MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W191617040 · doi:10.2527/2005.8361303x

The tryptophan requirement of growing and finishing barrows1,2,3

2005· article· en· W191617040 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. C. Guzik, J. L. Shelton, L. L. Southern, B. J. Kerr, T. D. Bidner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoinAnimal scienceMealSoybean mealBiologyFeather mealUreaFeatherBody weightFood scienceFish mealBiochemistryEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Five experiments were conducted to determine the true ileal digestible Trp (tidTrp) requirement of growing and finishing pigs fed diets (as-fed basis) containing 0.87% (Exp. 3), 0.70% (Exp. 4), 0.61% (Exp. 5), and 0.52% (Exp. 1 and 2) tidLys during the early-grower, late-grower, early-finisher, and late-finisher periods, respectively. Treatments were replicated with three or four replications, with three or four pigs per replicate pen. Treatment differences were considered significant at P = 0.10. Experiment 1 was conducted with 27 pigs (initial and final BW of 78.3 +/- 0.5 and 109.8 +/- 1.9 kg) to validate whether a corn-feather meal (FM) tidTrp-deficient (0.07%) diet, when supplemented with 0.07% crystalline l-Trp, would result in growth performance and carcass traits similar to a conventional corn-soybean meal (C-SBM) diet. Pigs fed the corn-FM diet without Trp supplementation had decreased growth performance and carcass traits, and increased plasma urea N (PUN) concentration. Supplementing the corn-FM diet with Trp resulted in greater ADG and G:F than pigs fed the positive control C-SBM diet. Pigs fed the corn-FM diet had similar carcass traits as pigs fed the C-SBM diet, but loin muscle area was decreased and fat thickness was increased. In Exp. 2, 60 pigs (initial and final BW of 74.6 +/- 0.50 and 104.5 +/- 1.64 kg) were used to estimate the tidTrp requirement of finishing pigs. The levels of tidTrp used in Exp. 2 were 0.06, 0.08, 0.10, 0.12, or 0.14% (as-fed basis). Response variables were growth performance, PUN concentrations, and carcass traits and quality. For Exp. 2, the average of the estimates calculated by broken-line regression was 0.104% tidTrp. In Exp. 3, 4, and 5, barrows (n = 60, 60, or 80, respectively) were allotted to five dietary treatments supplemented with crystalline l-Trp at increments of 0.02%. The basal diets contained 0.13, 0.09, and 0.07% tidTrp (as-fed basis) in Exp. 3, 4, and 5, and initial BW of the pigs in these experiments were 30.9 +/- 0.7, 51.3 +/- 1.1, and 69.4 +/- 3.0 kg, respectively. The response variable was PUN, and the basal diet used in Exp. 3 and 4 contained corn, SBM, and Canadian field peas. The tidTrp requirements were estimated to be 0.167% for pigs weighing 30.9 kg, 0.134% for pigs weighing 51.3 kg, and 0.096% for pigs weighing 69.4 kg. Based on our data and a summary of the cited literature, we suggest the following total Trp and tidTrp requirement estimates (as-fed basis): 30-kg pigs, 0.21 and 0.18%; 50-kg pigs, 0.17 and 0.14%; 70-kg pigs, 0.13 and 0.11%; and in 90-kg pigs, 0.13 and 0.11%.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations24
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207