Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T06:01:49.204Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of inclusion of either an antibiotic or a probiotic in the diet on the development of digestive enzyme activity in the pig

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

G. K. Collington ,
D. S. Parker  and
D. G. Armstrong
G. K. Collington
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Biochemistry and Nutrition, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle Upon Tyne NEI 7RU
D. S. Parker
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Biochemistry and Nutrition, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle Upon Tyne NEI 7RU
D. G. Armstrong
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Biochemistry and Nutrition, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle Upon Tyne NEI 7RU
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The aim of the present experiment was to determine the influence of either probiotic or antibiotic inclusion in the diets of pigs from birth on the development of enzyme activity in the small intestine. Pigs were fed on creep feed and grower diets containing either a probiotic, an antibiotic or no added growth promoter. At 7, 17, 42 and 80 d of age pigs from each treatment group were sampled to investigate the development of carbohydrase and peptidase activity in the mucosa at five sites along the small intestine. Inclusion of either the probiotic or antibiotic had a significant effect on the development of sucrase (sucrose α-D-glucohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.48), lactase (β-D-galactoside galactohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.23) and tripeptidase (EC 3.4.11.4) activities before weaning but had no effect on depeptidase (EC 3.14.13.11) activity. The study of the distribution of enzyme activity along the small intestine showed significant differences between the proximal and distal sections associated with weaning.

Keywords

AntibioticsProbioticsIntestinal enzyme activityPiglet
Type
Digestion, Absorption and Utilization of Nutrients
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 64 , Issue 1 , July 1990 , pp. 59 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1990

