122 Effects of a phytogenic feed additive on nursery pig performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An experiment was conducted to test the hypothesis that a phytogenic feed additive (Cinergy® Protect, Cargill, USA) would improve nursery pig performance. In total, 3,864 weaned pigs (6.4 ± 0.40 kg initial body weight; BW) were allotted to pens containing 44 pigs each while creating blocks of 2 pens per block (same sex, sow farm of origin, and similar average BW within a block). Two treatments were tested: Negative Control (NC) and 0.1% phytogenic additive. Treatments were randomly allotted within block, making 44 replicates per treatment. The phytogenic was included in the first two nursery diets (phase 1: approximately 0 to 2 weeks post-placement; phase 2: approximately 2 to 4 weeks post-placement) followed by a common diet fed until the end of study (week 7). For the first two nursery phases, carbadox (55 mg/kg) and pharmacological levels of Zn were included in both treatment diets. Antibiotics were administered via water (whole site) and injection (individual pig) as warranted to treat enteric and respiratory symptoms. Pen weights were recorded at study start and weeks 2, 5, and 7. Scour scores were recorded by pen at weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4 post-weaning using a 3-point scale (0 = no scours; 1 = visible but mild scours; 2 = severe scours). A mixed model was used to analyze growth performance variables with the fixed effect of treatment and the random effect of block, and a Chi-squared test was used to analyze morbidity and mortality. Period 1 growth performance indicated reduced (P < 0.05) average daily feed intake (ADFI; 0.24 vs. 0.23 kg), average daily gain (ADG; 0.20 vs. 0.19), and final BW (9.3 vs 9.2 kg) for the phytogenic treatment. In period 2, however, the phytogenic increased ADG, final BW, and feed efficiency (G:F). Period 3 growth performance was not different between treatments. Overall ADFI and ADG did not differ, but the phytogenic tended to improve (P < 0.10) overall G:F. Scour severity was not different in week 1 and 2, but in week 3, the phytogenic group had less (P < 0.05) scouring compared to NC. By week 4, there were no differences in scouring. Overall mortality tended (P < 0.10) to be reduced with the phytogenic with numerically fewer mortalities at all time points during the study. Overall morbidity was greater (P < 0.05) for the phytogenic group, mostly due to more fallback pigs in period 2, which could be due to the reduced ADFI observed early in the trial. In conclusion, the early ADFI reduction with the phytogenic warrants more investigation, but pigs fed the phytogenic had reduced overall mortality, reduced scouring in week 3, and increased BW at week 5.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".