Performance of growing-finishing pigs fed barley-based diets containing toasted or non-toasted canola meal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eighty crossbred pigs (28.7 ± 3.9 kg BW) were assigned to one of five dietary treatments in a factorial design experiment (sex × treatment). The control diet was formulated using barley and soybean meal, while four experimental diets were formulated with either toasted or non-toasted canola meal replacing either half or all of the soybean meal in the test diets. The total glucosinolate content of the non-toasted meal was more than 15-fold higher than the to asted meal (1.01 vs. 15.58 µmol g-1). The principal glucosinolates in the non-toasted meal were 3-butenyl (3.05 µmol g-1), 2-OH-3-butenyl (5.47 µmol g-1) and 4-OH-3-methylindoyl (4.68 µmol g-1). Digestibility coefficients for dry matter, crude protein, and gross energy were significantly (P < 0.05) lower for the toasted and non-toasted canola meal diets compared with the soybean meal diet. There were no significant differences (P > 0.05) in digestibility coefficients between the two canola meals. Digestibility coefficients were higher (P < 0.05) for pigs fed the diets in which canola meal supplied only 50% of the supplementary protein compared with diets in which 100% of the supplementary protein was supplied by canola meal. Pigs fed toasted canola meal had similar weight gain, feed intake and feed conversion (P > 0.05) as pigs fed soybean meal while pigs fed non-toasted canola meal had lower weight gain and feed intake (P < 0.05) than pigs fed soybean meal. Feed conversion was unaffected by dietary treatment (P > 0.05). There were no significant effects (P < 0.05) due to diet on any carcass trait. The overall results of this experiment indicate that omitting the desolventization/toasting procedure from the process involved in the production of canola meal did not result in an improvement in the performance of pigs fed diets containing canola meal. Key words: Pigs, canola meal, performance, digestibility, carcass, toasting
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".