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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Official Methods of Analysis of
(1980) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/ac50052a726 · Cited by 59,330
Official Methods of Analysis: 22nd Edition (2023)
(2023) · Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC INTERNATIONAL · doi:10.1093/9780197610145.002.001 · Cited by 28,007
(1975) · Journal of AOAC INTERNATIONAL · doi:10.1093/jaoac/58.5.1085 · Cited by 19,795
(1985) · International Journal of Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/0020-711x(85)90098-9 · Cited by 3,478
Holdeman, L. V., Moore, W. E., & Cato, E. P. (1977) · Cited by 2,988
Carbohydrate and lignin contents of plant materials used in animal feeding
Knudsen, K. E. B. (1997) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/s0377-8401(97)00009-6 · Cited by 1,548
A Serum Bottle Modification of the Hungate Technique for Cultivating Obligate Anaerobes
Miller, T. L., & Wolin, M. J. (1974) · Applied Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.27.5.985-987.1974 · Cited by 875
Englyst, H., Wiggins, H. S., & Cummings, J. H. (1982) · The Analyst · doi:10.1039/an9820700307 · Cited by 852
The effects of fermentation acids on bacterial growth
Russell, J. B., & Diez-Gonzalez, F. (1997) · Advances in Microbial Physiology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2911(08)60017-x · Cited by 498
Vorschlag zur Vereinheitlichung der Fettbestimmung in Lebensmitteln
Stoldt, W. (1952) · Fette und Seifen · doi:10.1002/lipi.19520540406 · Cited by 374
Cited by
Effect of plant extracts and formic acid on the intestinal equilibrium of early-weaned pigs1
Manzanilla, E. G., Perez, J. F., Martin, M., Kamel, C., Baucells, F., & Gasa, J. (2004) · Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.2527/2004.82113210x · Cited by 279
Health‐beneficial effects of probiotics: Its mode of action
OHASHI, Y., & USHIDA, K. (2009) · Animal Science Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1740-0929.2009.00645.x · Cited by 209
Metadata
- Authors
- Canibe, N., & Jensen, B. B.
- Venue
- Journal of Animal Science
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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.