Evaluation of Dietary Hydrolyzed Barley on Growth Performance, Nutrient Digestibility, Blood Characteristic, and Meat Quality in Finishing Pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 144 [(Duroc × Yorkshire) × Landrace] pigs with an average initial BW of 61.8±1.04 kg were used in this 70-d growth experiment. Pigs were allotted to 4 treatments based on their initial BW using a randomized complete block design. Each treatment consisted of 9 replications (pen) with 4 pigs per pen (2 gilts and 2 barrows). Dietary treatments were: 1) V0, 0% hydrolyzed barley (HB) and 30% de-hulled barley (DB); 2) V1, 10% HB and 20% DB; 3) V2, 20% HB and 10% DB; and 4) V3, 30% HB and 0% DB. In this study, our analyzed data suggested that hydrolyzed barley increased the energy and CP concentration by 50.65% and 18%, respectively, compared with the de-hulled barley. In the feeding trail, Pigs fed the V2 and V3 treatment diet increased (P<0.05) the N digestibility compared with the V0 treatment at the end of 5 week. An increased (P<0.10) tendency was also observed on the energy and nitrogen digestibility at the end of 5 week and 10 week, respectively. Moreover, pigs fed the HB diet tend to increase (P<0.10) the average daily gain (ADG) and average daily feed intake (ADFI). The inclusion of V3 treatment decreased (P<0.05) the blood cholesterol compared with those contain DB. Dietary V3 treatment led to a higher (P<0.05) WHC than the V0 and V1 treatment. Pigs fed V2 and V3 treatment decreased (P<0.05) L* value compared with DB diet. In conclusion, the inclusion of hydrolyzed barley could improve the meat quality without any negative effect on the growth performance and nutrient digestibility, which provide a strong indication that hydrolyzed barley could be used as a good energy source 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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".