Compiled from publicly accessible sources·Maker claims labelled, not independently verified·Verdicts from the cited studies
feedmaterialsADDICOO GROUP s.r.o. →
Index / ADDICOO GROUP s.r.o. / Fortibac® F Plus
Sponsored
970×90 — direct-sold creative, or a responsive Google AdSense unit when unsold
Sensory additives · pigs, sows, piglets

Fortibac® F Plus

Brand Fortibac · Manufacturer ADDICOO GROUP s.r.o.
↗ public sourceswww.addicoo.com/fortibac-f-plus· 4 studies, 3 independent/mixed
Evidence · moderate

The active substance is backed by 4 studies including meta-analyses; the verdict per claim below reflects what the literature actually shows, not the brochure. Strength reflects the active substance, not the brand.

What the manufacturer claims

Free

Captured from the product page, typed and attributed — the producer’s own statements, checked against the literature below.

Performance
Increases feed intake, nutrient absorption and sow milk production, giving more balanced litters and higher weaning weight; higher daily gains in piglets
Physiological
Controls intestinal microflora (pH-independent), supports intestinal wall development/regeneration and reduces intestinal and systemic inflammation
Environmental
Reduces ammonia emissions
Manufacturer’s own words — not independently verified. The ledger below gives the evidence verdict for each.

Claim ↔ evidence ledger

Verdict free · receipts in Power

Each claim against the studies on the active substance, with the funding split. Open a row for the studies behind the verdict.

Claim
Verdict
Evidence & funding
PerformanceIncreases feed intake, nutrient absorption and sow milk production, giving more bala…
Supported
2 studies · 67% indep
Read Performance benefit is supported for both the ester base and phytogenics; sow milk/reproduction specifics are less directly evidenced.
2023
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of phytogenic feed additives on pig performancePhytogenic feed additives are associated with improved pig growth performance across studies
Meta-analysisIndependent
2014
Phytogenic feed additives and ammonia emissions in pigs (essential-oil blend)Pigs fed a phytogenic additive had higher weight gain and ~4.3% better FCR, with reduced ammonia emission
Field trialIndustryOpen access
PhysiologicalControls intestinal microflora (pH-independent), supports intestinal wall developmen…
Supported
1 study · 100% indep
Read Gut-health/barrier benefit follows from the ester platform.
2021
Monoglyceride blend improves gut health and performance in broilers/piglets (ester platform shared with Fortibac)Fatty-acid monoglyceride blend improved intestinal health and performance under enteric challenge
Randomised trialIndependentOpen access
EnvironmentalReduces ammonia emissions
Supported
1 study · 100% indep
Read Ammonia reduction by phytogenics (saponins/essential oils) is independently supported, though magnitude varies.
2015
Effects of phytogenic feed additives on growth performance and ammonia/greenhouse-gas emissions in growing-finishing pigsPhytogenic additives (essential oils/saponins) significantly reduced NH3 emissions and acted as performance enhancers
Randomised trialIndependent
IndependentMixedIndustryNone/undisclosed
Bottom line. F Plus pairs the Fortibac fatty-acid ester platform with plant extracts, targeted at sows and piglets.
Sponsored
728×90 — direct-sold creative, or a responsive Google AdSense unit when unsold

Composition

Free
● Disclosed by manufacturer
  • esters + plant extracts — selected fatty-acid esters combined with plant extracts (species/fatty acids not disclosed)synergistic gut-health and performance blend
◆ Referenced — with resolving source
None referenced with a resolving source yet.

Evidence — on the active substance

Table free · full-text in Power
Why these studies The evidence for a proprietary product is the evidence for its active substance. These are the studies (meta-analyses first) behind the verdicts above, with funding labelled.
Year
Study & effect size
Funding
Type
Access
2015
Effects of phytogenic feed additives on growth performance and ammonia/greenhouse-gas emissions in growing-finishing pigsPhytogenic additives (essential oils/saponins) significantly reduced NH3 emissions and acted as performance enhancers
Independent
Randomised trial
2023
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of phytogenic feed additives on pig performancePhytogenic feed additives are associated with improved pig growth performance across studies
Independent
Meta-analysis
2014
Phytogenic feed additives and ammonia emissions in pigs (essential-oil blend)Pigs fed a phytogenic additive had higher weight gain and ~4.3% better FCR, with reduced ammonia emission
Industry
Field trial
2021
Monoglyceride blend improves gut health and performance in broilers/piglets (ester platform shared with Fortibac)Fatty-acid monoglyceride blend improved intestinal health and performance under enteric challenge
Independent
Randomised trial
Sponsored
728×90 — direct-sold creative, or a responsive Google AdSense unit when unsold

Analysis & tools

◆ Power

The working map a maker won’t give you — built only from the evidence on this page. Nothing here is marketing.

◆ Power view

Open the analyst workbench

Dose benchmark, the independent-vs-sponsored split, the pooled meta-analysis effects, the contradictions and the gaps — all derived from the studies above.

  • Dose: label vs effective trial range vs EU max
  • Independence-of-evidence breakdown
  • Pooled meta-analysis effect sizes
  • Compare · CSV / JSON · API

Dose benchmark

Label / recommendedNot stated on page
Effective in trialsPhytogenics typically dosed at product-specific low inclusions; ester base ≈0.2-0.5%
EU maximumGoverned by sensory/technological good-practice use

Effect sizes for phytogenics vary widely by composition and dose.

Independence of evidence

75%
Independent · 3Mixed · 0Industry · 1Undisclosed · 0

Regulatory status

Reg. 1831/2003authorised additive
EFSA FEEDAP opinionsee register
Functional groupSensory additives

Meta-analysis effects (pooled)

pig growth performance (phytogenics) Independentimproved performance (direction consistent; magnitude variable)

Pooled estimates from the systematic reviews/meta-analyses above — the closest thing to a settled answer.

Discussion — grounded in the evidence

  • F Plus pairs the Fortibac fatty-acid ester platform with plant extracts, targeted at sows and piglets.
  • Both components are independently supported: fatty-acid esters for gut health, and phytogenics for performance and ammonia reduction.
  • The ammonia-reduction claim is credible (phytogenic saponins/essential oils inhibit urease and bind NH3), though the magnitude varies by product.
  • The specific sow-milk and reproduction claims are plausible extensions but not directly demonstrated for this exact blend.
  • Composition (botanical species, fatty acids) is undisclosed, so the assessment is at the active-class level.

Where studies disagree: Phytogenic effect sizes are heterogeneous across products and doses; the specific sow-reproduction and weaning-weight claims are plausible but not directly demonstrated for this exact blend.

Gaps: Exact botanicals and fatty acids are not disclosed. Direct sow milk/reproduction data for this product are not available. No product-specific patent captured.

Manufacturer’s stated mechanism (their words): Combines the fatty-acid ester platform (pH-independent gut antibacterial and barrier support) with selected plant extracts that enhance feed intake and performance and help reduce ammonia (via urease inhibition/NH3 binding), aimed at sows and piglets to improve litter uniformity, weaning weight and the transition to finishing.

Compare & export

Put this beside alternatives on the same active substance (e.g. HMBi / other rumen-protected methionine), and take the data with you.

Sponsored
970×90 — direct-sold creative, or a responsive Google AdSense unit when unsold