Effects of a blend of organic acids and medium-chain fatty acids with and without <i>Enterococcus faecium</i> on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, blood parameters, and meat quality in finishing pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experiment was conducted to assess effects of Enterococcus faecium and a blend of organic acids (OAs) and medium-chain fatty acids (MCFAs) in finishing pigs. A total of 120 pigs [Duroc × (Yorkshire × Landrace); 51.04 ± 1.82 kg] were randomly assigned to five dietary treatments: CON, basal diet; BOM1, CON + 500 mg kg−1 blend of OAs and MCFAs; BOM2, CON + 1000 mg kg−1 blend of OAs and MCFAs; EBOM1, BOM1 + 20 mg kg−1 E. faecium; EBOM2, BOM2 + 20 mg kg−1 E. faecium. Pigs fed EBOM1 and EBOM2 diets had higher average daily gain and average daily feed intake (during days 36–70 and days 1–70) and greater digestibility of dry matter (days 35 and 70) compared with those fed BOM1 and BOM2 diets (P < 0.05). However, no differences on blood parameters and meat quality were observed between pigs offered BOM1 and BOM2 diets and those fed EBOM1 and EBOM2 diets (P > 0.05). In conclusion, supplementation with the combination of E. faecium and a blend of OAs and MCFAs was more effective in improving growth performance and nutrient digestibility than supplementation with blend of OAs and MCFAs alone in finishing pigs.
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 | 0.001 | 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".