SynthesisVeterinary research communications2026
Behavioral responses of pigs to dietary alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Veterinary research communications, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intensive swine production stressors induce stress responses that compromise welfare and health, positioning behavior as a critical welfare indicator. Although antibiotics traditionally improve performance, antimicrobial resistance concerns have driven the search for alternatives. This systematic review evaluated the influence of zootechnical additives, used as alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters (AGP), on pig behavior. Following the PICO framework (pigs, antimicrobial alternatives, AGP, behavioral responses), three databases (Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science) were searched. Out of 1,893 identified articles, seven met the inclusion criteria, highlighting the scarcity of standardized behavioral research in this field. Extracted variables included biting frequency, posture (lying/standing/sitting), exploration, agonistic behavior, object interaction, reactivity, stereotypies, and vocalizations. The limited study number and heterogeneous assessment methods restricted direct comparisons between additives. While organic acids showed non-significant effects, probiotics improved exploration and activity in weaned piglets, improved human-animal relationships in sows, and reduced stress reactivity in offspring. L-glutamine increased standing time and novel object exploration in weaned piglets. Regarding phytogenics, Moringa oleifera reduced belly nosing, while Passiflora incarnata decreased aggression and biting in weaned piglets. In conclusion, feed additives can positively modulate pigs behavioral responses; however, these findings stem from limited data and require cautious interpretation. These findings highlight the potential of specific feed additives to mitigate stress-related behaviors in pigs, while emphasizing the urgent need for standardized ethological protocols to strengthen behavioral evidence across production phases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.