ArticleJournal of animal science2020
The effect of feed form and delivery method on feed microbiology and growth performance in grow-finisher pigs.
Article in Journal of animal science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Effect of Pellet Diameter on the Growth Performance, Nutrient Digestibility, and Intestinal Health of Piglets During the Creep Feeding Stage.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Profiling the bacteriome of a diet fed in meal or pelleted form, delivered as dry, wet/dry, or liquid feed and its impact on the fecal and intestinal bacteriome of grow-finisher pigs.Journal of animal science · 2026Article
- Technologies and practices to improve feed and nutrient utilization by pigs.Journal of animal science · 2025Review
- Optimising the hygiene of a liquid feeding system to improve the quality of liquid feed for pigs.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Predicting Chemical Composition and Apparent Total Tract Digestibility on Freeze-Dried Not Ground Faeces Using Near-Infrared Spectroscopy in Pigs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Contribution of farms to the microbiota in the swine value chain.Frontiers in systems biology · 2023Article
- Blood and faecal biomarkers to assess dietary energy, protein and amino acid efficiency of utilization by growing and finishing pigs.Porcine health management · 2022Article
- Effect of Phase Feeding, Space Allowance and Mixing on Productive Performance of Grower-Finisher Pigs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- Effects of age and diet forms on growth-development patterns, serum metabolism indicators, and parameters of body fat deposition in Cherry Valley ducks.Animal bioscience · 2022Article
- Microbial Quality of Liquid Feed for Pigs and Its Impact on the Porcine Gut Microbiome.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Review
- Effect of space allowance and mixing on growth performance and body lesions of grower-finisher pigs in pens with a single wet-dry feeder.Porcine health management · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is no generally accepted optimal feed form and delivery method for feeding finisher pigs. The objective of this study was to compare the effect of feed form (meal and pellet) and delivery method (liquid, dry, and wet/dry) on feed microbiology and growth, gain-to-feed ratio (G:F), and carcass quality of finisher pigs. Two batches of pigs were used, each with six pen replicates per treatment. In each batch 216 pigs (32.7 kg; ± 0.48 SE) housed in same-sex (entire male or female) pens of six pigs per pen were on treatment for ~62 d prior to slaughter. The experiment was a 2 × 3 factorial arrangement with two factors for diet form (meal and pellets) and three factors for feed delivery (dry, wet/dry, liquid). The treatments were 1) meal from dry feeder, 2) meal from wet/dry feeder, 3) meal from liquid system, 4) pellet from dry feeder, 5) pellet from wet/dry feeder, and 6) pellet from liquid system. Pig growth performance was determined, blood samples collected at slaughter for hematological analysis and microbiological and proximate analysis of feed performed. A significant feed form × delivery interaction was found for G:F. During the overall period G:F was 0.446, 0.433, 0.423, 0.474, 0.459, and 0.418 g/g (SE = 0.0080; P < 0.01) for treatments 1 through 6, respectively. When feed was pelleted, G:F was improved when feed delivery was dry or wet/dry compared to meal but when the delivery was liquid, pelleting did not affect G:F. There were no interactive effects for overall average daily gain (ADG). Overall ADG was 1,114 and 1,156 g/d (SE = 16.9; P < 0.01) for pigs fed diets in meal and pellet form, respectively and 1,080, 1,114, and 1,210 g/d (SE = 18.4; P < 0.001) for dry-, wet/dry-, and liquid-fed pigs, respectively. Carcass weight was 76.6 and 79.0 kg (SE = 0.55; P < 0.001) for pigs fed in meal and pellet form, respectively, while it was 74.7, 77.3, and 81.5 kg (SE = 0.60; P < 0.001) for pigs delivered dry, wet/dry, and liquid diets, respectively. Lactic acid bacteria (P < 0.05) and yeast (P < 0.01) counts in troughs were greater for the liquid than the dry diet in both meal and pelleted form. There was also evidence of lysine degradation in the liquid diet but this did not impact pig growth. Feeding the diet in pelleted vs. meal form led to lower hemoglobin and greater white blood cell and neutrophil counts (P < 0.05). To conclude, wet/dry feeding of a pelleted diet is recommended to maximize growth rate while optimizing G:F in grow-finisher pigs.
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.