Apparent total tract digestibility, performance and methane emissions in pigs maintained under different sanitary conditions and supplemented with antibiotic or Bacillus subtilis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digestibility, performance, and initial methane production were evaluated in growing and finishing pigs. Assay 1 was carried out in experimental facilities. Sixty pigs, 30 barrows and 30 gilts (26.07 ± 0.07 kg), were allotted randomly to treatments arranged in a 3 × 2 factorial design with three diets (control, Bacillus subtilis, and lincomycin) and two genders. In assay 2, 48 pigs (26.06 ± 3.10 kg) were maintained in commercial farm and supplemented with B. subtilis and lincomycin. Performance and initial methane production were measured. In assay 3, 12 barrows (body weight = 26.55 ± 1.25 kg) were housed in metabolism crates and fed control and B. subtilis diet to evaluate nutrient balance and energy. Gilts within experimental facility, fed control diet, had higher ADG (P < 0.05) compared with lincomycin diet, but there was no statistical difference with B. subtilis diet. Numeric variations on the first and second assays suggested some improvement on pig performance and a reduction on initial methane production when pigs were fed B. subtilis diet, compared with lincomycin diet. Protein digestibility increased (P < 0.05) with B. subtilis supplementation in the diet. Dietary supplementation with B. subtilis for growing and finishing pigs may improve performance and decrease N excretion and initial methane production.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".