MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070113850 · doi:10.1080/00039420410001701387

Use of the mobile nylon bag technique to determine the digestible energy content of traditional and non-traditional feeds for swine

2004· article· en· W2070113850 on OpenAlexaff
Shiyan Qiao, P. A. Thacker

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Animal Nutrition · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCottonseed mealRapeseedCanolaMealDry matterFood scienceSoybean mealIngredientCottonseedEnergy densityAgronomyBiologyRaw materialMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The following experiment was conducted using the mobile nylon bag technique (MNBT) to determine dry matter and energy digestibility in traditional feeds as well as non-traditional feeds in order to calculate digestible energy (DE) values for use in ration formulation programmes. A total of 22 ingredients were tested in this experiment including the traditional cereal grains barley, corn, oats and wheat, as well as secondary cereal grains such as normal and low viscosity rye, low lignin and high fat oat groats, wheat heavies and # 1 wheat screenings and a new bread wheat designated as CDC Teal. Three legumes (lupines, peas and dehydrated alfalfa), three varieties of canary seed (CDC Maria, dehulled CDC Maria and Keet), and raw and micronized canola seed were tested as protein sources. Finally, three oilseed meals obtained from the Chinese feed industry (Chinese rapeseed meal, Chinese cottonseed meal and extruded full-fat soybean meal) were also included. After simulating gastric digestion the nylon bags were inserted into the duodenum of five barrows through simple duodenal T-cannulae. Eight bags were administered to each pig daily. Ten nylon bags were prepared for each feed with two bags being inserted into each of the five barrows. A total of 220 bags were inserted over a 7-day period. The overall results of this experiment indicate that the MNBT has great potential for use in determining the digestible energy content of swine feeds. For the most part, values obtained in the present experiment compared favourably with previously published values. Four feedstuffs produced digestible energy values that differed by greater than 5% from previously reported values. However, variation in chemical content provided a reasonable explanation for these discrepancies. The MNBT has several advantages compared with conventional digestibility methods in that many feeds can be tested in a relatively short duration of time with significantly fewer animals being used, only small amounts of feed are required and the test allows for energy measurements in feedstuffs that would not normally be fed to pigs as a single ingredient. Additional research on a wider variety of feedstuffs should be conducted to confirm the potential of the MNBT as a tool to accurately determine DE values for swine.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.150 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Animal NutritionSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207