Combined effects of chitosan and microencapsulated Enterococcus faecalis CG1.0007 probiotic supplementation on performance and diarrhea incidences in enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli K88 + challenged piglets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the combined effects of chitosan oligosaccharide (COS) and a microencapsulated Enterococcus faecalis CG1.0007 probiotic (PRO) on growth performance and diarrhea incidences in enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) K88+ challenged piglets in a 14-d study. Thirty piglets, 7.19 ± 0.52 kg initial BW weaned at 21 ± 1 d, were allotted to 5 treatment groups (n = 6) consisting of a corn–soybean meal diet with no additive (negative control, NC), NC + 0.25% chlortetracycline (positive control, PC), NC + 400 mg/kg COS (COS), NC + 100 mg/kg PRO (PRO) and NC + a combination of COS and PRO (CPRO). Pigs were individually housed in cages, acclimated to treatments for a 7-d period and had ad libitum access to feed and water throughout the study. On d 8, pigs were weighed, blood samples were collected, and then orally challenged with 6 mL (1 × 1011 cfu/mL) of freshly grown ETEC inoculum. During post-challenge period, blood was sampled at 24 and 48 h to determine plasma urea nitrogen (PUN), and diarrhea incidences and fecal consistency scores were recorded from d 9 to 12. On d 14, all pigs were weighed and then euthanized to obtain intestinal tissue samples for histomorphometric measurements. Growth performance responses were similar among treatments during the pre- and post-challenge periods. There were no significant differences in PUN content, incidences of diarrhea, and fecal consistency scores among treatments. The intestinal histomorphology results did not differ significantly among treatments except for PC with increased (P = 0.0001) villus:crypt ratio compared with the NC. Under the conditions of the present study, it can be concluded that supplementation of piglet diets with 400 mg/kg COS, 100 mg/kg microencapsulated PRO or their combination did not significantly improve piglet growth performance both during the pre- and post-ETEC K88+ oral inoculation. Also, there were no significant reduction of incidences and severity of diarrhea after challenge compared with the control group.
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 | 0.001 | 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".