The use of a probiotic in the feed of weaned piglets and its influence on the production indices.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study offers an alternative to forage usage antibiotics. The aim was to determine the bio effectiveness of using Protecure Pellets probiotic in nutrition of piglets weaned. The biological material used was made up of triracial crossbred resulting from the crossing of four metis F1 sows with a boar Duroc breed. The 20 piglets used in to 2 groups as biological material, were selected from four sows (metis FI), with common father (Duroc breed). Therey were selected 5piglets from each sow, seeking to have the body weight as close as possible. As a result of using Protecure Pellets probiotic weaned piglets it is obtained a higher daily average gain with 5.37% and a bioconversion index lower with 3.32%. At the end of the experiment, piglets that received Protecure Pellets in feed had a higher average body weight with 1.03 kg compared to the lot without probiotics. The results obtained from the use of the probiotic at weaned piglets, show that using this probiotic helped piglets overcome the weaning stress.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".