ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2023
Effect of two milk supplements and two ways of administration on growth performance, welfare and fecal microbial ecology of suckling piglets.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of the efficacy of complementary colostrum, milk, and oral nutritional and dietary solutions on the health, growth, and gut health of suckling piglets.Journal of animal science · 2026Pooled it
- Acute high-intensity exercise alters gut microbiota composition and energy metabolism in different strains of mice.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Effect of feeding a gestation diet to sows for 5 days post-farrowing and feeding a liquid mixture of milk replacer and starter diet to suckling piglets on growth, selected health parameters and faecal microbiota of suckling pigs on two research farms.Translational animal science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of two MS formulas, DanMilk™ (AB Neo, Denmark) (MS1) and Neopigg Methods: Forty litters (528 piglets) were divided into 4 groups: 1) Control group receiving no MS (CON); 2) MS1 administered automatically (A-MS1); 3) MS1 administered manually (Ma-MS1) 4) MS2 administered manually (Ma-MS2). All groups had access to sow milk and creep feed. On day 5 after birth (d0), litters were equalized (13.2 piglets/litter ± 0.8 SD), thereafter no cross-fostering was allowed. Piglets were weighed at day 5 after birth (d0), at the end of milk supplementation (d14), at weaning (d21 of the trial, 26 days of age) and ten days post-weaning (d31). Piglet welfare was assessed using behavioral and lesion measures at d4 and d10. Feces were collected at d14 and d21. Results and discussion: During the suckling period, A-MS1 had lowest mortality (
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.