PSIV-19 Supplementing Gentamicin Sulfate Through the Water Impacts the Performance Response of Nursery Pigs to Structural Fiber
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Dietary fiber has varying effects on nursery pig performance, which is a period when medications are supplemented to support disease challenges. An experiment was conducted to determine the effects of gentamicin sulfate (GS) water medication, dietary structural fiber, and their interaction on growth performance of nursery pigs. In total, 900 weanling pigs (initial body weight = 5.71 ± 0.04 kg) were randomly allotted to a 2 × 2 factorial arrangement of treatments (10 pens/treatment, 22 pigs/pen). Dietary treatments consisted of nursery diets with no additional fiber (CON) or nursery diets with 8% wheat middlings (STR) as a source of structural fiber. Phase 1 and 2 diets were fed from day 0-12 and day 12-21, respectively. Water medication treatments consisted of no GS or GS delivered through the drinking water from day 0-7 post-weaning (5 g GS per gallon stock solution at a 1:126 dilution of stock solution to drinking water). Data were analyzed using a general linear model in R. Contrasts tested the main effects of structural fiber, GS supplementation, and their interaction. Phase 1 average daily gain (ADG) and average daily feed intake (ADFI) did not differ, but gain:feed (G:F) was greater (P < 0.05) with GS (Table 1). Interactions (P < 0.05) were observed for day 21 body weight, ADG, and ADFI in phase 2, where additional structural fiber increased performance variables in absence of, but not in conjunction with, GS supplementation. A tendency for an interaction (P < 0.10) was observed for phase 2 G:F, where additional structural fiber increased G:F when no GS was administered but reduced G:F when GS was supplemented. In conclusion, the use of water medication impacted the performance response to dietary structural fiber, as pigs responded beneficially to additional fiber when GS was not administered, potentially due to modifications to the microbiome.
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) | 0.001 | 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".