MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1577283380 · doi:10.4148/2378-5977.7114

Effects of adding cracked corn to a pelleted supplement for nursery and finishing pigs

2011· article· en· W1577283380 on OpenAlexaff
Chad B. Paulk, A.C. Fahrenholz, Jonathan M. Wilson, Daniel Cook, Leland J McKinney, J C Ebert, J J Ohlde, Jerome C. Nietfeld, Joe D Hancock, Keith C Behnke

Bibliographic record

VenueKansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsMiller Group (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal sciencePelletsSoybean mealMealFeed conversion ratioBody weightBiologyFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three experiments were conducted to determine the effects of supplementing cracked corn into diets of nursery and finishing pigs. In Exp. 1, 144 pigs were used in a 28-d trial. Pigs (PIC TR4 × 1050; initially 16.5 lb) were weaned and allotted with 6 pigs per pen (3 barrows and 3 gilts) and 6 pens per treatment. All pigs were fed a common diet for 7 d postweaning and the experimental diets for the next 28 d. Treatments were corn-soybean meal-based in the form of mash, pellets, and pellets with 100% of the corn either ground (618 μm) or cracked (3,444 μm) and blended into the diet after the rest of the formulation (the supplement) had been pelleted. Overall (d 0 to 28), ADG and F/G improved when pigs were fed the mash control compared to the pelleted diets (P < 0.001); however, this response was caused by the poor performance of pigs fed the supplement treatments, with the pigs fed the complete pellets having improved (P < 0.01) ADG and F/G compared with pigs fed the pelleted supplement blended with ground and cracked corn. Finally, pigs fed the supplement blended with cracked corn had numerically lower (P < 0.11) ADG and poorer (P < 0.001) F/G compared to those fed the supplement blended with ground corn. In Exp. 2, 224 nursery pigs (initially 16.3 lb) were used with 7 barrows or 7 gilts per pen and 8 pens per treatment. Treatments were corn-soybean meal-based and fed as mash, pellets, and pellets with 50% of the corn either ground (445 μm) or cracked (2,142 μm) and blended with the pelleted supplement. Pigs fed mash had improved (P < 0.03) ADG and F/G compared with pigs fed the other treatments; however, this resulted from adding ground or cracked corn outside the pellets (complete pellets vs. pelleted supplement with corn, P < 0.01). In Exp. 3, 252 finishing pigs (initially 88.2 lb) were used with 7 pigs per pen and 9 pens per treatment. The treatments were the same as Exp. 2. Pigs fed mash had lower (P < 0.004) ADG compared with pigs fed diets with pellets. Pigs fed complete pellets had improved (P < 0.03) ADG and F/G compared with pigs fed corn and the pelleted supplement. Also, pigs fed the supplement blended with cracked corn had greater (P < 0.02) ADG than pigs fed the supplement blended with ground

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.425
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research ReportsSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207