Evaluation of Bovine Plasma Source and a Dried Milk Product on Nursery Pig Growth in a Commercial Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 360 barrows and gilts (PIC 359 × C29; initially 13.7 ± 3.1 lb and 19 d of age) were used in a 24-d experiment evaluating the effect of different specialty ingredients on nursery pig growth performance. This experiment was conducted in a commercial research nursery (Cooperative Research Farm Nursery; Sycamore, OH). At weaning, pigs were allotted to pens by initial BW and to one of four dietary treatments in a completely randomized design. There were 9 pens per treatment with 10 pigs per pen. Experimental diets were fed from d 0 to 10, with a common diet fed from d 10 to 24. Experimental diets were: 1) Negative control (NC); 2) NC + 5% bovine Plasma A (AP920, APC Inc.; Ankeny, IA); 3) NC + 5% bovine Plasma B (Promax; Protena S.A., Nicaragua); and 4) NC + 5% dried milk (Nutrigold; International Ingredients Corporation Inc., St. Louis, MO). All diets contained 5% fishmeal and were balanced for SID lysine, lactose, and salt. Diets were fed in pellet form. From d 0 to 10, pigs fed either Plasma A or B had greater (P < 0.01) ADG and ADFI than pigs fed the NC or Nutrigold diets. Pigs fed Nutrigold had increased (P < 0.01) ADG compared to pigs fed the NC diet. Also, F/G was improved (P < 0.001) for pigs fed either Plasma A or B and Nutrigold diets compared to those fed the NC. During the common period (d 10 to 24), there were no differences for ADG or ADFI, although the pigs previously fed NC had improved (1.24 vs. 1.31; P < 0.01) F/G compared to those previously fed Plasma A. Overall (d 0 to 24), pigs fed Plasma A and B had greater (P < 0.02) ADG and ADFI than NC pigs. Pigs fed Plasma B had increased (P < 0.04) ADG relative to pigs fed Nutrigold. In summary, both plasma sources increased feed intake and growth with no differences among sources. Nutrigold also improved performance compared to the NC.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".