Impact of mash feeding versus pellets on propionic/butyric acid levels and on total Escherichia coli load in the gastrointestinal tract of growing pigs1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feed characteristics may influence the bacterial community composition and metabolic activities in the pig gastrointestinal tract, known to be associated with positive effects on the gut. Use of mash feed is associated with reduced excretion, but little is known of its effect on the population or of the mechanism of action. Our objectives were to assess the effect of feed texture combined with feed particle size on VFA profiles and levels, total count, and the presence of genes encoding virulence factors of pathogenic strains in the digestive tract along with their impact on pig performance of fattening pigs. Pigs ( = 840) on a commercial farm received mash or pellet diets of different particle sizes during the fattening period. Caecal and colon contents from 164 pigs were sampled at the slaughterhouse for enumeration of by quantitative PCR (qPCR) and for VFA quantification by capillary gas chromatography. The gene was used to enumerate total . Improved pig performances associated with pellet texture and a 500-μm size were observed. Caecal ( = 0.02) and colon ( < 0.01) propionic acid concentrations were lower for pigs receiving pellet rather than mash feed. Similarly, caecal ( = 0.01) and colon ( < 0.001) butyric acid concentrations were also lower for pigs receiving pellet rather than mash feed, as determined by capillary gas chromatography. Moreover, caecal ( = 0.03) and colon ( < 0.001) butyric acid concentrations were higher for pigs receiving a feed with a 1,250-μm particle size rather than a 500-μm particle size. On the other hand, total caecal and colon levels were higher for pigs receiving pellet feed than for those receiving mash feed. For total enumeration, caecal ( < 0.01) and colon ( < 0.01) gene copies were higher for pigs receiving pellet rather than mash feed. No effect of particle size on fatty acid concentrations or on numbers was observed. Virulence gene quantification revealed no trend. Taken together, results showed that mash feed is associated with lower growth performance but with favorable intestinal changes linked to VFA levels and reduction in the intestine.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".