Table 4
Growth performances in pig production. The first line for each reference gives the performance for the control and the following lines the variation versus control in percentage (test − control)/control x 100.
| Citation | Meal | Dose | Animals | ADFI | ADG | FCR | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Czech et al., 2021a | SBM | Piglets | 0.892 | a | 0.559 | a | 1.60 | a | |
| FRSM | 8% | −2.9% | b | 4.8% | b | −7.5% | b | ||
| FRSM+FSBM | 6+2% | −0.8% | a | 5.9% | a | −6.3% | b | ||
| FSBM+FRSM | 6+2% | −1.8% | ab | 2.3% | ab | −4.4% | ab | ||
| FSBM | 8% | −2.0% | ab | 2.7% | ab | −5.0% | ab | ||
| Feng et al., 2020 | SBM | 16.5% (−5.3%) | Finishing | 2.95 | 0.826 | 3.57 | |||
| SFBM | 5.30% | 4.1% | NS | 8.9% | * | −4.5% | NS | ||
| Jiang et al., 2023 | SBM | Piglets (28d) | 0.861 | 0.502 | 1.7% | ||||
| Whole diet | 10% | 3.8% | NS | 13.5% | * | −11.0% | * | ||
| Liu et al., 2021 | SBM | −12% | Piglets (1–28d) | 0.589 | 0.355 | 1.7% | |||
| FSBM | 9.70% | 12.1% | NS | 18.9% | ** | −6.0% | NS | ||
| Muniyappan et al., 2023 | SBM | Piglets (1–42d) | 0.578 | 0.419 | 1.38 | ||||
| FSBM | 3% | 2.9% | NS | 4.8% | * | −1.7% | * | ||
| FSBM | 6% | 5.0% | * | 6.4% | * | −1.1% | * | ||
| FSBM | 9% | 5.0% | * | 5.7% | * | −0.7% | * | ||
| Xie et al., 2022 | SBM (subst 50%) | (iso N) | Finishing | 3.178 | 0.889 | 3.18 | |||
| FSBM | 7.40% | 9.3% | NS | 22.9% | * | 9.3% | NS | ||
| Deng et al., 2023 | Animal prot | −6% −8% | Piglets | 0.695 | 0.500 | 1.39 | |||
| FSBM(lact) | 6.5–8.5% | −10.2% | NS | −10.2% | * | 2.9% | NS | ||
| FSBM(Bac) | 6.1–7.9% | −5.2% | NS | −4.2% | NS | −1.0% | NS | ||
| Hui et al., 2021 | Dig.soy − wheat | 7.9%, 61.3% | Piglets (28-85d) | 0.516 | 0.306 | 1.80 | |||
| RSM+bran+Seeweed | 2.5% | 10.9% | NS | 10.8% | NS | −6.7% | NS | ||
| RSM+bran+Seeweed | 5.00% | 5.8% | NS | 3.3% | NS | −2.2% | NS | ||
| Thavonnan et al., 2020 | SBM+FM+FFS+EnzSBM | Piglets | 0.571 | 0.382 | 1.50 | ||||
| FSBM vs. Mixture1 | 13% | −5.4% | NS | −0.8% | NS | −4.7% | NS | ||
| FSBM vs. Mixture2 | 3.8% | 1.2% | NS | 1.0% | NS | 0.2% | NS | ||
| FSBM vs. Mixture3 | 7.67% | −3.9% | NS | −5.8% | NS | 2.0% | NS | ||
| FSBM vs. Mixture4 | 9.33 | −1.6% | NS | 0.5% | NS | −2.1% | NS |
SBM: soybean meal, FSBM, fermented SBM, RSM: rapeseed meal, FRSM: fermented RSM, ADFI: average daily feed intake (kg/day); ADG: average day gain (kg/day); FCR: feed conversion ratio (Feed/gain). NS, non-significant difference, *, significant difference (P<0.05), letters ab, multiple means comparison—treatment with the same letter are not significantly different. In Thavonnan et al.’s study, FSBM substituted different protein sources in weeks 5–6 and week 7–8: Mixture 1: substitution 10.2–11% SBM and 5–5% full-fat soybean (FFS); mixture 2: 3.3–1.7 of fish meal (FM); mixture 3: 6.7–3.3 fish meal; mixture 4: 8.3–6.7% enzyme treated SBM. (First figure corresponding to weeks 5–6, second figure for weeks 7–8). The results encompass the whole period.
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.