Effects of dietary protected organic acids on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, fecal microflora, diarrhea score, and fecal gas emission in weanling pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 112 weanling pigs with an average body weight of 6.70 ± 1.31 kg were allotted to one of four experimental diets for a 6 wk feeding trail to evaluate the effects of protected organic acids on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and fecal microbial counts. Diets consisted of basal diet (CON), CON + 0.2% unprotected organic acid (UOA), CON + 0.1% protected organic acid (POA1), and CON + 0.2% POA (POA2). Feeding POA diets to weanling pigs increased (P < 0.05) the average daily gain (ADG) during 0–2 wk and overall experimental period, and it also increased (P < 0.05) the apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of dry matter (DM) compared with UOA. The addition of increasing levels of POA showed greater (linear effect, P < 0.05) ADG, gain/feed ratio, and ATTD of DM. In addition, dietary inclusion of increasing levels of POA linearly increased (P < 0.05) the fecal Lactobacillus counts, whereas the Escherichia coli and Salmonella counts, diarrhea score, fecal ammonia, and acetic acid emissions were reduced (linear effect, P < 0.05). In conclusion, dietary supplementation of 0.2% POA to weanling pigs has the potential to improve growth performance and reduce diarrhea incidence while balancing microbial counts.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".