Effects of dietary supplementation of cysteamine on growth performance, carcass quality, serum hormones and gastric ulcer in finishing pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A study was conducted to determine the effects of graded levels of dietary inclusion of a cysteamine (Cs) preparation on growth performance, carcass quality, plasma hormone levels, gastric pH and occurrence of gastric ulcer in finishing pigs. A total of 384 Landrace × Large White finishing pigs, (192 gilts and 192 barrows) with an average initial body weight of 66.05 ± 0.623 kg (mean ± SEM) were randomly divided into 24 floor pens, with eight gilts and eight barrows in each pen (9.2 m2) as one experimental unit. The 24 pens of pigs were randomly allocated to one of three diets: (1) a maize/soybean meal basal diet; (2) the basal diet plus 30 mg Cs kg−1 diet; and (3) the basal diet plus 50 mg Cs kg−1 diet. Dietary supplementation of Cs had quadratic effects (P < 0.01) on final body weight and average daily gain, with optimal responses occurring at 30 mg kg−1. Dietary supplementation of Cs quadratically improved (P < 0.01) average daily feed intake and feed/gain ratio, with optimal responses occurring at 30 mg kg−1. Dietary supplementation of Cs had a quadratic effect (P < 0.01) on muscle RNA/DNA ratio. Furthermore, dietary supplementation of Cs reduced (P < 0.05) back‐fat thickness. Dietary supplementation of Cs had quadratic effects (P < 0.05) on plasma glucagon and T3 hormone levels, with optimal responses occurring at 30 mg kg−1, but had no effect (P > 0.05) on plasma growth hormone, insulin and T4 levels. There were no apparent pathological changes seen in the stomach mucosa of pigs fed at 30 mg Cs kg−1 compared with the control diet. It is concluded that a low dose of dietary inclusion of Cs at 30 mg kg−1 can improve growth performance and carcass quality without adverse effects on the stomach in finishing pigs. Copyright © 2005 Society of Chemical Industry
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".