Prediction of in vivo apparent total tract energy digestibility of barley in grower pigs using an in vitro digestibility technique1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The DE content within cereal grains can vary 25% mainly due to changes in apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of energy. In vitro digestibility techniques have been developed to predict the DE value among feedstuffs. However, these techniques have not been tested properly for their suitability to predict the variation in energy digestibility and DE content within a cereal grain. The objective of the present study was to establish and evaluate an in vitro digestibility technique to predict in vivo ATTD of energy of barley in grower pigs. Barley grain samples (hulled, n = 21) with a large range in quality were collected; the ADF and CP content ranged from 4.5 to 11.4% and 10.0 to 16.4% (DM basis), respectively. The ATTD of energy was determined using barrows (n = 63, 33 +/- 2.1 kg of initial BW) in 2 periods with 6 observations per sample and ranged from 51.9 to 78.5%, with relative errors between 0.4 and 5.0%. A preliminary study, comparing a 2- and a 3-step in vitro digestibility technique using 3 barley samples, indicated that R(2) between in vivo and in vitro energy digestibility was greater using the 3- than the 2-step technique (0.92 vs. 0.76). Therefore, the 3-step in vitro digestibility technique was used solely in subsequent analyses. Briefly, ground barley was subsequently incubated with pepsin for 6 h, pancreatin for 18 h, and cellulase for 24 h. The DM and GE content of samples and residues were measured to calculate digestibility. The in vitro energy digestibility of the 21 barley samples with duplicate measurements ranged from 63.7 to 82.2%, with relative errors between 0.1 and 2.6%. In vitro energy digestibility was strongly related (y = 1.25 x - 25.22; R(2) = 0.81) to in vivo energy digestibility. Finally, a subset of 7 barley samples was analyzed in quadruplicate using the 3-step in vitro technique. The relationship between in vitro and in vivo energy digestibility was very strong (y = 1.23 x - 25.33; R(2) = 0.97) with relative errors between 0.5 and 2.7%. In vitro DE and energy digestibility were perfectly related (R(2) = 1.00). In summary, the 3-step in vitro energy digestibility technique can accurately predict the ATTD of energy in barley in grower pigs. The 3-step in vitro digestibility technique, thus, might be useful as the reference laboratory procedure to calibrate analytical equipment to rapidly predict the ATTD of energy in 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".