MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085994739 · doi:10.4141/a01-086

Digestible energy and amino acid contents in Canadian varieties of sorghum, pearl millet, high-oil corn, high-oil–high-protein corn and regular corn samples for growing pigs

2002· article· en· W2085994739 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Yulong Yin, Nar Gurung, E. A. Jeaurond, P. Sharpe, C. F. M. de Lange

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSorghumDry matterLatin squareChemistryAnimal scienceMethionineCorn oilFecesFood scienceAgronomyBiologyAmino acidRumenBiochemistryFermentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fecal digestible energy (DE) and ileal digestible crude protein (CP) and amino acid (AA) contents in sorghum, pear millet, high-oil corn, high-oil-high-protein corn, regular corn I and II were determined in growing pigs fitted with ileal “T ”cannulas. The cereal grain samples were grown in Canada and supplemented with vitamins and minerals to produce six experimental diets. Six pigs, with an average initial body weight of 17 kg, were fed the diets during six subsequent experimental periods according to a Latin square design. Pigs were fed twice daily at 2.6 times maintenance energy requirements. After a 7-d adjustment period, feces were collected for 3 d, followed by a 48-h collection of ileal digesta. Apparent and standardized ileal AA digestibilities were calculated. The high-oil corn and high-oil-high-protein corn had the highest (P < 0.05) DE content [4029, 4048 kcal kg -1 dry matter (DM), respectively]. The sorghum had a higher (P < 0.05) DE content (3941 kcal kg -1 DM) than pear millet (3603 kcal kg -1 DM) and regular corn I (3710 kcal kg -1 DM basis) and similar DE content to regular corn II (3945 kcal kg -1 DM). Contents of standardized ileal digestible CP and AA varied between cereal grains were generally highest (P < 0.05) for PM (CP: 101.6 g kg -1 DM; lysine, methionine plus cysteine, threonine: 3.4, 4.8 and 4.3 g kg -1 DM, respectively), HOPC (CP: 100.9 g kg -1 DM; lysine, methionine plus cysteine, threonine: 3.1, 5.4 and 4.3 g kg -1 DM, respectively) and similar for the other cereal grains (CP: 94.1–98.4 g kg -1 DM; lysine, methionine plus cysteine, threonine: 2.6–3.0, 3.4–4.3 and 3.3–4.0 g kg -1 DM, respectively). Differences in feeding values of these cereal grains should be considered when evaluating their potential inclusion in pig diets. Key words: Grains, pigs, energy, amino acids, digestibility

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations42
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207