INTERACTIVE EFFECT OF PREBIOTIC (OLIGOFRUCTOSE) AND PROBIOTIC (SACCHAROMYCES) FEED ADDITIVES ON NUTRIENT UTILIZATION, GROWTH, FEED CONVERSION AND FAECAL MICROBIOTA POPULATION IN PIGS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prebiotics and probiotics are safe alternative feed additives to in-feed antibiotics in piggery. The combined effect of prebiotic and probiotic has been sparsely studied in pigs. This paper depicts the synergistic effect of prebiotic, fructo-oligosaccharides (FOS) and probiotic, Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Sc) on nutrient digestibility, growth, feed conversion efficiency, and faecal microbiota population in 24 weanling Large White Yorkshire x Desi (local) crossbred male pigs with 75% exotic inheritance in the year 2012. The pigs were divided into four groups at random with equal number in each group. Group I pigs were given basal diet alone that served as the control (T 1 ). Group II pigs were given 1% FOS along with the basal diet (T 2 ). Group III pigs were given 0.1% Sc (dried yeast) along with the basal diet (T 3 ). Group IV pigs were given a combination of FOS and Sc, at the earlier mentioned doses for group II and group III animals, respectively (T 4 ). The results revealed that digestibility coefficient (%) of OM (83.5±0.75) and CP (81.0±1.13), number of days required to attain market weight i.e. 35 kg (71.5±3.86 days), and feed conversion efficiency (2.9±0.14 kg) in T 4 pigs were significantly (P0.05) better than in T 1 and T 2 animals. The differences between T 3 and T 4 groups with respect to body weight and FCE were non-significant (P0.05). Evaluation of faecal microbiota revealed that the total bacterial count (274.6±39.73), Coliforms (230.6±40.42), and Salmonella (305.8±67.25) were significantly (P0.05) lower, and Lactobacilli (570.4±83.05) were significantly (P0.05) higher in T 4 group than the other three groups. This study tends to conclude that the synergy of prebiotic (FOS) and probiotic (Sc) enhanced nutrient digestibility (OM, CP), and stimulated the growth of the benefactor microorganism, Lactobacilli with concurrent depression in the growth of potentially harmful pathogens like Coliforms and Salmonella, symbolizing better gut health of the host. Probiotic endorsed better growth and FCE than prebiotic under independent administration.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".