Effects of xylanase supplementation on growth performance, digestibility, fecal gas emission, and meat quality in growing-finishing pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 144 crossbred pigs [(Landrace × Yorkshire) × Duroc] with an initial body weight (BW) of 25.7 ± 2.3 kg were used in a 16-wk study to evaluate the effects of xylanase supplementation in growing–finishing pigs. Treatments were as follows: control diet (CON); low-energy diet (LX) + 0.01% xylanase; and alternative diet (AX) + 0.01% xylanase. From weeks 0 to 6, pigs in the AX treatment had greater (P < 0.05) average daily feed intake (ADFI) than those in the CON treatment. On the sixth week, higher (P < 0.05) apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of energy was observed in the AX treatment compared with the CON treatment. Pigs fed the AX diet had the lowest (P < 0.05) ATTD of energy among all of the treatments on week 12. At the end of the experiment, the ATTD of dry matter (DM) of pigs in the LX treatment was higher (P < 0.05) than those in the AX and CON treatments. The redness values in the LX and AX treatments were higher (P < 0.05) than that in the CON treatment. In conclusion, our results indicated that dietary inclusion of 0.01% xylanase supplement could improve ADFI during weeks 0–6, ATTD of DM at week 16 and energy at weeks 6 and 12, and the redness color of meat in growing–finishing pigs.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".