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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".