Performance of Growing-Finishing Pigs Fed Diets Based on Normal or Low Viscosity Rye Fed With and Without Enzyme Supplementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One hundred and forty crossbred pigs (Pig Improvement Canada Ltd, Acme Alberta), weighing an average of 21.5 + 3.6 kg, were assigned on the basis of sex, weight and litter to one of five dietary treatments. The control diet was barley-based, while in the remaining four treatments, the grain component consisted of either normal or low viscosity rye fed with or without pentosanase. Digestibility coefficients for dry matter, crude protein and gross energy were significantly (P = 0.0001) higher for the rye-based diets than the barley based diet. There were no differences in digestibility coefficients between normal and low viscosity diets or between diets supplemented or unsupplemented with pentosanase. Over the entire experimental period (21.5 to 100.7 kg), pigs fed the normal viscosity rye gained better (P = 0.001) and had a higher daily intake (P = 0.001) than pigs fed the low viscosity rye. Pigs fed the low viscosity rye tended to gain slower than pigs fed barley and with lower intake while pigs fed the normal viscosity rye had similar gains and intake to the pigs fed barley. Enzyme supplementation failed to improve pig performance. Males had higher gains and intake than females (P < 0.05). Enzyme supplementation, rye viscosity or choice of cereal grain had no effect on any of the carcass traits measured. In conclusion, the results of the present experiment indicate that rye is a good alternative to barley for use in growing-finishing rations and becomes increasing attractive as the age of the pig increases. Breeding efforts directed towards reducing the viscosity of rye are unlikely to be successful in improving the nutritive value of rye for swine.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".