Effects of group size and homeopathic product supplement consisting of botanicals and mineral mixture on the performance and production traits of finishing pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 144 mixed sex pigs [(Landrace × Yorkshire) × Duroc] with an initial average body weight (BW) of 52 kg were used in a 11 wk trial in a 2 × 2 factorial design with the following factors: group size (three pigs per pen vs. five pigs per pen) and 0% or 0.2% homeopathic product supplementation to evaluate growth performance, nutrient digestibility, meat quality, and stress-related hormones. The homeopathic product supplementation resulted in increased (P < 0.05) BW at week 11, average daily gain (ADG) during days 42–63 and 64–77. In addition, an increase (P < 0.05) in ADG and average daily feed intake during overall experiment period and an increase (P < 0.05) in apparent total tract digestibility of dry matter at day 77 were observed in pigs receiving homeopathic product. A trend in increase (P = 0.088) in serum cortisol concentration during day 42 and increase (P > 0.05) during day 77 was observed in pigs with group size of five pigs per pen, and this was reduced when homeopathic product was supplemented to the diet. In conclusion, the variation in number of animals per pen had no effects on performance and production traits, but the animals in bigger group size had higher serum cortisol concentrations which were reduced by the homeopathic product supplementation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".