Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 267

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Fermented and nonfermented liquid feed to growing pigs: Effect on aspects of gastrointestinal ecology and growth performance

Canibe, N., Jensen, B. B.·2003·Journal of Animal Science

Abstract

The effect of feeding dry feed (DF), nonfermented liquid feed (NFLF), and fermented liquid feed (FLF) to growing pigs on aspects of gastrointestinal ecology and on performance was investigated. Nonfermented liquid feed was prepared by mixing feed and water at a ratio of 1:2.5 immediately before feeding. Fermented liquid feed was prepared by mixing feed and water in the same ratio as NFLF, and stored in a tank at 20 degrees C for 4 d, after which half the volume was removed twice daily at each feeding and replaced with the same volume of feed and water mixture. A total of 60 pigs (initial BW of 30.7 kg) from 20 litters was used. Twenty pigs, housed individually, were allotted to each of the diets and fed restrictively. Five pigs from each diet were sacrificed at an average BW of 112 kg and digesta from the gastrointestinal tract (GI-tract) was obtained to examine variables describing some aspects of the gastrointestinal ecology. Fermented liquid feed contained high levels of lactic acid bacteria (9.4 log cfu/g) and lactic acid (approximately 169 mmol/kg), low levels of enterobacteria (<3.2 log cfu/g), and had a low pH (4.4). Nonfermented liquid feed contained 7.2 log cfu/g of lactic acid bacteria, and 6.2 log cfu/g of enterobacteria, which indicated that fermentation had started in the feed. The pigs fed FLF had the lowest levels of enterobacteria along the GI-tract (<3.2 to 5.0 log cfu/g), and those fed NFLF the highest levels (5.7 to 6.6 log cfu/g; P < or = 0.02). Fermented liquid feed caused a decrease in gastric pH from 4.4 and 4.6 for DF and NLF, to 4.0 (P = 0.003), and increased numerically the gastric concentration of lactic acid (P = 0.17) from 50 to 60 mmol/kg in the DF and NFLF treatments to 113 mmol/kg in the FLF treatment. The animals fed NFLF showed the highest weight gain (995 g/d) and feed intake (2.14 kg/d), and those fed FLF the lowest values (weight gain, 931 g/d; feed intake, 1.96 kg/d; P = 0.003 for weight gain, and P < 0.001 for feed intake). The results from the present study indicate that feeding FLF as prepared here may be a valid feeding strategy to decrease the levels of enterobacteria in the GI-tract of growing pigs, whereas feeding liquid feed that has started to ferment (high levels of enterobacteria and high pH as with NFLF) increases the presence of these undesirable bacteria. Nonetheless, higher daily feed intake and body weight gain are obtained when feeding NFLF compared with feeding FLF or DF.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2527/2003.8182019x

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 24 references

Cited by

See all 267

Metadata

Authors
Canibe, N., & Jensen, B. B.
Venue
Journal of Animal Science
Published
2003-08-01
Volume
81
Issue
8
Pages
2019-2031
ISSN
  • 0021-8812 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-3163
OpenAlex
W1504683657
Cited by
267
References
24
FWCI
10.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Fermented and nonfermented liquid feed to growing pigs: Effect on aspects of gastrointestinal ecology and growth performance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2527/2003.8182019x
The paper
Canibe, N., & Jensen, B. B. (2003). Fermented and nonfermented liquid feed to growing pigs: Effect on aspects of gastrointestinal ecology and growth performance. Journal of Animal Science. https://doi.org/10.2527/2003.8182019x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.