Alternatives to antibiotics as growth promoters for use in swine production: a review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past two decades, an intensive amount of research has been focused on the development of alternatives to antibiotics to maintain swine health and performance. The most widely researched alternatives include probiotics, prebiotics, acidifiers, plant extracts and neutraceuticals such as copper and zinc. Since these additives have been more than adequately covered in previous reviews, the focus of this review will be on less traditional alternatives. The potential of antimicrobial peptides, clay minerals, egg yolk antibodies, essential oils, eucalyptus oil-medium chain fatty acids, rare earth elements and recombinant enzymes are discussed. Based on a thorough review of the literature, it is evident that a long and growing list of compounds exist which have been tested for their ability to replace antibiotics as feed additives in diets fed to swine. Unfortunately, the vast majority of these compounds produce inconsistent results and rarely equal antibiotics in their effectiveness. Therefore, it would appear that research is still needed in this area and that the perfect alternative to antibiotics does not yet exist.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it