Energy and amino acid digestibility of expeller-pressed canola meal and cold-pressed canola cake in ileal-cannulated finishing pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Residual oil content that increases the dietary energy value makes expeller-pressed canola meal (EPCM) and cold-pressed canola cake (CPCC) attractive feedstuffs for swine. The energy and amino acid (AA) digestibility of EPCM and CPCC were evaluated feeding six crossbred Hypor barrows (initial weight of 65.7 ± 1.7 kg) surgically fitted with a simple T-cannula at the distal ileum. Pigs were fed twice daily at 2.8 times the estimated maintenance requirement of digestible energy (DE). Diets containing 500 g/kg of either EPCM or CPCC and an N-free diet were tested in a replicated 3×3 Latin square. The oil content of EPCM was half that of CPCC (105 vs. 202 g/kg). Total glucosinolate content of EPCM was double that of CPCC (11.9 vs. 5.6 μmol/g). The apparent total tract digestibility coefficient and apparent ileal digestibility coefficient (CAID) of energy were lower (P<0.05) in EPCM than CPCC. The DE (P<0.05) and calculated net energy (NE) content were lower (P<0.001) in EPCM than CPCC (14.3 vs. 16.5 and 9.0 vs. 11.5 MJ NE/kg as fed, respectively). The CAID of lysine and cysteine was lower (P<0.05) in EPCM than CPCC. The standardized ileal digestibility coefficient (CSID) of alanine, cysteine, glycine, histidine, isoleucine, lysine and valine was lower (P<0.05) in EPCM than CPCC. However, the standardized ileal digestible content of all AA was greater (P<0.05) in EPCM than CPCC. In conclusion, lower residual oil and greater content of antinutritional factors (glucosinolates and fibre) in EPCM compared with CPCC were important factors that lowered energy digestibility and DE and NE values in EPCM compared to CPCC and likely lowered CSID of some indispensable AA in EPCM vs. CPCC, including lysine.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".