MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3106926262 · doi:10.1093/jas/skaa278.646

PSIII-33 Stability and function of encapsulated Lactobacillus zeae for pig gut health

2020· article· en· W3106926262 on OpenAlexaff
Linyan Li, Xiaoyin Wang, Hai Yu, Qi Wang, Luca Lo Verso, Martin Lessard, Martin Mondor, Janghan Choi, Chengbo Yang, Mylène Blais, Joshua Gong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColostrumFood scienceBiologyProbioticAnimal scienceLactobacillusFecesFermentationChemistryMicrobiologyBacteriaImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Lactobacilli have been used in livestock production to improve animal gut health; however, they are heat sensitive, which limits their use as feed additives. We have developed a novel spray-drying encapsulation technology that resulted in an approximately 0.5-log reduction of Lactobacillus zeae LB1, a probiotic bacterium known for its potential to reduce the infections caused by Salmonella and enterotoxigenic E. coli in vivo. In this study, encapsulated LB1 was evaluated for its stability during storage and feed pelleting and for its potential to modulate piglet performance. After 14-month storage at 4℃ and 22℃ in a sealed container, the survival rate of encapsulated LB1 represented 17.1% and 85.6% reduction of the original concentration, respectively. In the feed pelleting test, the survived non-encapsulated LB1 in pelleted or mash feed was 1-log lower in the concentration than encapsulated LB1 on the 7th and 30th day after pelleting. To examine the influence of LB1 alone or in combination with colostrum on pig performance, 80 newly-weaned piglets were equally allocated to five groups: 1) basal diets (control-CTL); 2) basal diets supplemented with non-encapsulated LB1 (NEP); 3) basal diets supplemented with encapsulated LB1 (EP); 4) basal diets supplemented with bovine colostrum (BC); 5) basal diets supplemented with EP and BC (EP-BC, same dose as in Group 3 or 4). No significant difference in growth performance was observed between the CTL group and other dietary treatments after five days’ treatment. Supplementation of LB1 or colostrum individually did not affect the population size of Lactobacillus in the ileum and colon of pigs. However, the EP-BC group had a significantly increased population of Lactobacillus in both the ileum and colon (94.57-fold and 23.51-fold, respectively) compared with the CTL group. In conclusion, our encapsulation technology can increase survival and delivery of Lactobacillus zeae potentially beneficial to piglet performance.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.205 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Science→Same topicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology→French-language works237,207→