MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966623921 · doi:10.1093/jas/skz122.149

149 A bioactive, mineral-based feed additive improved growth performance in commercial nursery pigs

2019· article· en· W2966623921 on OpenAlexaff
Ran Song, Sue Sinn, Rob Musser, K G Friesen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsNutrasource
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeanlingWeaningAnimal scienceFeed additiveFeed conversion ratioBiologyBody weightEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract NutriQuest Protect™(NQP) is a bioactive mineral-based feed additive that helps control enteric bacteria in nursery pigs. Previous studies have shown feeding NQP improves growth performance and reduces diarrhea in weanling pigs experimentally challenged with E. coli F18 or K88. Six experiments were conducted following the same procedure to evaluate the effect of feeding NQP on growth performance of commercial nursery pigs. In each experiment, weanling pigs (weaning BW = 5.4 ± 0.05 kg) were housed in pens (27 pigs per pen) randomly assigned to either a control diet (CON) or a diet containing NQP at 2.0 g/kg, resulting in 106 replicated pens per treatment over six experiments. Pigs were fed their respective experimental diets for 22–26 d post-weaning in a two-phase feeding program. Five out of the 6 experiments did not utilize feed medications or pharmacological ZnO supplementation. Data from the six experiments were compiled for meta-analysis using the MIXED procedure of SAS. Pigs fed NQP had greater ADG in each of the six experiments, ranging from a 2.3 to 18.1% improvement, with the meta-analysis showing an average of 7.6% improvement compared with CON (0.22 vs. 0.20 kg/d, P < 0.001). The higher growth rate resulted in 0.3 kg heavier pig BW at the end of the experiment for NQP-fed pigs compared with CON-fed pigs (10.8 vs. 10.5 kg, P = 0.001). Pig ADFI of the NQP treatment was also greater in each of the six experiments with the meta-analysis showing an average of 4.4% improvement compared with CON (0.33 vs. 0.31 kg/d, P < 0.001). Additionally, feed efficiency (G/F) was 3.0% higher in pigs fed NQP compared with CON (0.65 vs. 0.67, P = 0.001). Results from the six experiments indicate that including NQP in the diet of weanling pigs improves growth performance in a commercial production system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207