Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25049931›Full record

ArticleAsian-Australasian journal of animal sciences2014

Comparison of single and blend acidifiers as alternative to antibiotics on growth performance, fecal microflora, and humoral immunity in weaned piglets.

S T Ahmed, J A Hwang, J Hoon, H S Mun, C J Yang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Asian-Australasian journal of animal sciences, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Microorganisms · 2022
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

S T AhmedDepartment of Animal Science and Technology, Sunchon National University, Suncheon, Jeonnam 540-742, Korea.
J A HwangDepartment of Animal Science and Technology, Sunchon National University, Suncheon, Jeonnam 540-742, Korea.
J HoonDepartment of Animal Science and Technology, Sunchon National University, Suncheon, Jeonnam 540-742, Korea.
H S MunDepartment of Animal Science and Technology, Sunchon National University, Suncheon, Jeonnam 540-742, Korea.
C J YangDepartment of Animal Science and Technology, Sunchon National University, Suncheon, Jeonnam 540-742, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The banning of the use of antibiotics as feed additive has accelerated investigations of alternative feed additives in animal production. This experiment investigated the effect of pure citric acid or acidifier blend supplementation as substitute for antibiotic growth promoters on growth performance, fecal microbial count, and humoral immunity in weaned piglets challenged with Salmonella enterica serover Typhimurium and Escherichia coli KCTC 2571. A total of 60 newly weaned piglets (crossbred, 28-d-old; average 8 kg initial weight) were randomly assigned to four dietary treatments in a completely randomized design. Dietary treatments included NC (negative control; basal diet), PC (positive control; basal diet+0.002% apramycin), T1 (basal diet+0.5% pure citric acid), and T2 (basal diet+0.4% acidifier blend). All piglets were orally challenged with 5 mL of culture fluid containing 2.3×10(8) cfu/mL of E. coli KCTC 2571 and 5.9×10(8) cfu/mL of S. typhimurium at the beginning of the experiment. The PC group showed the highest ADG and ADFI, whereas gain:feed was improved in the PC and T1 group (p<0.05). All dietary treatments showed significant reduction in fecal counts of Salmonella and E. coli, compared to NC (p<0.05), with PC being better than T1 and T2. Significant elevation in fecal Lactobacillus spp. counts was shown by treatments with T1, T2, and PC, whereas Bacillus spp. counts were increased by treatment with T1 and T2 compared to NC and PC diet (p<0.05). Serum IgG concentration was increased by T1 diet (p<0.05), whereas IgM and IgA were not significantly affected by any of the dietary treatments (p>0.05). From these above results, it can be concluded that, as alternatives to antibiotics dietary acidification with pure citric acid or acidifiers blend did not fully ameliorate the negative effects of microbial challenges in respect of growth performance and microbial environment, however improved immunity suggested further research with different dose levels.

Indexed as

Acidifier BlendChallenged PigletsCitric AcidGrowth PerformanceImmunityMicroorganism

Identifiers

PMID25049931
PMCPMC4093283

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.