Subtherapeutic use of antibiotics in pork production: Risks and alternatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this review is to discuss the issue of subtherapeutic use of antibiotics in pork production and possible alternatives. Specifically, the review describes the potential problem of antibiotic resistance and reviews disease prevention and immune potentiation strategies as alternatives to subtherapeutic antibiotics. In recent years, the use of in-feed subtherapeutic antibiotics by the pork industry for growth promotion and disease prophylaxis has come under increased scrutiny. The potential risk of bacteria acquiring resistance to specific antibiotics and the detrimental effects that this may have on human health has resulted in the banning of certain antibiotics in some European countries. Despite the current interest in the reduction or elimination of subtherapeutic antibiotic use in livestock production, there may be a risk that such a reduction or elimination would have negative effects on animal welfare, nutrient utilization, manure production and economic sustainability. A number of alternatives to subtherapeutic antibiotics appear promising; however, more research is required before they can be considered viable commercial products. Consequently, a systems approach involving nutrition, bacteriology, immunology, pathology and herd management is needed to find a cost-effective and practical way to maximize the efficient production of high-quality pork without the use of subtherapeutic antibiotics. Key words: Pig, pork production, subtherapeutic antibiotics, alternatives
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".