Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of a non-animal protein source in nursery diets on performance and carcass characteristics of wean to finish pigs. A total of 432 piglets with initial BW 6.31 ± 0.13 kg were blocked by BW and randomly assigned to 1 of 6 treatments. Treatments included PC1AP1: animal protein, nursery nutrient specifications without additives; PC2AP2: animal protein, growernutrientspecification without additives; NC1NP1: Non-animal protein, nursery specification without additives; NC2NP2: Non-animal protein, grower specification without additives; NC1 NP1 + FA[(Feed Additives)]: NC1 NP1 with additives; NC2 NP2 + FA: NC2 NP2 with additives. Feed Additives [Enzymes (Xylanase, β-Glucanase, Invertaseused), Oregano Essential Oil] were used in Treatments NP1 +FA and NP2 +FA. A linear model was used via the GLM procedure of SAS 9.4, with treatment as fixed effect and block as random effect. Pigs fed on the non-animal protein source and supplemented with feed additives had similar ADF, ADG, and G:F at finishing compared with treatment group on animal protein source (P > 0.05). No treatment differences (P > 0.05) for digesta, liver and serum based on a principal component AA analysis. (P>o.o5)[H2] No positive carry-over effects (P > 0.05) were found for performance except that pigs fed onthe animal protein source had greaterhad greater hot carcass weight (P < 0.05) than the non-animal protein group. In conclusion, wean pigs fed either animal or non-animal protein source at nursery had similar performance at finishing stage and similar carcass characteristics even though pigs on animal protein source had greater hot carcass weight relative to those on plant protein. [H1]Define FA [H2]Do not mention digesta, liver, or serum. Rather state the variables you analyzed in those samples.