Effects of salicylic acid on growth performance, fecal score, blood profile, and nutrient digestibility in weaned pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experiment was conducted to examine the effect of salicylic acid on growth performance in weaned pigs. A total of 80 weaning pigs ((Landrace × Yorkshire) × Duroc) with average initial body weight (BW) of 6.40 ± 1.42 kg were randomly assigned by BW for a 6-week feeding trial. Pigs were randomly allotted to two treatments, CON group (basal diet) and SA group (basal diet + 0.05% salicylic acid). There were eight replications in each treatment, with five pigs per pen. The results showed that SA group at days 14, 28, and 42 ( P < 0.05) significantly improved the BW gain of the weaning pig compared with CON group. In addition, during the overall experiment period (1–42 days), a tendency in higher average daily gain and average daily feed intake (0.05 < P < 0.1) were observed in pigs fed SA supplemented diet compared with those fed CON diet. Moreover, at the end of trial, the blood parameters of Fe concentration were higher in pigs ( P < 0.05) fed diet supplemented with SA. In conclusion, supplementation of SA positively influenced growth performance and serum Fe concentration, but there were no effects on nutrient digestibility and fecal score.
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) | 0.001 | 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".