ArticleBMC veterinary research2023
Assessment of health safety of pigs taking natural sorbents with feed.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Potential of Natural Feed Additives in Reducing Gaseous Emissions and Environmental Footprint in Rabbit Housing Systems.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Dietary silicate: a biogenic strategy to enhance growth, gut health, and nutrient utilization in finishing pigs through low-carbon diets.Porcine health management · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe study assessed the effect of smectites (bentonite and zeolite) used as natural sorbents in the diet of pigs on feed digestibility, health parameters, the severity of anatomo-histological changes in organs, and the accumulation of volatile pollutants in organs. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe study was conducted using fattening pigs (crossbreds from multiple breeds) assigned to three groups - a control (C) and two experimental groups (A and B), with 240 pigs in each group (3 replicates × 80). The animals in group C received a standard complete diet, while groups A and B received diets with 1.5% composed smectite sorbents. The feed and faeces were analysed for content of dry matter, crude ash, crude protein, ether extract, and crude fibre. The content of P was determined using a Helios Alpha UV-VIS spectrophotometer. Whole blood was analysed for haematological parameters and serum for biochemical parameters. Tissue samples were collected for analysis of volatile substances and histological analysis. After slaughter, samples of the lungs, liver, kidneys and jejunum were collected for morphological evaluation, and samples of the perirenal fat, liver, kidneys, lungs and brain for headspace gas chromatography (GC) to determine the levels of volatile toxic substances.
resultsA statistical increase in the digestibility of crude fibre and an increase in that of P were observed in both experimental groups (A and B) in comparison to the control. The whole blood and serum of the pigs from the control group had statistically significantly higher levels of creatinine, urea, and Mg and a higher WBC count compared to both experimental groups (A and B).
conclusionsThe feed additives were not shown to have a negative effect on the health parameters analysed or on accumulation of pollutants in selected tissues. No significant effect on the digestibility of most nutrients was observed; only an increase in the digestibility of crude fibre and a decrease in P digestibility were noted in the experimental groups.
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.