Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31292631›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2019

Effects of Bacillus subtilis C-3102 on sow and progeny performance, fecal consistency, and fecal microbes during gestation, lactation, and nursery periods1,2.

Mariana B Menegat, Joel M DeRouchey, Jason C Woodworth, Steve S Dritz, Mike D Tokach, Robert D Goodband

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Synergistic effects ofVeterinary world · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. The Role of Nutrition Across Production Stages to Improve Sow Longevity.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Effects ofVeterinary world · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Frontiers in microbiology · 2022
    Review
  19. Veterinary medicine international · 2022
    Article
  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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mariana B MenegatDepartment of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Joel M DeRoucheyDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Jason C WoodworthDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Steve S DritzDepartment of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Mike D TokachDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Robert D GoodbandDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Kansas State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study evaluated the effects of providing a dietary probiotic, Bacillus subtilis C-3102, to sows during gestation and lactation and to progeny after weaning on performance, fecal consistency, and fecal microbes. For the sow portion of the study, 29 sows and litters were used from day 30 of gestation until weaning. Sow treatments consisted of control diet or probiotic diet with B. subtilis C-3102 at 500,000 cfu/g of gestation feed and 1,000,000 cfu/g of lactation feed. For the nursery portion of the study, 358 weaned pigs, progeny of sows on study, were used in a 42-d nursery study. Nursery treatments consisted of control diet or probiotic diet with B. subtilis C-3102 and prebiotics at 500,000 cfu/g of nursery feed. Treatments were arranged in a split-plot design with sow treatment (control or probiotic diet) as main plot and nursery treatment (control or probiotic diet) as subplot. Performance, fecal consistency by fecal score method, and fecal microbes by isolation and enumeration method were assessed. In lactation, probiotic-fed sows tended (P = 0.057) to have increased feed intake, but it did not improve (P > 0.05) sow or litter performance in lactation. In the nursery, there were no (P > 0.10) interactions or main effects of sow or nursery treatments on overall growth performance. However, pigs born from control-fed sows had greater (P < 0.05) average daily gain, average daily feed intake, and body weight in late nursery than pigs born from probiotic-fed sows. Fecal score evaluation of nursing and nursery pigs indicated no influence (P > 0.05) of sow or nursery treatments on fecal consistency. Fecal microbial analysis revealed a modest modification in fecal microbial population by increasing (P < 0.05) the number of total Bacillus sp. in probiotic-fed sows and nursery pigs. Nursing piglets born from probiotic-fed sows carried over (P < 0.05) this modification in fecal microbial population preweaning. In conclusion, providing a probiotic based on B. subtilis C-3102 to sows during gestation and lactation and to progeny after weaning did not elicit noteworthy improvements in performance or fecal consistency, but there was a benefit on sow lactation feed intake. Fecal microbial analysis indicated a maternal-progeny intestinal microbiota relationship with pigs born from probiotic-fed sows displaying similar fecal microbial population as sows. However, pigs born from probiotic-fed sows demonstrated reduced growth rate and feed consumption in late nursery.

Indexed as

Animal FeedAnimalsBacillus subtilisDietFecesFemaleLactationPregnancyProbioticsSpores, BacterialSwineWeaningdirect-fed microbialfeed additivemicrobiotaprobioticswine

Identifiers

PMID31292631
PMCPMC6735905
OpenAlexW2960880829

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.