PSXIII-17 Impact of Ambitine® Feed Additive on late finishing pig growth performance: A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ambitine Feed Additive (AMB), a proprietary blend of phytogenics and acidifiers (PMI, Arden Hills, MN), is formulated to help mitigate late finishing stress in pigs. Several studies using AMB in the late finishing period resulted in improved pig performance. A meta-analytic method used 13 studies (3 studies with ractopamine and 10 studies without) to determine the overall impact of AMB on average daily gain, average daily feed intake, and feed conversion. The combined data were considered a randomized complete block design. Analysis of variance was completed using the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS (9.4; Cary, NC) and least squares means were compared using Fisher’s least significant difference (P < 0.05). In the analysis of 10 studies with no added ractopamine (73 pens/treatment of 5 to 10 pigs/pen and 48 pens/treatment of 17 to 20 pigs/pen), pigs provided AMB had higher average daily gain (0.90 vs 0.86 kg/d; P < 0.05), increased average daily feed intake (2.99 vs 2.94 kg/d; P < 0.05), and improved feed efficiency (0.30 vs 0.29 kg gain/kg feed intake; P < 0.05) compared to pigs fed control diets. Additionally, when pigs were provided AMB in addition to ractopamine (3 studies; 33 pens/treatment of 18 to 22 pigs/pen), average daily gain was increased 4.7% (1.206 vs 1.152 kg/d; P < 0.05) and feed efficiency was improved 5.3% (0.40 vs 0.38 kg gain/kg feed intake; P < 0.05) compared to pigs provided only ractopamine, with no difference in feed intake. Pigs provided AMB in addition to ractopamine had increased hot carcass weight and dressing percentage (P < 0.05) compared to those provided ractopamine alone. In conclusion, providing AMB to pigs in late finishing improved ADG and feed efficiency and the improvement was maintained when ractopamine was included in the diets.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".