Current use of antibiotic growth promoters and alternative products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antibiotics are used at sub-therapeutic levels for growth promotion of livestock. Concerns about the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and a growing consumer demand for 'green food products' have made this practice less acceptable than in the past. Antibiotic growth promoters (AGPs) are now banned in the European Union. However, AGPs are still an integral part of animal production in Australia, Canada, USA and other countries. In the past decade, much research has been conducted on alternative feed additives and feeding strategies. The majority of these alternatives are aimed at enhancing gastrointestinal function through manipulation of gut microflora. Strategies for improving growth performance and health of pigs and poultry by dietary manipulation include optimizing the physical form of the feed through grain and feed processing and enhancing feed digestibility and nutrient availability by exogenous enzyme supplementation. Other strategies include liquid feeding and natural dietary additives such as organic acids, probiotics, prebiotics, plant extracts and essential oils. In this article, we review the history and present use of AGPs in pig and poultry production and discuss feeding strategies and feed additives that have been suggested as replacements for AGPs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".