of 5 dietary treatments (8 pigs/pen and 12 replicates/treatment) in a 3-phase feeding program (phase 1 = d 0 to 13, phase 2 = d 14 to 27, and phase 3 = d 28 to 55). Dietary treatments included a control diet without UV-SDPP or SDBP and diets containing 3% UV-SDPP, 3% SDBP, 6% UV-SDPP, or 6% SDBP during phase 1. Diets were formulated to meet or exceed nutrient requirements and contained the same concentrations of standardized ileal digestible Lys and Lys:ME ratio within phases. Pigs were provided ad libitum access to diets throughout the 55-d experiment. Dietary inclusion rates during phase 2 were reduced to 1.5% UV-SDPP, 1.5% SDBP, 3% UV-SDPP, and 3% SDBP, and all pigs were fed a common diet without UV-SDPP or SDBP during phase 3. Growth performance data were analyzed as a 2 × 2 factorial arrangement of treatments with a control within a completely randomized block design to evaluate the main effects of plasma processing (UV irradiated vs. nonirradiated) and dietary inclusion level, and block, room, and pen were random effects. In phase 1, there were no differences in G:F among treatments, but pigs fed 6% UV-SDPP and 6% SDBP had greater (P < 0.01) ADG (0.11 vs. 0.08 kg/d) and ADFI (0.17 vs. 0.15 kg/d) than pigs fed the control, 3% SDBP, and 3% UV-SDPP diets. After phase 1 (d13), feeding UV-SDPP or SDBP increased (P = 0.02) the BW of pigs. In phases 2 and 3 and the overall feeding period (d 0 to 55), there were no differences in ADG, ADFI, and G:F among dietary treatments. There was a linear decrease (P < 0.01) in mortality of nursery pigs as dietary inclusion rate of SDBP and UV-SDPP increased. In conclusion, feeding SDBP or UV-SDPP diets improved ADG and ADFI during the first 2 wk after weaning due to improved feed consumption, and UV irradiation appeared to have no detrimental effects on the feeding value of SDPP.