Review: Chinese herbs as alternatives to antibiotics in feed for swine and poultry production: Potential and challenges in application
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gong, J., Yin, F., Hou, Y. and Yin, Y. 2014. Chinese herbs as alternatives to antibiotics in feed for swine and poultry production: Potential and challenges in application. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 94: 223-241. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has a long history of clinical practice, and its own theoretical framework focused on functions at the whole-body level. However, due to cultural differences, TCM has not been fully recognized in Western countries. With the recent development of the theory of whole-body systems biology and “-omics”, there is a new opportunity to study TCM and to close the gap between TCM and Western medicine, because of the similarity in the theoretical foundations between TCM and whole-body systems biology. The uniqueness of TCM theory and practice is the approach to maintain and restore the body balance as a whole with no or little unfavourable side effects. Recent studies have also shown that Chinese herbs used as feed additives can modulate nutritional metabolism, immune responses, and intestinal health of food-producing animals, demonstrating good potential as substitutes for dietary antibiotics. Nonetheless, some issues need to be addressed before Chinese herbs can reach their full application. This article has critically reviewed recent progresses in scientific research of Chinese herbs as feed additives and their potential to replace dietary antibiotics. Possible challenges in future application for swine and poultry production are also discussed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it