MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Apparent digestibility of diets with different concentrations of lysine and energy in piglets with different body weights and post-weaning age

2010· article· en· W2101116610 on OpenAlexaff
Messias Alves da Trindade Neto, Daniel Gonçalves Bruno, Dirlei Antônio Berto, M. Undi, Eliana Aparecida Schammass

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Brasileira de Zootecnia · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeaningDry matterAnimal scienceNitrogen balanceLysineBody weightRandomized block designEnergy balanceNitrogenFactorial experimentBiologyChemistryMathematicsBiochemistryAmino acidEndocrinologyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of body weight or age and dietary digestible lysine and metabolizable energy on apparent digestibility of energy and dry matter were evaluated in piglets after weaning. The animals were weaned at 21 days of age and distributed in two groups: 8.68 ± 0.76 kg at 28 days of age (weaned 7 days earlier); and 12.73 ± 0.99 kg at 35 days of age (weaned 14 days earlier). The pigs were allotted in digestibility cages in a completely randomized block design with the following factorial arrangements: 2 × 4 composed of two weight categories and four levels of digestible lysine (1.222; 1.305; 1.390 and 1.497%); and 2 × 3 composed of two weight categories and three levels of metabolizable energy (3,510; 3,700 and 3,830 kcal/kg rations). Digestible lysine was evaluated in six replications and metabolizable energy in eight replications and each animal constituted an experimental unit. Piglets with higher body weight and age were more efficient in nitrogen retention and energetic balance, compared to lighter and younger piglets, particularly those given lower concentration of lysine in the diet. The energy increase favored nitrogen retention by the heavier and older piglets. However, coefficients of dry matter and energy apparent digestibility did not differ among weight categories. Older and heavier piglets were more efficient in nitrogen retention, although this efficacy depended on concentration of the energy in the diet. This better use of protein and energy suggest differences on nutritional requirements.

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Brasileira de ZootecniaSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207