References

Armstrong, D. G. (1984). Antibiotics as feed additives for ruminant livestock. In Antimicrobials in Agriculture, pp. 331–347 [Woodbine, M., editor]. London: Butterworths.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, D. G. (1986). Gut active growth promoters. In Control and Manipulation of Animal Growth, Proceedings of the University of Nottingham 43rd Easter School, 1985, pp. 21–37 [Buttery, P. J., Lindsay, D. and Haynes, N. B., editors]. London: Butterworths.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badaway, A. M., Campbell, R. M., Cuthbertson, D. P. & Fell, B. F. (1957). Changes in the intestinal mucosa of the sheep following death by humane killer. Nature 183, 756–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, R. J. & Nelder, J. A. (1978). Glim System Release 3. Oxford: Numerical Algorithms Group.Google Scholar
Barrow, P. A., Fuller, R. & Newport, M. J. (1977). Changes in the microflora and physiology of the anterior intestinal tract of pigs weaned at 2 days, with special reference to pathogenesis of diarrhea. Infection and Immunity 18, 586–595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brander, G. C. (1986). Chemicals for Animal Health Control. London: Taylor and Francis Ltd.Google Scholar
Braude, R. (1967). Copper as a growth stimulant in pigs. Animal Production 3, 69–75.Google Scholar
Chopra, S. L., Blackwood, A. C. & Dale, D. G. (1963). Intestinal microflora associated with enteritis in early weaned pigs. Canadian Journal of Comparative Medicine 27, 290–294.Google ScholarPubMed
Collington, G. K., Parker, D. S., Ellis, M. & Armstrong, D. G. (1988). The influence of Probios or Tylosin on growth of pigs and development of the gastrointestinal tract. Animal Production 46, 521–522.Google Scholar
Dahlqvist, A. (1964). Method for assay of intestinal disaccharidases. Analytical Biochemistry 7, 18–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hampson, D. J. & Kidder, D. E. (1986). Influence of creep feed and weaning on brush border enzyme activities in the piglet small intestine. Research in Veterinary Science 40, 24–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hampson, D. J. & Smith, W. C. (1986). Influence of creep feeding and dietary intake after weaning on malabsorption and occurrence of diarrhoea in the newly weaned pig. Research in Veterinary Science 41, 63–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Josefsson, L. & Lindberg, T. (1965). Intestinal dipeptidases. 11. Distribution of dipeptidases in the small intestine of the pig. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 105, 162–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidder, D. E. & Manners, M. J. (1976). Carbohydrases in the small intestine mucosa of the pig. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 35, 26A.Google ScholarPubMed
Kidder, D. E. & Manners, M. J. (1978). Carbohydrases in the small intestine mucosa of sow-reared and 3-week weaned piglets. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 37, 51A.Google ScholarPubMed
Kidder, D. E. & Manners, M. J. (1980). The level and distribution of carbohydrases in the small intestine mucosa of pigs from 3 weeks of age to maturity. British Journal of Nutrition 43, 141–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarthy, D. M. & Kim, Y. S. (1973). Changes in sucrase, enterokinase and peptide hydrolase after intestinal resection. The association of cellular hyperplasia and adaption. Journal of Clinical Investigation 52, 942–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCracken, K. J. (1984). Effect of diet composition on digestive development of early-weaned pigs. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 43, 109A.Google Scholar
McCracken, K. J. & Kelly, D. (1984). Effect of diet and post-weaning food intake on digestive development of early-weaned pigs. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 43, 110A.Google Scholar
Manners, M. J. & Stevens, J. A. (1972). Changes from birth to maturity in the pattern of distribution of lactase and sucrase activity in the mucosa of the small intestine of pigs. British Journal of Nutrition 28, 113–127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Metchnikoff, E. (1908). Prolongation of Life. New York: G. P. Putnam and Sons.Google Scholar
Miller, B. G., James, P. S., Smith, M. W. & Bourne, F. J. (1986). Effect of weaning on the capacity of pig intestinal villi to digest and absorb nutrients. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 107, 579–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morishita, Y. & Ogata, M. (1970). Studies on the alimentary flora of pigs v. influence of starvation on the microbial flora. Japanese Journal of Veterinary Sciences 32, 19–24.Google ScholarPubMed
Nicholson, J. A. & Kim, Y. S. (1975). A one-step L-amino acid oxidase assay for intestinal peptide hydrolase activity. Analytical Biochemistry 63, 110–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, T. J. (1970). The subcellular localization of di- and tripeptide hydrolase activity in guinea-pig small intestine. Biochemical Journal 120, 195–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peters, T. J. (1977). Subcellular distribution of di- and tripeptidase in human jejunum. Clinical Science and Molecular Medicine 52, 16P.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. I. & Jouan, A. R. P. (1986). The distribution of peptidase activity in the small intestine of sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 55, 149–156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosen, G. D. (1984). Performance promoters in animal nutrition: (ii) methods of comparison of effectiveness. In Antimicrobials and Agriculture, pp. 303–313 [Woodbine, M., editor]. London: Butterworths.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siddons, R. C. & Coates, M. (1972). The influence of the intestinal microflora on disaccharidase activities in the chick. British Journal of Nutrition 27, 101–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmitz, J., Preiser, H., Maestracci, D., Ghosh, B. K., Cerda, J. J. & Crane, R. K. (1973). Purification of the human intestinal brush border membrane. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 323, 98–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, H. W. (1965). Observations on the flora of the alimentary tract of animals and factors affecting its composition. Journal of Pathology and Bacteriology 89, 95–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, M. W. (1984). Effect of postnatal development and weaning upon the capacity of pig intestinal villi to transport alanine. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 102, 625–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, J. A. & Kidder, D. E. (1972). The distribution of trehalase, sucrase, amylase, glucoamylase and lactase (β-galactosidase) along the small intestine of five pigs. British Journal of Nutrition 28, 129–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szabo, J. (1979). Protein, carbohydrate and fat degrading enzymes in the intestine of germ-free and conventional piglets. In Clinical and Experimental Gnotobiotics, p. 125 [Fliedner, T., Heit, H., Niethammer, D. and Pflieger, H., editors]. Stuttgart and New York: Fischer Verlag.Google Scholar
Tannock, G. W. (1983). Effect of dietary and environmental stress on the gastrointestinal microbiota. In Human Intestinal Microflora in Health and Disease, pp. 517–539 [Hertges, D. J., editor]. London: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visek, W. J. (1978). The mode of growth promotion by antibiotics. Journal of Animal Science 46, 1447–1469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar