182 The effects of pure benzoic acid, an acid blend product, or their combination in nursery pig diets on post-weaning growth performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A total of 1,325 pigs (Camborough × line 800, PIC Canada) were weaned (20 d of age, 5.5 kg BW) and used to compare the effects of 5 diet acidification strategies on growth performance from d 0 to 41 post-weaning. Feed acidification strategies were fed over 3 dietary phases; d 0 to 13 (P1), d 13 to 20 (P2), and d 20 to 41 (P3). The 5 strategies consisted of 1) NC, commercial diet without any acidifier; 2) P+, NC with recommended 0.1% of an acidifier and flavoring blend (fumaric, sorbic, malic, citric acids with thymol, vanillin, eugenol) in P1, 0.05% in P2, and nothing added in P3; 3) VH, NC with 0.5% pure benzoic acid (VevoVitall®; DSM Nutritional Products) in P1, P2, and P3; 4) VL, NC with 0.25% pure benzoic acid in P1, P2, and P3; and 5) P+V, P+ with 0.5% pure benzoic acid in P1, 0.25% pure benzoic acid in P2, and nothing added in P3. Experimental additives were substituted for wheat in the basal diets. There were 10 pens of 26-27 pigs allotted to each acidification strategy in a RCBD based on initial BW. During P1, ADG, F/G, and d 13 BW were improved (P< 0.05) for pigs fed VH or P+V. In P2, ADG and d 20 BW were improved (P< 0.05) for pigs fed VH or P+V, and there was a tendency (P=0.06) for pigs fed acids (P+, VH, VL, or P+V) to have greater ADFI; however, there were no differences in F/G. There were no differences in growth performance during P3 or overall (d 0 to 41). Nevertheless, performance differences during P1 and P2 resulted in pigs fed an acidification strategy using pure benzoic acid (VH, VL, or P+V) having numerically greater BW (+0.5 kg) and income-over-feed-cost (+CA $0.44/pig) on d 41 when compared to pigs fed NC or P+.
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 | 0.001 | 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".