Short Communication: Energy values and apparent total tract digestibility coefficients of copra meal and palm kernel meal fed to growing pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jang, Y. D. and Kim, Y. Y. 2013. Short Communication: Energy values and apparent total tract digestibility coefficients of copra meal and palm kernel meal fed to growing pigs. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 93: 517–521. To determine energy values and coefficients of apparent total tract digestibility (CATTD) of copra meal (CM) and palm kernel meal (PKM), 24 growing pigs were fed a corn–soybean meal basal diet and the basal diet replaced by 300 g kg−1 of either CM or PKM. Copra meal had higher CATTD of gross energy (12%), dry matter (DM; 13%), neutral detergent fiber (16%), acid detergent fiber (23%), and crude fiber (79%; P<0.05) than PKM. Copra meal had a slightly higher digestible energy (DE) value than PKM (14.08 vs. 13.01 MJ kg−1 DM; P=0.067), but metabolizable energy (ME; 13.33 vs. 12.83 MJ kg−1 DM), net energy (7.97 vs. 7.36 MJ kg−1 DM), and ME:DE ratio did not differ between CM and PKM. Therefore, compared with PKM, CM can be a better source of dietary energy in swine diets as evidenced by higher CATTD of energy and fiber components.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".