A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Various Sources and Amounts of Copper on Nursery Piglets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the impact of different dietary levels and sources of copper on the growth performance of nursery piglets through a combination of systematic review and meta-analysis. The database for this study was created using articles selected from major electronic databases. Data analysis involved forest plots and analysis of variance using mixed-effects models. The database included 63 articles published between 1990 and 2021, comprising 21,113 piglets in 946 treatments. Positive effects of supranutritional levels of copper from both inorganic and organic sources on the growth performance of nursery piglets were detected using Forest plots and analysis of variance (p < 0.001). Using mixed models, it was observed that piglet performance is influenced by body weight (p < 0.001), age (p < 0.001), and copper intake (p < 0.001). Both organic and inorganic sources of copper at supranutritional levels (>81 mg Cu/kg of diet) improved the performance of nursery piglets, but levels higher than 201 mg Cu/kg of diet did not further improve growth performance compared to 80–200 mg Cu/kg of diet. The feed conversion was worse in piglets fed with inorganic Cu sources (p < 0.001). In conclusion, dietary Cu supplementation influenced the weight gain and feed conversion rate in weaned piglets, particularly during the first few weeks post-weaning. Levels of 81 and 200 mg Cu/kg improved growth performance, but no further benefits were obtained for higher levels.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".