A comparison between the 2N and 4N HCl acid-insoluble ash methods for digestibility trials in horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The digestibility of horse feeds and rations can be determined using different techniques such as calculations based on the chemical composition, in vivo or in vitro methods. The marker methods overcome difficulties like discomfort for the animals and longer experimental times encountered using the ingesta/egesta method. In field conditions, a natural indigestible marker like acid-insoluble ash (AIA), with no changes in the normal ration, could be a very useful tool for digestibility trials. A group of six standardbred horses was used in a set of seven apparent digestibility trials. The diets were based on a first-cut meadow hay added to three different cereals (barley for trials 1 and 2; oats for trials 3 and 5 and corn for trials 6 and 7), the hay : concentrate ratio being 60 : 40 or 70 : 30 on a dry matter basis. Feedstuffs and faeces were analysed to determine the AIA content, using 2N HCl or 4N HCl technique. No differences about AIA concentration were found between the two methods for means and accuracy in each diet. Digestion coefficients for each diet did not differ with AIA method, even if in some trials interfering factors consistently lowered the overall values. Consequently, the AIA 2N HCl can be considered the easier and cheaper method to state apparent digestibility in field conditions, and a good tool for digestibility trials in horses fed hay-based diets.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".