Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35524733›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2022

Influence of yeast-based pre- and probiotics in lactation and nursery diets on nursery pig performance and antimicrobial resistance of fecal Escherichia coli.

Jenna A Chance, Joel M DeRouchey, Raghavendra G Amachawadi, Victor Ishengoma, Tiruvoor G Nagaraja, Robert D Goodband, Jason C Woodworth, Mike D Tokach, Qing Kang, Joseph A Loughmiller and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Isolation, characterization, and molecular identification ofJournal of advanced veterinary and animal research · 2026
    Article
  3. Dietary supplementation withFrontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Effects of Compound Probiotics on Cecal Microbiota and Metabolome of Swine.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jenna A ChanceDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kanas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-0201, USA.
Joel M DeRoucheyDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kanas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-0201, USA.
Raghavendra G AmachawadiDepartment of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-0201, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9689-1124
Victor IshengomaDepartment of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-0201, USA.
Tiruvoor G NagarajaDepartment of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kanas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-0201, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0899-878X
Robert D GoodbandDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kanas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-0201, USA.
Jason C WoodworthDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kanas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-0201, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7268-4278
Mike D TokachDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kanas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-0201, USA.
Qing KangDepartment of Statistics, College of Arts and Sciences, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-0201, USA.
Joseph A LoughmillerPhileo by Lesaffre, Milwaukee, WI 53214-1552, USA.
Brian HotzePhileo by Lesaffre, Milwaukee, WI 53214-1552, USA.
Jordan T GebhardtDepartment of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kanas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-0201, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6144-6714
Kansas State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted to determine the impact of various combinations of yeast-based direct fed microbials (DFM) in diets fed to nursery pigs weaned from sows fed lactation diets with or without yeast additives. In Exp. 1, 340 weaned pigs, initially 5.1 kg ± 0.02, were used to evaluate previous sow treatment (control vs. yeast additives) and nursery diets with or without added yeast-based DFM on growth performance and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) patterns of fecal Escherichia coli. Treatments were arranged in a 2 × 2 factorial with main effects of sow treatment (control vs. yeast-based pre- and probiotic diet; 0.10% ActiSaf Sc 47 HR+ and 0.025% SafMannan, Phileo by Lesaffre, Milwaukee, WI) and nursery treatment (control vs. yeast-based pre- and probiotic diet; 0.10% ActiSaf Sc 47 HR+, 0.05% SafMannan, and 0.05% NucleoSaf from days 0 to 7, then concentrations were decreased by 50% from days 7 to 24) with 5 pigs per pen and 17 replications per treatment. Progeny from sows fed yeast additives had increased (P < 0.05) average daily gain (ADG) from days 0 to 24 and days 0 to 45. However, pigs that were fed yeast additives for the first 24 d in the nursery tended to have decreased days 0 to 45 ADG (P = 0.079). Fecal E. coli isolated from pigs from the sows fed yeast group had increased (P = 0.034) resistance to nalidixic acid and a tendency for increased resistance to ciprofloxacin (P = 0.065) and gentamicin (P = 0.054). Yet, when yeast additives were added in the nursery, there was reduced (P < 0.05) fecal E. coli resistance to azithromycin and chloramphenicol. In Exp. 2, 330 weaned pigs, initially 5.8 kg ± 0.03, were used to evaluate diets with two different combinations of DFM on growth performance. Treatments were arranged in a 2 × 3 factorial with main effects of sow treatment (same as described in Exp. 1) and nursery treatment (control; YCW, 0.05% of SafMannan from days 0 to 38 and NucleoSaf at 0.05% from days 0 to 10 and 0.025% from days 10 to 24; or DFM, 0.10% MicroSaf-S from days 0 to 38 and NucleoSaf at 0.05% from days 0 to 10 and 0.025% from days 10 to 24) with 6 pigs per pen and 8 to 10 replications per treatment. From days 0 to 10 post-weaning, progeny of sows fed yeast additives had increased (P < 0.05) ADG and G:F. In conclusion, feeding sows yeast through lactation improved offspring growth performance in the nursery. Although feeding live yeast and yeast extracts reduced nursery pig performance in Exp. 1, feeding DFM improved growth later in the nursery period in Exp. 2.

Indexed as

Escherichia coli InfectionsProbioticsSwine DiseasesAnimal FeedAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsDietDrug Resistance, BacterialEscherichia coliFemaleLactationSwineWeaningAnti-Bacterial Agentsantimicrobial resistanceBacillusgrowthlive yeastnursery pigsyeast extract

Identifiers

PMID35524733
PMCPMC9167580
OpenAlexW4229043300

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.