ArticleJournal of animal science2026
Profiling the bacteriome of a diet fed in meal or pelleted form, delivered as dry, wet/dry, or liquid feed and its impact on the fecal and intestinal bacteriome of grow-finisher pigs.
Article in Journal of animal science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Research is limited on how feed-associated microbes impact the intestinal bacteriome, growth, and feed efficiency of pigs. The aims of this study were to (1) profile the bacteriome of a meal or pelleted diet, delivered as dry, wet/dry or liquid feed using 16S rRNA gene sequencing; (2) determine its impact on the fecal and intestinal bacteriome of grow-finisher pigs; and (3) investigate if differentially abundant bacterial taxa are correlated with growth parameters of these pigs. The experiment was a 2 x 3 factorial arrangement, with two factors for feed form (meal, pellets) and three factors for feed delivery (dry, liquid, wet/dry). It involved 216 Danavil Duroc × (Large White × Landrace) pigs penned in same-sex pen groups of 6 pigs of similar weight (average ∼33.3 kg). Pen groups were blocked by sex and weight before being randomly assigned to 1 of 6 wheat-barley-soya-based dietary treatments in a completely randomized block design: (1) Dry meal; (2) Dry pellets; (3) Liquid meal; (4) Liquid pellets; (5) Wet/dry meal; (6) Wet/dry pellets. Diets were fed on an ad-libitum basis for 64 d. Liquid feed was prepared at a water:feed ratio of 2.5:1 (fresh matter basis). Dry feed was sampled from silos and bags, and liquid feed from mixing tanks and troughs. Bacterial richness was lower in the dry pellets compared to meal (P ≤ 0.05). The liquid feed bacteriome was more diverse than that of dry feed (P ≤ 0.001). Weissella and Leuconostoc had higher relative abundance (RA) in residual trough-sampled liquid feed compared to mixing tank and fresh trough-sampled feed. The ileal bacteriome was more diverse (P ≤ 0.01) in meal-fed than pellet-fed pigs, with higher RA of Megasphaera and Mitsuokella, while Streptococcus and Escherichia-Shigella had greater RA in pellet-fed pigs (P ≤ 0.01). Lactobacillus was enriched in the intestinal digesta of liquid meal-fed pigs (P ≤ 0.05), corresponding with its predominance in this diet. Liquid meal-, liquid pellet-, and wet/dry pellet-fed pigs had the highest average daily gain (P < 0.001). Feed conversion efficiency (FCE) was better in dry pellet-fed compared to liquid-fed pigs (P < 0.001). Leuconostoc (associated with feed fermentation) was most abundant in the feces and ileal digesta of liquid-fed pigs and correlated with poorer FCE (P ≤ 0.05). The same Leuconostoc found in liquid feed were also detected in the digesta and feces of liquid-fed pigs, implicating feed-derived bacteria as a potential cause of the poorer FCE of liquid-fed pigs.
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.