Evaluation of feeding periods of dietary conjugated linoleic acid supplementation on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, blood profiles, and meat quality in finishing pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted to evaluate feeding periods of dietary conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) supplementation on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, blood profiles, and meat quality in finishing pigs. A total of 150 finishing pigs [(Yorkshire × Landrace) × Duroc] with an average body weight (BW) of 83.13 ± 1.91 kg were randomly allocated into one of three treatments (10 pens per treatment, five pigs per pen) based on their BW. Dietary treatments consisted of supplementing the basal diet with 1.0% CLA during 2, 3, and 4 wk prior to finishing. Pigs fed CLA diets 2 wk before finishing had a higher overall average daily gain (ADG) and gain-to-feed ratio (G/F) than those fed CLA diets 4 wk before finishing (P < 0.05). In the whole experiment, pigs fed CLA diets 2 wk before finishing had a higher serum low-density lipoprotein (LDL) than those fed CLA diets 3 and 4 wk before finishing. However, pigs that received CLA diets 4 wk before finishing had higher triglyceride levels (P < 0.05). Feeding 1% CLA diets 4 wk before finishing improved meat color and firmness. Taken together, feeding 1% CLA diet 4 wk before finishing increased ADG, G/F, and serum LDL, but reduced serum triglyceride.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".