Efficacy of DL-methionine hydroxy analog free acid and DL-methionine as methionine sources for pigs1,2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of dietary DL-methionine hydroxy analog-free acid (MHA-FA, 88%) compared with DL-methionine (DLM, 99%) as Met sources in pigs. In Exp. 1, a total of 245 crossbred pigs (initial BW of 6.4 kg [SD = 0.5]) were allotted to 7 treatments in 7 replicates for an experimental period of 28 d. The basal diet (BD) was formulated to contain 17.5% CP and 0.21% Met. Dietary treatments included 1) BD, 2) BD + 0.030% DLM, 3) BD + 0.060% DLM, 4) BD + 0.090% DLM, 5) BD + 0.034% MHA-FA, 6) BD + 0.068% MHA-FA, and 7) BD + 0.103% MHA-FA; the MHA-FA was supplemented on an equimolar basis to the DLM. Because of a nonlinear response, exponential regression analysis was used to evaluate the responses, and a comparison of the equations was then made to determine the relative effectiveness of the 2 Met sources. With increases in dietary Met, weight gain increased (P < 0.05). Compared with DLM on a product-to-product (wt/wt) basis, the relative effectiveness of MHA-FA was calculated to be 73% for increasing weight gain and 54% for decreasing the feed:gain. In Exp. 2, a total of 30 weanling barrows [initial BW of 16.8 kg (SD = 2.8)] were used in a metabolism study to evaluate the relative value of MHA-FA to DLM. The BD was formulated to contain 16.9% CP and 0.21% Met. Dietary treatments included 1) BD, 2) BD + 0.030% DLM, 3) BD + 0.060% DLM, 4) BD + 0.046% MHA-FA, and 5) BD + 0.092% MHA-FA; the MHA-FA levels were chosen based on a pre-experiment estimate of bioequivalence in an attempt to provide approximately equal pig responses. There was no difference in fecal N output among the treatments; however, urine N linearly decreased with increasing concentrations of both sources (P = 0.034 for DLM, and P = 0.007 for MHA-FA), which resulted in a linear increase in retained N for both DLM (P = 0.012) and MHA-FA (P = 0.005). In addition, N retention (% of intake) linearly increased with increasing level of DLM (P = 0.014) and MHA-FA (P = 0.007). Using a slope-ratio procedure for comparison of the responses from the 2 sources, the relative biological equivalence value of MHA-FA to DLM in this experiment was 64.2% based on percent N retention and 66.3% based on the grams of N retained per day. Based on the results from both experiments, these data indicated that the mean relative bioequivalence of MHA-FA to DLM was 64% on a product-to-product (wt/wt) basis or 73% on an equimolar basis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".