Effect of Inclusion of Probiotics Consortium in the Diets on Growth, Digestibility of Nutrients and Blood Parameters in Labrador Dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experiment was conducted to evaluate the effect of feeding probiotic consortium on digestibility of the nutrients and blood parameters in dogs. Twelve different bacterial cultures were procured from NCDC, NDRI, Karnal and were used to form two consortia depending upon their compatibility and probiotic characters. Nine Labrador dogs were divided in three groups of 3 animals based on body weight and age. Three diets i.e. basal diet as control (T0), basal diet with probiotic consortium I (T1) and the basal diet swith probiotic consortium II (T2) were prepared. The experimental feeding was carried out for twelve weeks. A digestibility trial was conducted to ascertain the effect on the nutrient digestibility. The body weight gain and feed conversion ratio were similar in all the groups. The plasma total protein concentration was lower in groups T1 and T2 as compared to group T0, however, the values of Hb, glucose, total cholesterol and BUN were similar in all the groups. The addition of probiotic consortium in the diet increased the digestibility of EE, CP, CF, NDF and ADF without affecting blood parameters and growth in Labarador dogs.
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".