Probiotic complex supplementation to growing pig’s diet enhances daily growth and reduces fecal gas emission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 180 growing pigs (Duroc × Landrace × Yorkshire) with an initial body weight (BW) of 23.58 ± 0.8 kg were used in this experiment. According to initial BW and sex, pigs were randomly allotted three dietary treatments, 12 replicates (pen) per treatment, and five pigs per pen. The three dietary treatments were basal diet (CON) and basal diet supplemented with either 0.1% Bacillus and Saccharomyce s spp.-based probiotics complex (BS1) or 0.2% probiotics complex (BS2). The whole experiment lasted 42 days. The results showed that the BW of pigs fed the BS1 diet was significantly higher than those fed the CON diet on day 42 ( P < 0.05). The average daily gain (ADG) of pigs receiving BS1 and BS2 diets was higher than those fed CON diet during days 21–42, whereas during the overall experiment period ADG ( P < 0.05) was higher in only BS1 compared with CON group. The NH3 and H2S emissions on day 42 were reduced from the feces of pigs fed probiotic complex-supplemented diets. Therefore, adding 0.1% probiotic complex to the late-phase diet of growing pigs can more effectively improve BW and daily gain and reduce harmful gas emissions.
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".