Validation of the net energy content of canola meal and full-fat canola seeds in growing pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study was conducted to estimate the net energy (NE) content of canola meal (CM) and full-fat canola seeds (FFCS) in growing pigs, and to validate the results through a growth trial. The digestible energy (DE) content of the canola products was measured in a digestibility study by the difference method, with diets containing two-thirds of a basal diet of known digestibility and one-third of the canola products. The NE content was estimated by means of a prediction equation based on the DE content and chemical composition of the canola products. The NE was 2.43 and 3.56 Mcal kg-1 DM for CM and FFCS, respectively. For the growth study, 31-kg pigs (18 per treatment) were fed for 35 d with wheat/barley-based diets containing either 0, 5, 10 or 15% FFCS or 0, 7.5, 15 or 22.5% CM. The gain-to-feed ratio was unchanged by the levels of CM or FFCS (P > 0.05), but the highest level of FFCS decreased feed intake (P < 0.001) and thus increased the gain-to-feed ratio (P < 0.05). In conclusion, the NE content was correctly estimated for CM, but slightly underestimated for FFCS. Also, growing pigs can tolerate diets containing up to 22.5% CM or 10% FFCS.Key words: Net energy, growing pigs, canola meal, full-fat canola seeds
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".