2014
DOI: 10.4081/ijas.2014.3404
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dietary Effect of Artificial Zeolite on Performance, Immunity, Faecal Microflora Concentration and Noxious Gas Emissions in Pigs

Abstract: A total of 48 crossbred (Landrace Yorkshire Duroc) pigs (2 months old; 28.38±2.62 kg body weight) were randomly assigned to either a control (basal diet) or 0.5% artificial zeolite (AZ) [basal diet + 0.5% AZ, dry matter (DM) basis] dietary treatment group in a completely randomized block design. Growth performance, immunity, muscle composition, carcass quality, faecal microflora concentration and noxious gas emissions were then investigated. No significant variation was observed in average daily gain (ADG), av… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

5
14
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
(38 reference statements)
5
14
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The level of 0.5% clinoptilolite, in growing and finishing pigs diets did not affect feed intake, daily weight gain, feed conversion, carcass quality, hot carcass weight, back-fat thickness, loin depth and lean percentage, compared to a diet without addition of zeolites (ZIMMERMANN, 2014). The same result was reported by ISLAM et al (2014), where the use of 0.5% artificial zeolites had no effect on growth performance and carcass quality. In contrast, ALEXOPOULOS et al (2007) reported that weight and feed conversion increased using 2% clinoptilolite in growing and finishing pigs.…”
Section: Utilization In Swinesupporting
confidence: 88%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The level of 0.5% clinoptilolite, in growing and finishing pigs diets did not affect feed intake, daily weight gain, feed conversion, carcass quality, hot carcass weight, back-fat thickness, loin depth and lean percentage, compared to a diet without addition of zeolites (ZIMMERMANN, 2014). The same result was reported by ISLAM et al (2014), where the use of 0.5% artificial zeolites had no effect on growth performance and carcass quality. In contrast, ALEXOPOULOS et al (2007) reported that weight and feed conversion increased using 2% clinoptilolite in growing and finishing pigs.…”
Section: Utilization In Swinesupporting
confidence: 88%
“…The inclusion of 0.5% clinoptilolite in growing and finishing pig diets reduced the ammonia concentration (ppm) within the facility with a slatted floor. This was shown by ISLAM et al (2014), who reported that the use of 0.5% artificial zeolite in the diet of pigs led to a significant reduction in the emission of ammonia, sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide from feces. Likewise, BUJŇÁK et al (2015), using 2% zeolite in the diet of growing pigs, obtained similar results, where the addition of zeolites showed a tendency to increase the ammonia content in feces, decreasing their volatilization to the environment.…”
Section: Utilization In Swinementioning
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The natural zeolite supplement did not affect growth rate of weaned pigs, but alleviated experimentally induced diarrhea (66). Similarly, the AZ-fed pigs didn't show differences in weight gain and feed conversion ratio, but their serum IgG levels were increased and they had reduced E. coli count (65). An early study of McCollum and Galyean (67) in the steers showed no effect of CPL on growth performance and feed efficiency.…”
Section: Frey Et Al (42)mentioning
confidence: 93%
“…In the past two decades intensive efforts have been focused on the development of alternatives to AGP to maintain swine health and performance. Many research papers and excellent reviews have been published on this subject, describing immunomodulators of natural (Gallois and Oswald 2008;Gallois et al 2009) and synthetic origin (Valpotic et al 2013;Valpotic et al 2014), probiotics (Cho et al 2011), prebiotics (Halas and Nochta 2012) as well as less traditional alternatives such as selected organic acids, amino acids, protein sources, plant extracts (Lalles et al 2009), peptides, clay minerals, egg yolk antibodies, essential oils, fatty acids, rare earth elements (Thacker 2013) and naturally extracted clay smectite or artificially composed zeolite with antibacterial activities in the gut (Almeida et al 2013;Islam et al 2014). However, only a small number of these have been shown to be effective.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%