122 The effect of feeding Ambitine™ Feed Additive on late finishing pig performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Four hundred and sixty-six late finishing pigs (initial BW = 106.49 kg) were used to evaluate the effect of feeding Ambitine™ Feed Additive (Ambitine™ FA) on late finishing performance. Ambitine™ FA is a blend of plant extracts and acidifiers. Pigs were allotted in a randomized complete block design into mixed gender pens, with 11 replicates per treatment, 21 pigs per pen, and fed 1 of 2 dietary treatments. Dietary treatments were Control (corn-soybean meal-20% DDGS with 6.75g of Paylean® formulated to 0.95% TID lysine) or Control plus Ambitine™ FA (0.10%) fed the last 34 days of the finishing period. Body weights were taken at day 0, 8, 20, and 34 with corresponding ADG, ADFI, and GF calculated for each period. Data were analyzed using the Mixed procedure in SAS with pen as the experimental unit. Period 1 (d 0–8) ADG tended to increase (P = 0.09; 1.32 vs 1.25, kg/d) and G:F increased (P = 0.02; 0.408 vs 0.375) with Ambitine™ FA treatment. Period 1, ADFI was not significantly different between treatments. Period 1 BW tended (P = 0.09) to increase for the Ambitine™ FA treatment (117.07 vs 116.46 kg). Period 2 (d 8–20) ADFI increased (P = 0.05; 2.99 vs 2.93 kg/d) with Ambitine™ FA treatment, and ADG and G:F were not significantly different between treatments. Period 3 (d 20–34) growth performance was not significantly different between treatments. Ambitine™ FA increased (P = 0.03) overall (d 0 to 34) ADG (1.27 vs 1.21, kg/d) and G:F ratio (0.402 vs 0.382). Plant Live weight tended (P = 0.09) to increase for the Ambitine™ FA treatment (131.96 vs 128.85, kg). Total gain was increased (P = 0.002) with the Ambitine™ FA treatment (26.57 vs 24.44 kg). The results of this study suggest that feeding Ambitine™ FA improves growth rate and feed efficiency 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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".