Supplementation of nano-zinc in lower doses as an alternative to pharmacological doses of ZnO in weanling pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A set of studies was performed to determine the influence of dietary ZnO concentration and source during two phases (days 0 to 14 and days 15 to 28). Experiment 1: 168 weaned piglets were allocated to four treatment groups in six replicates. The treatments included a basal diet without ZnO supplementation (control), 2,500 mg ZnO/kg (In2500), 500 mg nano-ZnO/kg (N500), and 150 mg nano-ZnO/kg (N150). Experiment 2: 168 weaned piglets were divided into three treatment groups with eight replicates. The treatments included control, In2500, N300, and 150 mg nano-ZnO/kg (N150). An in vitro trial showed that the growth of Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli, and Salmonella typhimurium was inhibited when exposed to 300 and 500 ppm of ZnO after 24 h of incubation. In experiment 1, the average daily gain (ADG) by the pigs was improved in the N500 and IN2500 treatment groups. Colonization of coliforms and Clostridium spp. significantly decreased in the pigs fed the N500 and IN2500 diets in phase 1. The total plasma antioxidant capacity was greater in the IN2500 and N500 treatment groups than in the control. Superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity was greater in pigs fed the IN2500 (phase 1) or the IN2500 and N500 (phase 2) diets than in the control and N150 treatment group. In experiment 2, pigs in the N300 treatment group showed a higher ADG and lower fecal score colonization of coliforms and Clostridium spp. compared with those in the N150 treatment group. In conclusion, nano-ZnO at a dose of 300 ppm showed the same growth as the pharmacological dose of Zn. This provides an option to the pharmacological dose.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".