EVALUATION OF PELLETED PRODUCTS BASED ON COMBINATION OF NEW CO-PRODUCTS FROM BIO-FUEL OR BIO-OIL PROCESSING, PEA SCREENINGS AND LIGNOSULFONATE CHEMICAL COMPOUND FOR RUMINANT DIETS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT Brassica carinata meal from bio-fuel processing and canola meal from bio-oil processing have recently become available, but little data is available on their chemical, nutrient profile, bioactive compounds, and nutrient utilization and availability in livestock, especially when carinata meal is blended with other feedstuffs as a pellet in order to optimize nutrient and amino acid supply. The aim of this project was to develop and test blended pelleted products based on combinations of carinata/canola meal, pea screenings, and lignosulfonate at different levels for ruminants. Chemical profile, energy value, rumen degradation kinetics of nutrients, hourly effective rumen degradation ratios/potential N-to-energy synchronization, and intestinal digestion of nutrients were analyzed, then the truly absorbed protein supply to dairy cattle and feed milk values were evaluated using on the DVE/OEB system and the NRC Dairy model. Comparisons were made among blend pelleted products based on carinata meal versus canola meal based pelleted products, addition vs. non addition of lignosulfonate, and low level of inclusion of those co-products with high level of inclusion of pea screenings vs. high level of inclusion of co-products with low level of inclusion of pea screenings. Statistical analyses were performed using PROC MIXED of SAS 9.4 with significance declared at P< 0.05. The results showed that all blend pelleted products had safe levels of glucosinolates (3.46 to 5.86 µmol/g) and condensed tannins (maximum of 0.033 % DM), and high pellet durability index (PDI) (88.5 to 97.5 %). Carinata based pelleted products were lower in NDF content (-4.6 % DM), but higher in protein (+3.2 % DM), and in total amino acids (+1.23 % DM) than the canola pelleted products. Canola pelleted products contained higher level of methionine (1.90 vs. 1.70 % CP) than the carinata blend pelleted products. Canola blend pelleted products contained higher lysine ranging from 5.71 to 5.90 % CP than carinata based pelleted products which ranged from 4.20 to 4.43 % CP. Carinata based blend pelleted products contained higher NE for lactation (NEL), maintenance (NEm) and growth (NEg) (1.99 vs. 1.83, 2.15 vs. 1.98 and 1.47 vs. 1.33 Mcal/kg, respectively) than canola based pelleted products. In terms of protein fractions, carinata based blend pelleted products contain lower true soluble protein (PA2) with a mean of 29.5 % of CP and indigestible protein (PC) with a mean of 1.5 % of CP, but higher (P< 0.05) fiber bound-protein (PB2) with a mean of 12.0 % of CP than canola based blend pelleted products. In terms of CHO fractions, carinata based blend pelleted products had lower (P< 0.05) indigestible fiber (CC) with a mean of 12.5 % of CHO. According to the hourly effective degradation ratios between rumen available N and CHO (ED_N/ED_CHO), all blend pelleted products had overall degradation ratios above the optimal N to CHO ratio. In addition, carinata based blend pelleted products contain lower (P< 0.05) rumen effective degraded protein (221 vs. 245 g/kg DM), higher rumen bypass protein (207 vs. 146 g/kg DM), higher effective fiber degradability of NDF (28.3 vs. 25.4 %), higher intestinal absorbable feed protein (IADP 146 vs. 90 g/kg DM) than canola based blend pelleted products. Furthermore, carinata based blend pelleted products contained higher total protein truly digested in the small intestine (DVE 218 vs. 158 g/kg DM), metabolizable protein (MP 210 vs. 151 g/kg DM) and lower degradable protein balance (OEB and DPB values) (105 vs. 130 and 111 vs. 142 g/kg DM, respectively) than canola based blend pelleted products, which leads them to contain higher (P< 0.05) feed milk value (FMVDVE and FMVNRC) (4.43 vs. 3.22 and 4.01 vs. 2.76 g/kg DM, respectively) than canola based blend pelleted products.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».