Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40073973›Full record

SynthesisJournal of advanced research2026

Meta-analyses of the global impact of non-antibiotic feed additives on livestock performance and health.

Lily Liu, Pengfei Wang, Songlin Liu, Min Yan, Qin Zhang, Emily Clark, Jinhai Wang

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of advanced research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Effects ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors.

Lily LiuCollege of Biological and Food Engineering, Southwest Forestry University, Kunming 650224, PR China; The Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH25 9RG, UK. Electronic address: Lilyliu0518@163.com.
Pengfei WangCollege of Biological and Food Engineering, Southwest Forestry University, Kunming 650224, PR China.
Songlin LiuCollege of Biological and Food Engineering, Southwest Forestry University, Kunming 650224, PR China.
Min YanCollege of Biological and Food Engineering, Southwest Forestry University, Kunming 650224, PR China.
Qin ZhangCollege of Animal Science and Technology, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai'an 271018, PR China.
Emily ClarkThe Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH25 9RG, UK.
Jinhai WangThe Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH25 9RG, UK; College of Animal Science and Technology, Northwest A & F University, Yangling 712100, PR China. Electronic address: jwang7@ed.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe impact of non-antibiotic feed additives on livestock performance and health is contingent upon a multitude of variables, including the animal species, dosage and type of feed additives, and duration of oral administration. However, there is a paucity of knowledge regarding the relationship between these factors and the performance of livestock animals.

objectivesThe objective of this study was to conduct a global meta-analysis based on a pool of empirical studies to investigate the effects of dietary additives on growth, production, blood metabolites, immunity, intestinal morphology, and the abundance of gut microbiota in livestock.

methodsA meta-regression coupled with dose-effect analysis was performed to ascertain the optimal dosage and feeding duration for the optimal body function. A total of 71 papers, estimating 1, 035 effect size across 9 species and 7 types of non-antibiotic feed additives were recruited in our meta-dataset.

resultsOverall assessment confirmed that these additives in diet can significantly improve livestock production and immune function across species. Our findings indicated that the effects of additives on animal performance were more pronounced in herbivores than in omnivores. The dose-response results indicated that the overall optimal doses for antimicrobial peptides, enzymes, oligosaccharides, organic acids, phytogenic, probiotics and prebiotics were 100 mg/kg, 30 mg/kg, 200 mg/kg, 50 mg/kg, 200 mg/kg, 10⁶ CFU/kg, and 10 mg/kg, respectively. Oral administration of these additives for a 2-month period effectively improves livestock performance and health.

conclusionThis evidence-based approach provides a foundation for implementing customized feeding strategies designed to optimize livestock performance, enhance immunity and reduce feed costs. Our assessment shows that these feed additives are promising alternatives to antibiotics in reducing the use of antibiotics. Furthermore, these findings suggest that the use of these feed additives can lead to evidence-based recommendations for practical feeding strategies, providing livestock producers with a sustainable and cost-effective approach to animal health management.

Indexed as

Animal FeedFood AdditivesLivestockAnimalsGastrointestinal MicrobiomePrebioticsProbioticsFood AdditivesPrebioticsAnimal welfareDose effectHealthNutritionPerformance

Identifiers

PMID40073973
PMCPMC12766227

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.