Comparative effects of low zinc oxide dose with or without probiotics relative to high zinc oxide dose on the performance, nutrient digestibility, blood metabolites, and noxious gases emission in weaned piglets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to assess the effects of low-dose zinc oxide (ZnO) supplemented with or without probiotic complex compared with pharmacological ZnO (3000 mg kg−1) on the performance, digestibility, blood metabolites, fecal Lactobacillus and enterobacteria counts of weaned piglets. One-hundred and twenty crossbred piglets were randomly allocated to three treatments based on their initial body weight (BW). Treatments consisted of corn–soybean-meal-based basal diet supplemented with 3000 mg kg−1 ZnO as positive control (ZH), basal diet supplemented with 300 mg kg−1 ZnO as negative control (ZL), and ZL + 0.1% probiotic complex (ZLP). At the end of the experiment, fecal samples were collected by direct rectal massage to determine nutrient digestibility, Lactobacillus and enterobacteria counts, and gas emission, whereas blood samples were taken via jugular venipuncture for determination of blood metabolites. The BW of piglets at week 6, and the average daily gain (ADG) at week 6 and during overall period were higher (P < 0.05) in pigs fed ZH diet compared with those fed ZL diet. The supplementation of ZLP increased the ADG during week 6 and overall making it comparable with ZH diet (P < 0.05). However, other parameters described above were comparable with ZH in pigs fed ZLP diet.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".