MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3160905682 · doi:10.1093/jas/skab054.131

198 Effects of Bacillus Spp. on Pathogen Inhibition in vitro and on Growth Performance and Bacterial Shedding in Growing Finishing Pigs

2021· article· en· W3160905682 on OpenAlexaff
Huyen L. Tran, Diana I. Ayala, Jessica Spears, Peter Karnezos, Brenda de Rodas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgribrands Purina (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrobiologySalmonella entericaListeria monocytogenesSalmonellaBiologyAgarAntimicrobialStaphylococcus aureusPathogenBrain heart infusionBacteriaFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Three experiments (EXP) were conducted to evaluate effectiveness of Bacillus strains on pathogen inhibition in vitro (EXP. 1 and 2) and on growing-finishing pig performance and bacteria shedding (EXP. 3). In EXP. 1, antimicrobial activity of 4 individual Bacillus strains were tested against 9 bacterial pathogens using agar diffusion cross-streak assay. In EXP. 2, a combination of 4 strains (FS4) was evaluated for antimicrobial activity against surrogate strains of the same pathogens in EXP. 1 using well-diffusion and competitive exclusion assays. There were strong inhibitory effects against Streptococcus agalactiae and Staphylococcus aureus aureus with zones of inhibition (ZOI) up to 18.1 and 13.7 mm, respectively. Moderate effects were observed against Listeria monocytogenes, Bordetella bronchiseptica, Escherichia coli, and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium with ZOI up to 8.7, 8.7, 8.1, and 6.3 mm, respectively. On broth, FS4 inhibited Listeria completely (9 log10 CFU/mL) and reduced Staphylococcus by 8 log10 CFU/mL after 24h co-cultivation. In EXP. 3, 236 pigs (initial BW: 33 kg; 6–7 pigs/pen; 17 pens/treatment) were used to evaluate effects of feeding FS4 (7.5 x 104 CFU/g of feed) vs. the control (CON) diets. On d 0, 49, and at market, a pooled fresh fecal sample per pen was obtained for the enumeration of total Salmonella, E. coli, coliform, and Lactobacillus. Feeding FS4 improved (P < 0.05) BW (d 72), ADG (d 43–72 and d 0–72), and Feed:Gain (d 43–72) compared to CON. Overall, pigs fed FS4 were numerically heavier (1.1 kg) than CON pigs. FS4 reduced (P < 0.05) total coliform counts in pigs at market, and numerically reduced E. coli at d 49; however, FS4 had no impact on Lactobacillus. Our data indicate that FS4 had strong inhibitory effects against Streptococcus, Listeria, and Staphylococcus and feeding FS4 improved performance of pigs and lowered coliform shedding without impacting Lactobacillus.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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