Impact of growth-promoting alternatives on weight gain and gut microbial diversity and activity in piglets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In swine husbandry, weaning is a critical event for piglets which causes environmental, nutritional, and psychological stresses, with consequences such as intestinal dysbiosis. To counteract this issue, producers resorted to the use of in-feed antimicrobials to prevent post-weaning diarrhea and to promote growth for increased animal performance. However, the use of antibiotic for growth promotion was banned in many countries. In-feed supplements have great potential as alternative strategies. This study evaluated the effect on gut microbial activity, microbiome, and animal performance of combinations of peri-weaning feeding strategies such as bovine colostrum, medium-chain fatty acids and yeast extract. We quantified weight gain, intestinal pH, volatile fatty acids, and characterized the gut microbiota on ileum, cecum, and colon digestates. Overall, the feed supplements had limited impact on weight gain and volatile fatty acids production. However, the combined treatments have demonstrated a modulatory effect on gut microbiota which supports a potential role as an alternative to growth-promoting antibiotic in the swine industry.
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) | 0.001 | 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".