Effect of liquid whey feeding on fecal microbiota of mature and growing pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of liquid whey feeding on fecal bacteria and their metabolites was assessed in five pregnant sows and 66 growing pigs. Sows were fed a control diet for 4 weeks (control period) followed by the same diet but with whey feeding (5 L/day/pig) for 4 weeks (whey period). One group of growing pigs was given 267 L of whey per pig (whey group), while the other group was not (control group). In both cases, liquid whey was given separately from control diet. Sows in the whey period had feces showing lower pH, lower ammonia concentration, and larger population sizes of total bacteria, lactobacilli and bifidobacteria. The bacterial gene library analysis indicated that Mitsuokella and Megasphaera were more frequently detected, while Clostridium disporicum were detected less frequently in the whey period. Feces from whey-fed growing pigs showed lower pH than that from control pigs in the early stage of growing. Also, larger populations of total bacteria, lactobacilli and bifidobacteria were recorded in the whey group. From the bacterial gene library analysis, the detection frequency of Lactobacillus reuteri tended to be higher in the whey group. These results indicate that whey feeding influences the hindgut microbiota of pigs, possibly leading to a fermentation shift that is favorable for animal health.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".