Comparative efficacy of antibiotic growth promoter and benzoic acid on growth performance, nutrient utilization, and indices of gut health in nursery pigs fed corn–soybean meal diet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Benzoic acid (BA) supplement was evaluated as an alternative to antimicrobial growth promoter (AGP). Ninety-six piglets (21-d-old at weaning) were placed in pens (four piglets pen −1 ) based on body weight (BW) and allocated (n = 8) to either control corn–soybean meal diet or control + in-feed antibiotic (AGP, 220 mg chlortetracycline hydrochloride and 31.2 mg tiamulin kg −1 ) or control + 0.5% BA. Feed intake and BW were measured weekly. Fecal scores for incidence of diarrhea and fecal samples for apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of components were taken in week 2. One pig per pen was euthanized on day 14 for jejunal histomorphology and digesta for pH and short-chain fatty acids concentration. In weeks 1–6, pigs fed AGP and BA had better (P < 0.01) gain to feed ratio compared with control fed pigs. On day 12, pigs fed AGP and BA showed lower (P = 0.01) fecal score than control fed pigs. Pigs fed BA had (P < 0.05) higher ATTD of crude protein and taller villi compared with the control or AGP fed pigs. Pigs fed AGP showed higher (P = 0.05) lactic acid concentrations than pigs fed BA, however, none differed (P > 0.05) with control pigs. In conclusion, BA supported piglet growth performance to the same extent as AGP.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".