PSVI-16 Fecal microbiome of nursery pigs fed phytogenics and antibiotics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objective of this study was to evaluate effects of feeding two phytogenic products (PHY1 and PHY2; blends of essential oils and plant extracts) in diets with or without antibiotics (AureoMix S 10-10; AB) on fecal microbiome of nursery pigs. A total of 400 nursery pigs (6.8 kg BW; 20 d of age) were fed one of the six dietary treatments (9 pens/treatment), including: control (0% AB; 0% phytogenics), 0.5% AB, phytogenics (0.02% PHY1 or 0.03% PHY2) or the combination of phytogenic and AB (PHY1 x AB or PHY2 x AB). On d 46 postweaning, 48 fecal samples were collected (1 pig/pen; 7–9 pigs/treatment) and were subjected to the analyses of microbial communities by using 16S rRNA V4 amplicon sequencing with Illumina MiSeq. The sequence data were analyzed by using Qiime and the rarefied OTU table was submitted to Calypso to evaluate the alpha and beta diversity, taxonomic classification, and the differential taxa associated to the dietary treatments. There were differences among treatments on alpha diversity, where the control and PHY2 pigs had lower OTU richness (P = 0.05) and chao1 index (P < 0.10) compared to pigs fed AB alone or AB with phytogenics. There were also differences among treatments on microbial beta diversity of pigs (P < 0.01). The most abundant phyla included Firmicute, Bacteroidetes, Actinobacteria, Tenericutes, Proteobacteria, Spirochaetes, and TM7. At family level, pigs fed AB had greater Ruminococcaceae compared to the control, but lower Coriobacteriaceae and Erysipelotrichaceae compared to PHY1 or PHY2 group (P < 0.05). Feature selection by LEfSe indicated that dominant genus associated to AB treatment was Unclassified RF39, while dominant genera associated to PHY2 treatment were Cantenibacterium, unclassified Coriobacteriaceae, Blautia, Eubacterium, and Collinsella. In conclusion, feeding AB and phytogenic products had different impacts on the fecal bacteria of nursery 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".