MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158423697 · doi:10.6000/1927-5129.2013.09.36

Ractopamine for Pigs: A Review about Nutritional Requirements

2013· review· en· W2158423697 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Francisco Carlos de Oliveira Silva, Rita Flávia Miranda de Oliveira, Edney Pereira da Silva

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic & Applied Sciences · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPharmacological Effects and Assays
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidade Federal de LavrasInstituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia de Ciência Animal
KeywordsRactopamineAnimal scienceWeight gainFeed conversion ratioBody weightHeat stressChemistryBiologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heavy weight pigs tend to deposit greater quantities of fat than protein. To work around this situation, ractopamine has been used in the finishing stage. In environments with moderate temperatures, ractopamine in pig diets in the finishing phase may increase rates of weight gain and improve feed efficiency without affecting feed intake. Ractopamine increases needs of pigs in terms of lysine, phosphorus and energy. The effects of ractopamine in pigs raised under conditions of heat stress have been observed in weight gain, feed efficiency and muscle deposition rate, but not on reducing the amount of fat in pigs weighing between 95.0 and 120.0 kg. Ractopamine has promoted the increase in quantity of meat on the carcass, without altering flavor and tenderness. The weight of some organs is affected by the use of ractopamine, especially in animals under conditions of heat stress. There is need for more research relating to the effects of ractopamine with the welfare of pigs with at least 95.0 kg.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.138
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Basic & Applied SciencesSame topicPharmacological Effects and AssaysFrench-language works237,207