MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Threonine and tryptophan ratios fed to nursery pigs*

2005· article· en· W1988156966 on OpenAlexaff
A. C. Guzik, M.J. Pettitt, E. Beltranena, L. L. Southern, B. J. Kerr

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsGenome Prairie
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTryptophanAnimal scienceThreonineCrossbreedChemistryLysineFactorial experimentBiologyBiochemistryAmino acidSerineMathematicsEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The optimal ratio of tryptophan (Trp):lysine (Lys) relative to the ratio of threonine (Thr):Lys was studied in 288 crossbred (Cambrough 15 x Canabrid) nursery pigs from 7.1 to 15.6 kg BW. Treatments were arranged in a 3 x 3 factorial with three calculated ratios of true digestible Thr:Lys (0.55, 0.60, or 0.65) in combination with three Trp:Lys ratios (0.145, 0.170, or 0.195). Treatments were replicated with eight pens of four pigs each. The experiment lasted 28 day with Phase II (222.6 g CP and 11.9 g true digestible Lys/kg diet, initially 24 day of age and 7.1 kg BW) and Phase III (196.2 g CP and 10.1 kg true digestible Lys/kg diet, initially 38 day of age and 9.8 kg BW) diets each fed for 14 day. Threonine by Trp interactions were observed for average daily gain during each period, and for daily feed intake during Phase III and overall. Generally, Trp addition linearly increased gain and feed intake at a Thr:Lys ratio of 0.60 and 0.65 but not at a Thr:Lys ratio of 0.55. Gain:feed was increased linearly with increasing levels of Trp during both periods. There were no main effects of Thr in either time period or overall. Overall, optimal performance was obtained in pigs fed the true digestible Trp:Lys ratio of 0.195 at Thr:Lys ratios 0.60 or 0.65. These results indicate that Trp:Lys ratios above 0.195 may be needed to maximize performance in diets containing wheat and barley.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations16
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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