Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37393326›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science and biotechnology2023

Comparative effects of soy protein concentrate, enzyme-treated soybean meal, and fermented soybean meal replacing animal protein supplements in feeds on growth performance and intestinal health of nursery pigs.

Zixiao Deng, Marcos Elias Duarte, So Young Kim, Yunil Hwang, Sung Woo Kim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science and biotechnology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Microorganisms · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

5 authors.

Zixiao DengDepartment of Animal Science, North Carolina State University, 116 Polk Hall, Campus Box 7621, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA.
Marcos Elias DuarteDepartment of Animal Science, North Carolina State University, 116 Polk Hall, Campus Box 7621, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA.
So Young KimCJ Cheiljedang, Seoul, 04560, Korea.
Yunil HwangCJ Cheiljedang, Seoul, 04560, Korea.
Sung Woo KimDepartment of Animal Science, North Carolina State University, 116 Polk Hall, Campus Box 7621, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA. sungwoo_kim@ncsu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4591-1943

Funding

National Institute of Food and Agriculture 02893North Carolina Agricultural Foundation 660101
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSoy protein supplements, with high crude protein and less antinutritional factors, are produced from soybean meal by different processes. This study evaluated the comparative effects of various soy protein supplements replacing animal protein supplements in feeds on the intestinal immune status, intestinal oxidative stress, mucosa-associated microbiota, and growth performance of nursery pigs.

methodsSixty nursery pigs (6.6 ± 0.5 kg BW) were allotted to five treatments in a randomized complete block design with initial BW and sex as blocks. Pigs were fed for 39 d in 3 phases (P1, P2, and P3). Treatments were: Control (CON), basal diet with fish meal 4%, 2%, and 1%, poultry meal 10%, 8%, and 4%, and blood plasma 4%, 2%, and 1% for P1, P2, and P3, respectively; basal diet with soy protein concentrate (SPC), enzyme-treated soybean meal (ESB), fermented soybean meal with Lactobacillus (FSBL), and fermented soybean meal with Bacillus (FSBB), replacing 1/3, 2/3, and 3/3 of animal protein supplements for P1, P2, and P3, respectively. Data were analyzed using the MIXED procedure in SAS 9.4.

resultsThe SPC did not affect the BW, ADG, and G:F, whereas it tended to reduce (P = 0.094) the ADFI and tended to increase (P = 0.091) crypt cell proliferation. The ESM did not affect BW, ADG, ADFI, and G:F, whereas tended to decrease (P = 0.098) protein carbonyl in jejunal mucosa. The FSBL decreased (P < 0.05) BW and ADG, increased (P < 0.05) TNF-α, and Klebsiella and tended to increase MDA (P = 0.065) and IgG (P = 0.089) in jejunal mucosa. The FSBB tended to increase (P = 0.073) TNF-α, increased (P < 0.05) Clostridium and decreased (P < 0.05) Achromobacter and alpha diversity of microbiota in jejunal mucosa.

conclusionsSoy protein concentrate, enzyme-treated soybean meal, and fermented soybean meal with Bacillus could reduce the use of animal protein supplements up to 33% until 7 kg body weight, up to 67% from 7 to 11 kg body weight, and entirely from 11 kg body weight without affecting the intestinal health and the growth performance of nursery pigs. Fermented soybean meal with Lactobacillus, however, increased the immune reaction and oxidative stress in the intestine consequently reducing the growth performance.

Indexed as

Enzyme-treated soybean mealFermented soybean mealIntestinal healthNursery pigsSoy protein concentrate

Identifiers

PMID37393326
PMCPMC10315043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.