Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30476156›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2018

Efficacy of energy supplementation on growth performance and immune response of suckling pigs.

Naiana Einhardt Manzke, Bruna Kuhn Gomes, Eduardo Gonçalves Xavier, Gustavo Julio Mello Monteiro de Lima

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Naiana Einhardt ManzkePelotas Federal University, Animal Science Department, Pelotas, Brazil.
Bruna Kuhn GomesPelotas Federal University, Animal Science Department, Pelotas, Brazil.
Eduardo Gonçalves XavierPelotas Federal University, Animal Science Department, Pelotas, Brazil.
Gustavo Julio Mello Monteiro de LimaBrazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, Concordia, Brazil.
Universidade Federal de Pelotas · BRBrazilian Agricultural Research Corporation · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Three studies were performed to determine the effects of oral energy sources on the performance, immune status, and intestinal morphology of piglets. In Exp. 1, 50 litters were selected based on genotype and parity order to determine the optimum amount of supplemental energy for neonatal pigs. They were distributed according to a 5 × 5 Latin square design, in which columns were represented by 5 sows and rows were represented by 5 newborn weight categories. Treatments consisted of 2 oral doses of 0, 2, 4, 8, or 16 mL of rice bran oil (RBO). There was a positive response of RBO on BW with a numerical difference (P = 0.12) and a significant linear effect (P = 0.04) at weaning. In Exp. 2, litters (n = 340) were randomly allotted to a 2 × 2 factorial arrangement of treatments: RBO supplemented either through oral doses (without supplementation or with 2 mL of RBO) or through prestarter feed (without supplementation or with 2% of RBO replacing 2% of soybean oil). Piglets orally receiving RBO showed a numerical increase in BW at weaning (P = 0.101) compared with the control group. Moreover, piglets supplemented by prestarter feed tended to increase feed intake (P = 0.084). In Exp. 3, litters (n = 245) were selected based on genotype and parity order and they were distributed according to a 7 × 7 Latin square design planed in the same way as in Exp. 1. Each neonatal pig within a litter was randomly assigned to 1 of 7 treatments: 1) control (no supplementation), 2) 2 mL of RBO enriched with omega-3 fatty acids, 3) 2.33 mL of pure glycerin, 4) 1.3 mL of soybean oil, 5) 1.4 mL of linseed oil, 6) 1.68 mL of coconut oil, and 7) 2 mL of RBO. Animal performance was analyzed using 2 data sets: all data (average initial BW of 1.479 kg) and low birth weight (LBW) piglet data (≤1.220 kg initial BW with average of 0.985 kg). Body weight or BW gain (BWG) were not different among treatments (P > 0.10) when all data were analyzed. However, LBW piglets fed coconut oil tended to increase BW (P = 0.099) during the first week. In conclusion, the oral use of RBO may increase BW at weaning and the supplementation by prestarter feed may enhance the feed intake of piglets. In addition, coconut oil may increase BW of LBW piglets in the first week of life without affecting mortality, immune response, or gut morphology. The routine practice of oral supplementation of energy for newborn pigs could be an important tool in swine production.

Indexed as

Dietary SupplementsEnergy IntakeAnimal FeedAnimal Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaAnimalsAnimals, SucklingCoconut OilFatty Acids, Omega-3FemaleGlycerolLinseed OilParityPregnancyRandom AllocationRice Bran OilSoybean OilCoconut OilFatty Acids, Omega-3GlycerolLinseed OilRice Bran OilSoybean Oil

Identifiers

PMID30476156
PMCPMC6247860
OpenAlexW2901538670

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.