| High temperatures in summer of Jiangsu Province is lasting grasp, andfrequently caused heat stress of pigs, which decreased feed intake, slowed growth, increased the incidence of diseases and economic losses. Chinese medicine feed additive has a small side effects and low cost. The present experiment carried out depending on the basis of different herbs and observed the effects of different doses of medicine feed additives on physiological function, production performance, physiological and biochemical indices, endocrine and immunity of finishing pigs under heat stress conditions, providingthe evidence for developing the herbal feed additives which could improve the ability of the finishing pigs resisting heat stress.The experiment used single factor experiment design and selected60 (Landrace× Yorkshire) × Duroccastrated boars which had the similar genetic basis, age(± 1 day) and weight (69.1±0.7kg).The 60 boars were randomly divided into five groups of 12 in each. Each group had three replicates, with four piglets per replicate. The weight between the groups was not significant. The experimentwas divided into the control group, the experimental group 1, the experimental group 2, the experimental group 3, the experimental group 4; the boars of control group was fed the basal diet, the boars of the experimental group 1, the experimental group 2, the experimental group 3, the experimental group 4 were fed the basal diet plus 0.5%,1.0%,1.5% and 2.0%medicine additives, respectively. The average temperature and relative humidity of the experiment were 29.38±2.75% and 75.45±8.75%, respectively. The experiment lasted 42 days.The results showed that:① The effects of additives on body temperature and respiratory number of pigs under heat stress. When compared with the control group, the body temperature in the experimental group 1 and 2 had no significant changes (P> 0.05), while the body temperature in the experimental group 3 and 4 significantly decreased by 0.19℃ (P<0.01) and 0.18℃ (P<0.01). Compared with the control group, the respiratory number significantly decreased by 2.02 (P<0.05),4.67 (P< 0.01),5.14 (P<0.01) and 11.52 (P< 0.01) in the experimental group 1,2,3, and 4, respectively. ②Performance:the daily feed intake in the experimental group 1 was similar with that in the control group, while the daily feed intake in the experimental group 2,3, and 4 were 2.08 kg,2.11 kg and 2.09 kg, respectively, which has significant difference compared with the control group. The average daily gain in the experimental group 2,3 and 4 increased by 39.21 g (P> 0.05),45.73 g (P> 0.05) and 34.94 g (P> 0.05), respectively. The feed conversion ratio in the experimental group 2,3 and 4 had significantly differences (P< 0.05) compared with that in the control group. ③The serum total protein in the experimental group 3 and the experimental group 4 rose up by 4.67g/L (P< 0.05) and 4.99 g/L (P< 0.05) and 2.35 g/L (P< 0.05),2.67 g/L (P< 0.05) compared with that in the control group and the experimental group 2, respectively. The serum albumin in the experimental group 3 and 4 rose up by 3.76 g/L (P< 0.05) and 5.07 g/L (P< 0.05) compared with that in the control group, respectively. The serum alkaline phosphatase in the experimental group 2,3 and 4 rose up by 12.76 IU/L (P< 0.05),16.66 IU/L (P< 0.05) and 22.66 IU/L (P< 0.05) compared with that in the control group, respectively. The serum total cholesterol in the experimental group 3 and 4 significantly decreasedby 0.32 nmol/L (P< 0.05) and 0.44 nmol/L (P< 0.05) compared with that in the control group, respectively. The serum triglycerides in the experimental group 2,3 and 4 decreased by 0.15 (P< 0.05),0.18 (P< 0.05) and 0.18 (P< 0.05) compared with that in the control group, respectively. The serum urea nitrogen in the experimental group 3 dropped by 0.53 nmol/L (P< 0.05) and 0.21 nmol/L (P< 0.05) compared with that in the control group and the experimental group 2, respectively.④The GH in the experimental group 2,3 and 4 increased by 0.22 ng/L (P< 0.05),0.23 ng/L (P< 0.05), and 0.26 ng/L (P< 0.01) compared with that in the control group, respectively.The GH in the experimental group 3 and 4 increased by 0.24 ng/L (P< 0.05),0.27 ng/L (P< 0.05) compared with that in the experimental group 1. The T3 in the experimental group 2,3 and 4 rose up by 0.09 nmol/L (P< 0.05),0.14 nmol/L (P< 0.05) and 0.19 nmol/L (P< 0.01) compared with that in the control group, respectively. The T4 (thyroxine) in the experimental group 3 and 4 increased by 19.87 nmol/L (P< 0.05) and 24.59 nmol/L (P< 0.05) compared with that in the control group, respectively. The Cor (cortisol) in the experimental group 3 and 4 decreased by 22.08 nmol/L (P< 0.05) and 28.28 nmol/L (P<0.01), and 20.36 nmol/L (P< 0.05) and 26.56 nmol/L (P< 0.01) compared with that in the control group and the experimental group 1, respectively. ⑤Immunity:the IL-2 content in the experimental group 3 and 4 increased by 0.14 ng/mL (P< 0.01) and 0.15 ng/mL (P< 0.01) and 0.11 ng/mL (P< 0.05) and 0.12 ng/mL (P< 0.05) compared with that in the control group and the experimental group 1, respectively.From the above results of finishing pigs physiological function, production performance, physiological and biochemical indices, endocrine and immunity comprehensive judgment, the experiment group 1 had just a littledifference with the control group, and the effectswerenot obvious. The experiment group 2 had advantages compared with control group, but the effect is not significant, especially in immunity which had no effects. The experiment group 3 and 4 of all respects were excellent than the control group, the experimental group 1 and 2.However, the addition dosage of experimental group 3 is 1.5%, and experimental group 4 is 2.0% test group 4, so from the economy consider, the experimental group 3 is better than the experimental group 4. |
PDF Full Text Request