Effect of lactitol, lactic acid bacteria, or their combinations (synbiotic) on intestinal proteolysis in vitro, and on feed efficiency in weaned pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to evaluate in vitro the intestinal microflora response to lactitol (LCT) as a non-digestible oligosaccharide (NDO) and/or to two swine lactic acid bacteria (LAB) isolates (Lactobacillus brevis and L. salivarius), and to select the most effective treatment to modulate intestinal fermentation in a subsequent growth study with weaning piglets. During a 24-h in vitro cecal fermentation, LCT alone or in combination with either bacteria isolate stimulated gas production rate (P < 0.05), while LAB isolates alone did not (P > 0.05). Both combinations of isolates with LCT reduced ammonia levels after 24 h by 26 and 31%, respectively (P < 0.05), while LCT alone was effective in keeping ammonia lower than the control only in the first 8 h (P < 0.05). All treatments increased (P < 0.05) the production of total volatile fatty acids. The most effective combination (LCT + L. salivarius) in vitro was selected to be used in a 49-d feeding experiment with weaned piglets (32 animals per group, eight piglets per cage, four cages per treatment). Feed efficiency was improved (13%) by LCT + L. salivarius (P < 0.05), while average daily gain and feed consumption were not affected (P > 0.05). These data substantiated the positive synergistic effect of the combination of an NDO with a LAB isolate as compared with the use of individual components in modulating the cecal microflora under in vitro conditions. This study showed that such combination may positively influence feed efficiency when fed to pigs. Key words: Swine, cecum, synbiotics, probiotics, prebiotics, lactitol, lactic acid bacteria
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".