The nutritive value of hulled and hulless barleyfor growing pigs.1. Determination of energy and protein digestibilitywith the <i>in vivo</i> and <i>in vitro</i> method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experiment was conducted to determine the digestibility of energy and crude protein (CP) in hulled and hulless barley with the in vivo and in vitro method. Six barrows were fed six diets according to a 6 6 Latin square design. The six diets included 950 g kg -1 of four barleys and two mixtures. Diet A: hulled barley, c.v. Harrington I. Diet B: hulled barley, c.v. Harrington II. The origin of c.v. Harrington in diet B was different from that in diet A, and therefore referred to as c.v. Harrington II. Diet C: hulless barley, c.v. CDC Buck. Diet D: hulless barley, c.v. CDC Richard. Diet E: mixture of c.v. Harrington I and c.v. CDC Buck (50:50, wt/wt). Diet F: mixture of c.v. Harrington II CDC Richard (50:50, wt/wt). The mixtures were created in order to establish linear regression equations between in vivo and in vitro methods. Chromic oxide was used as the digestibility marker. The barrows were fed twice daily, at 08.00 and 20.00 h. Each experimental period consisted of an 8-d adaptation period followed by a 2-d collection period of faeces. The initial and final average body weights of the barrows were 40 and 90 kg, respectively. The in vivo energy digestibilities were higher (P < 0.05) in the hulless (81.4 to 84.7%) than in the hulled barleys (76.9 to 77.6%). The digestible energy contents in the hulless barleys ranged from 14.01 to 14.60 MJ kg -1 while the contents in the hulled barleys ranged from 13.05 to 13.16 MJ kg -1 (as-fed). The average digestible CP contents in the hulled and hulless barleys were nearly similar and were 88.0 and 89.7 g kg -1 (as-fed), respectively. The in vivo energy and CP digestibilities in the barleys and their mixtures can be accurately predicted by in vitro values, as these were very high correlations between these methods for energy (r 2 = 0.93) and CP (r 2 = 0.87).
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".