Assessing the efficiency of using a modern hybrid rye cultivar for pig fattening, with emphasis on production costs and carcass quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There were two goals of the present experiment, namely (1) to determine and compare the concentrations of basal nutrients and anti-nutrients in the grain of a modern hybrid rye and barley cultivars, and (2) to compare the effectiveness of the rye- and barley-containing diets for pig fattening. Crude protein and starch contents were greater (P < 0.01) in rye (cv. Visello) than in barley (cv. Bryl) but fibre and total lipid concentrations were lower (P < 0.01) in rye grain. Mean concentrations of alkylresorcinols and pentosans, as well as the activity of trypsin inhibitors, were all higher (P < 0.01) in rye grain. In all, 150 PIC gilts were randomly divided into two equinumerous groups; control pigs were fed a diet containing barley as the main cereal ingredient (starter phase (SP), 35% of feed content; grower phase (GP), 40% of feed content; and finisher phase (FP), 65% of feed content), while the experimental group received a diet with rye replacing a proportion of barley (10% during SP, 25% during GP and 50% during FP); the diets for both subsets of animals also contained wheat and soybean meal to obtain a proper level of nutritional value. The average weight gain of the rye-fed gilts (783 ± 183 g/day; mean ± s.d.) was greater (P < 0.05) than that of control animals (747 ± 218 g/day). This difference in weight gain was due mainly to an increase in daily feed intake (2.35 ± 0.21 and 2.15 ± 0.19 kg/day in the experimental and control groups, respectively; P < 0.01) recorded during the grower and finisher phase. Carcasses from both groups exhibited the same lean meat content; however, the percentage of carcasses in the higher classes according to the EUROP quality scale tended to be greater in the experimental group, which resulted in a higher (P < 0.05) carcass value than for barley-fed controls. The present results indicated that a modern rye cv. Visello is a safe and cost-effective feed for growing pigs, and yields significantly better outcomes than commonly used barley-containing diets in terms of carcass quality and price.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".