| Title |
Microbiota in fermented feed and swine gut
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00253-018-8829-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cheng Wang, Changyou Shi, Yu Zhang, Deguang Song, Zeqing Lu, Yizhen Wang |
| Abstract |
Development of alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters (AGP) used in swine production requires a better understanding of their impacts on the gut microbiota. Supplementing fermented feed (FF) in swine diets as a novel nutritional strategy to reduce the use of AGP and feed price, can positively affect the porcine gut microbiota, thereby improving pig productivities. Previous studies have noted the potential effects of FF on the shift in benefit of the swine microbiota in different regions of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT). The positive influences of FF on swine gut microbiota may be due to the beneficial effects of both pre- and probiotics. Necessarily, some methods should be adopted to properly ferment and evaluate the feed and avoid undesired problems. In this mini-review, we mainly discuss the microbiota in both fermented feed and swine gut and how FF influences swine gut microbiota. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 95 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 18 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 12% |
| Unknown | 27 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 26 | 27% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 11 | 12% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 8 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 6% |
| Chemical Engineering | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 9% |
| Unknown | 32 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 September 2018.
All research outputs
#4,242,425
of 24,119,703 outputs
Outputs from Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
#999
of 8,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,297
of 340,540 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
#22
of 141 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,119,703 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,034 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,540 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 141 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.