Evidence mapPaperPMID 33530419Full record

ArticleNutrients2021

Feed Composition Differences Resulting from Organic and Conventional Farming Practices Affect Physiological Parameters in Wistar Rats-Results from a Factorial, Two-Generation Dietary Intervention Trial.

Marcin Barański, Dominika Średnicka-Tober, Leonidas Rempelos, Gultakin Hasanaliyeva, Joanna Gromadzka-Ostrowska, Krystyna Skwarło-Sońta, Tomasz Królikowski, Ewa Rembiałkowska, Jana Hajslova, Vera Schulzova and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nutrients, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. UrinaryMetabolites · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

17 authors at 11 institutions in 7 countries.

Marcin BarańskiDepartment of Animal Physiology, Faculty of Biology, University of Warsaw, 02-096 Warsaw, Poland.
Dominika Średnicka-ToberInstitute of Human Nutrition Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Nowoursynowska 159c, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-8143-2918
Leonidas RempelosNafferton Ecological Farming Group, Food and Rural Development, School of Agriculture, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear NE1 7RU, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5520-1569
Gultakin HasanaliyevaNafferton Ecological Farming Group, Food and Rural Development, School of Agriculture, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear NE1 7RU, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8527-9949
Joanna Gromadzka-OstrowskaInstitute of Human Nutrition Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Nowoursynowska 159c, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-9529-3744
Krystyna Skwarło-SońtaDepartment of Animal Physiology, Faculty of Biology, University of Warsaw, 02-096 Warsaw, Poland.
Tomasz KrólikowskiInstitute of Human Nutrition Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Nowoursynowska 159c, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-5807-0357
Ewa RembiałkowskaInstitute of Human Nutrition Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Nowoursynowska 159c, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland.
Jana HajslovaDepartment of Food Analysis and Nutrition, Institute of Chemical Technology, UCT Prague, 166 28 Prague, Czech Republic.
Vera SchulzovaDepartment of Food Analysis and Nutrition, Institute of Chemical Technology, UCT Prague, 166 28 Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-0044-9882
Ismail CakmakFaculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Sabanci University, 34956 Istanbul, Turkey.
Levent OzturkFaculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Sabanci University, 34956 Istanbul, Turkey.
Ewelina HallmannInstitute of Human Nutrition Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Nowoursynowska 159c, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-4855-7057
Chris SealHuman Nutrition Research Centre, Institute of Cellular Medicine, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6313-6691
Per Ole IversenDepartment of Nutrition, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo, 0372 Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-7153-0242
Vanessa VigarNatMed, Southern Cross University, Military Rd., Lismore, NSW 2480, Australia.
Carlo LeifertNafferton Ecological Farming Group, Food and Rural Development, School of Agriculture, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear NE1 7RU, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2974-3612
Warsaw University of Life Sciences · PLSabancı Üniversitesi · TRUniversity of Chemistry and Technology, Prague · CZInstytut Biologii Doświadczalnej im. Marcelego Nenckiego · PLMRC Human Nutrition Research · GBNewcastle University · GBOslo University Hospital · NOSouthern Cross University · AUUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · ITUniversity of Oslo · NOUniversity of Warsaw · PL

Funding

Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic 6046137305Sheepdrove Trust no grant numberSixth Framework Programme 506358
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent human cohort studies reported positive associations between organic food consumption and a lower incidence of obesity, cancer, and several other diseases. However, there are very few animal and human dietary intervention studies that provide supporting evidence or a mechanistic understanding of these associations. Here we report results from a two-generation, dietary intervention study with male Wistar rats to identify the effects of feeds made from organic and conventional crops on growth, hormonal, and immune system parameters that are known to affect the risk of a number of chronic, non-communicable diseases in animals and humans. A 2 × 2 factorial design was used to separate the effects of contrasting crop protection methods (use or non-use of synthetic chemical pesticides) and fertilizers (mineral nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (NPK) fertilizers vs. manure use) applied in conventional and organic crop production. Conventional, pesticide-based crop protection resulted in significantly lower fiber, polyphenol, flavonoid, and lutein, but higher lipid, aldicarb, and diquat concentrations in animal feeds. Conventional, mineral NPK-based fertilization resulted in significantly lower polyphenol, but higher cadmium and protein concentrations in feeds. Feed composition differences resulting from the use of pesticides and/or mineral NPK-fertilizer had a significant effect on feed intake, weight gain, plasma hormone, and immunoglobulin concentrations, and lymphocyte proliferation in both generations of rats and in the second generation also on the body weight at weaning. Results suggest that relatively small changes in dietary intakes of (a) protein, lipids, and fiber, (b) toxic and/or endocrine-disrupting pesticides and metals, and (c) polyphenols and other antioxidants (resulting from pesticide and/or mineral NPK-fertilizer use) had complex and often interactive effects on endocrine, immune systems and growth parameters in rats. However, the physiological responses to contrasting feed composition/intake profiles differed substantially between the first and second generations of rats. This may indicate epigenetic programming and/or the generation of "adaptive" phenotypes and should be investigated further.

Indexed as

Crop ProductionDietFood, OrganicAgricultureAnimal FeedAnimalsCadmiumCrops, AgriculturalEatingFarmsFemaleFertilizersHumansMaleManureNitrogenCadmiumFertilizersManureNitrogenPesticidesPhosphorusPotassiumcadmiumconventional feedhormonal balanceimmune system responsivenessmineral fertilizerorganic feedpesticidesrat physiology

Identifiers

PMID33530419
PMCPMC7911726
OpenAlexW3121715151

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.