MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108479917 · doi:10.5539/jas.v4n7p148

By-Products as Protein Source for Lactating Grasscutters

2012· article· en· W2108479917 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
G. S. I. Wogar, A. A. Ayuk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRabbits: Nutrition, Reproduction, Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal scienceWeight gainLitterSoybean mealBiologyLactationMealWeaningFeed conversion ratioBiotechnologyBody weightAgronomyFood sciencePregnancyEndocrinologyRaw materialEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The potential of grasscutters (Thryonomys swinderianus temminck) as a source of animal protein can be exploited with better understanding of its nutrient requirement. An experiment was conducted to determine the protein requirement of lactating grasscutters fed agro-industrial by-products namely; wheat offal and soybean meal. Sixteen 13 months old lactating grasscutters, in groups of four, were randomly allotted to four treatment diets formulated to respectively supply 10, 14, 18 and 22% crude protein (CP). Performance in respect of weight of does at end of lactation, daily weight gain of pups, daily weight gain of doe and litter, weaning weight of pups, feed conversion ratio, and cost to gain ratio, were significantly (P<0.05) higher on the 22% CP diet. The daily weight loss of does and percentage mortality among pups were significantly lower on the 22% CP diet. Though the percentage mortality among pups was significantly (P<0.05) higher, the litter size weaned was significantly (P<0.05) higher on the 18% diet. Given the overall economic importance of low mortality rate in the expansion of farm animal populations and profitability thereof, these results suggest that 22% is the optimum crude protein level for lactating grasscutters, when industrial by-products, soybean meal and wheat offal, are used as dietary supplements.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicRabbits: Nutrition, Reproduction, HealthFrench-language works237,207