ReviewMicrobiology spectrum2017
Current Status of the Preharvest Application of Pro- and Prebiotics to Farm Animals to Enhance the Microbial Safety of Animal Products.
Review in Microbiology spectrum, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Role of Probiotics in Enhancing Animal Health: Mechanisms, Benefits, and Applications in Livestock and Companion Animals.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Review
- Use of biotics in animals: impact on nutrition, health, and food production.Journal of animal science · 2025Review
- Article
- Interspecies interaction reduces selection for antibiotic resistance in Escherichia coli.Communications biology · 2023Article
- Role of Bacteriophages for Optimized Health and Production of Poultry.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Review
- Bacterial diet modulates tamoxifen-induced death via host fatty acid metabolism.Nature communications · 2022Article
- The Impact of ProbioticAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Review
- Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The selection of microorganisms that act as probiotics and feed additives that act as prebiotics is an ongoing research effort, but a sizable range of commercial pro-, pre- and synbiotic (combining pro- and prebiotics) products are already available and being used on farms. A survey of the composition of commercial products available in the United States revealed that Lactobacillus acidophilus, Enterococcus faecium, and Bacillus subtilis were the three most common species in probiotic products. Of the nearly 130 probiotic products (also called direct-fed microbials) for which information was available, about 50 also contained yeasts or molds. The focus on these particular bacteria and eukaryotes is due to long-standing ideas about the benefits of such strains, research data on effectiveness primarily in laboratory or research farm settings, and regulations that dictate which microorganisms or feed additives can be administered to farm animals. Of the direct-fed microbials, only six made a claim relating to food safety or competitive exclusion of pathogens. None of the approximately 50 prebiotic products mentioned food safety in their descriptions. The remainder emphasized enhancement of animal performance such as weight gain or overall animal health. The reason why so few products carry food safety-related claims is the difficulties in establishing unambiguous cause and effect relationships between the application of such products in varied and constantly changing farm environments and improved food safety of the end product.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.