ArticleJournal of animal science and technology2025
Effects of paraformic acid supplementation, as an antibiotic replacement, on growth performance, intestinal morphology and gut microbiota of nursery pigs.
Article in Journal of animal science and technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of dietary formic acid polymer supplementation on growth performance, blood parameters, and intestinal health in lipopolysaccharide-challenged broilers.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Article
- Integrative Analysis of Probiotic-Mediated Remodeling in Canine Gut Microbiota and Metabolites Using a Fermenter for an Intestinal Microbiota Model.Food science of animal resources · 2024Article
- The current state of phage therapy in livestock and companion animals.Journal of animal science and technology · 2024Review
- Effects of Supplemental Benzoic Acid, Bromelain, Adipic Acid, and Humic Substances on Nitrogen Utilization, Urine pH, Slurry pH, and Manure Odorous Compounds in Pigs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A total of 150 crossbred male pigs (21 ± 1 days old; 8.85 ± 0.15 kg body weight [BW]) were randomly assigned to five dietary treatments with five replicates per treatment and six pigs per pen to evaluate the effect of paraformic acid (PFA), as a substitute to antibiotics, on growth performance, intestinal morphology, and gut microbiota of nursery pigs. The treatments were: 1) Negative control (NC): nutrient adequate control diet; 2) PFA1: similar to NC plus 0.30% PFA; 3) PFA2: similar to NC plus 0.60% PFA; 4) PFA3: similar to NC plus 1.0% PFA; and 5) Positive control (PC): similar to NC plus 0.15% of chlortetracycline. Pigs were fed the same nutritional profile during the two-phase feeding regime (phase 1 [P1; d 0-14], and phase 2 [P2; d 15-30]). Initial BW, and BW and feed disappearance at the end of each phase were recorded to calculate average daily feed intake (ADFI), average daily gain (ADG), and feed to gain ratio (F: G). The Fecal score was determined at the end of P1, while the intestinal morphology and microbiota analysis were performed at the end of P2. Pigs fed PFA2 had higher ADG than those fed NC in P1. A quadratic response was found in the overall phase 1 and phase 2 (P1&2) with the highest ADG in pigs fed PFA2 (
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.