PSIV-20 Impact of OutPace® Feed Additive on nursery pig growth performance: A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract OutPace® Feed Additive (OP), contains a carefully researched blend of activated medium chain fatty acids (MCFAs; PMI, Arden Hills, MN), formulated to help mitigate the effects of stress in nursery pigs. Several studies using OP in both late and full nursery periods resulted in improved pig performance. A meta-analysis using 9 studies (4 studies during late nursery [15 to 26.8 kg BW] and 5 studies during the full nursery [5.9 to 25.4 kg]) was done to determine the impact of OP (included at 0.25% Phase 1 and 2; 0.125% Phase 3) on average daily gain, average daily feed intake, and feed conversion. The combined data was considered a randomized complete block design. Analysis of variance was completed with mixed models using the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS (SAS 9.4, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) and least squares means were compared using Fisher’s least significant difference (P < 0.05). In the analysis of 5 studies conducted in late nursery (45 pens/treatment of 6 to 20 pigs/pen), pigs provided OP had higher average daily gain (0.67 vs 0.63 kg/d; P < 0.05), increased average daily feed intake (0.99 vs 0.97 kg/d; P < 0.05), and improved feed efficiency (0.67 vs 0.65 kg gain/kg feed intake; P < 0.05) compared to pigs fed control diets. Additionally, when pigs were provided OP throughout the nursery period (20 pens/treatment of 7 to 20 pigs/pen), average daily gain was increased 6.1% (0.48 vs 0.45 kg/d; P < 0.05), average daily feed intake tended to be increased 2.2% (0.62 vs 0.61 kg/d; P < 0.1), and feed efficiency was improved 2.7% (0.76 vs 0.74 kg gain/kg feed intake; P < 0.05) compared to pigs provided control diets. In conclusion, providing OP to pigs during the nursery period improved ADG and feed efficiency.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".