PSXVI-29 Late-Breaking: Effect of dietary organic acids supplementation on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and gut health in weaned pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study was conducted to investigate the effects of dietary supplementation with different organic acid (OA) mixtures on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and gut health in weaned pigs. A total of 56 weaned pigs (7.93 ± 1.04 kg BW) were assigned to 4 dietary treatments in a randomized complete block design with 7 replicates per treatment for a 35-d study conducted over two phases; phase 1 (d 1 to 14) and phase 2 (d 14 to 35). Each pen had two pigs balanced for sex. Diets consisted of 1) a corn-soybean meal-basal without any additive (negative control, NC); 2) NC + formic and propionic acids (TRT1); 3) NC + butyric, formic, and propionic acids (TRT2); and 4) NC + antibiotic (positive control, PC). Individual pig body weight and feed disappearance were recorded weekly. At the end of each phase, blood and feces were sampled. The female pig in each pen was euthanized on d 35 to collect digesta and intestinal tissue. Data were analyzed using the PROC MIXED of SAS. During the overall period, ADG tended to be lower (P = 0.069) in the TRT2 group than in the PC group. Diet had no effect on ADFI during the overall period, but G:F of pigs fed the PC and TRT1 diets tended to be higher (P = 0.059) than that of the NC diet. No effects of OA supplementation were observed on nutrient digestibility and blood cytokine. Jejunal villus height to crypt depth ratio was higher (P < 0.05) in TRT1-fed pigs than that of NC-fed pigs. Pigs fed the TRT2 diet had a higher (P < 0.05) fecal abundance of Bifidobacteria than those fed the PC diet in phase 1. In conclusion, dietary OA supplementation had positive effects on growth performance and gut health but no effect on nutrient digestibility in weaned pigs.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".