Growth performance, gastrointestinal microbial activity, and immunological response of piglets receiving microencapsulated <i>Enterococcus faecalis</i> CG1.0007 and enzyme complex after an oral challenge with <i>Escherichia coli</i> (K88)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine effects of dietary microencapsulated Enterococcus faecalis CG1.0007 probiotic and multienzyme complex (MC) in Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli K88 (ETEC) challenged piglets. Thirty-six, 21-d-old weanling pigs were randomly allotted to four dietary treatments: a wheat–barley based negative control (NC), NC + MC, NC + probiotic, and NC + MC + probiotic. After 7-d acclimatization to treatments, pigs were weighed, blood was sampled, and then the pigs were orally challenged with an ETEC inoculum. After the challenge, blood was sampled at different time points; performance measures and fecal consistency scores were recorded; and on day 14, all pigs were killed to obtain intestinal tissue samples. During prechallenge, pigs receiving enzyme, probiotic, and a combination of both showed a significant improvement in daily gain (P = 0.03) and feed efficiency (P = 0.04) compared with control. During the postchallenge period, a greater (P = 0.05) ileal villus height was observed for diets supplemented with probiotic alone. Overall, pigs fed diets with probiotic alone also showed less incidence of diarrhea (P = 0.04) compared with control. In summary, the results indicate that dietary supplementation with microencapsulated Enterococcus faecalis CG1.0007 in weaned piglets challenged with ETEC was effective in controlling diarrhea.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".