MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007892530 · doi:10.2527/jas.2004-467

Effect of micronized pea and enzyme supplementation on nutrient utilization and manure output in growing pigs1

2006· article· en· W2007892530 on OpenAlexaff
C. M. Nyachoti, Susan D. Arntfield, W. Guenter, Stefan Cenkowski, F. O. Opapeju

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatin squareFecesAnimal sciencePhytaseExcretionUrineManureChemistryNutrientDigestion (alchemy)BiologyIleumDry matterEnzymeFood scienceBiochemistryAgronomyRumenChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An experiment was done to determine manure output, N and P excretion, and apparent digestibilities of AA, CP, P, and DM in growing pigs fed barley-based diets containing micronized or raw peas with or without supplementation with enzyme containing primarily beta-glucanase and phytase (Biogal S+). Eight barrows (21.5 +/- 1.2 kg of initial BW) fitted with T-cannulas at the distal ileum were used in a 40-d trial and housed in metabolism cages. Pigs were assigned in a replicated 4 x 4 Latin square design to 4 experimental diets: 1) barley-raw peas control (BRP), 2) barley-micronized peas (BMP), 3) BRP plus enzyme, and 4) BMP plus enzyme (BMP+E). Pigs received 2.6 times maintenance energy requirements based on BW at the beginning of each experimental period. During each experimental period, pigs were acclimatized to their respective diets for 5 d followed by a 3-d period of total fecal and urine collection and another 2-d period of ileal digesta collection. Samples were analyzed for DM, AA (diets and digesta only), N, and P. Wet fecal output of BRP plus enzyme-fed pigs tended to be lower (P = 0.07) than the amount produced by BMP-fed pigs. The amounts of dry feces and urine produced were not different among treatments (P > 0.10). Supplementing the BRP and BMP diet with enzyme increased (P = 0.002) the daily P retained per pig. Pigs fed the enzyme-supplemented diets tended to have lower (P = 0.06) fecal P excretion and greater urinary P excretion (P = 0.001) compared with pigs fed the nonsupplemented diets, but total P excretion was not influenced by diet (P > 0.10). Pigs fed the BMP+E diet retained more (P = 0.006) N per day than pigs fed the BMP diet. However, N excretion was not influenced by dietary treatment (P > 0.10), although BMP+E-fed pigs excreted 13.2% less N in the feces compared with those fed the nonenzyme supplemented controls. Inclusion of micronized peas with or without enzyme supplementation did not affect urinary or fecal N excretion (P > 0.10) compared with the BRP. Dietary treatment had no effect (P > 0.10) on ileal or fecal DM or CP digestibilities. Apparent ileal digestibilities of AA were usually lower (P < 0.05) in the BRP diet compared with the other diets. Enzyme supplementation improved P digestibility at the ileal and fecal level. The current results indicate that utilizing micronized peas in barley-based pig grower diets enhances P retention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations60
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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