Energy and amino acid utilization in expeller-extracted canola meal fed to growing pigs1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two experiments were conducted to determine the nutritive value of expeller-extracted canola meal (EECM) for growing pigs. In Exp. 1, a total of 6 ileally cannulated barrows (average initial BW = 26.8 kg) were fed 3 diets in a replicated 3 x 3 Latin square design to determine the apparent and standardized ileal digestibility (SID) values of N and AA and the SID AA contents of EECM. The 3 diets were a cornstarch-based diet with either solvent-extracted canola meal (SECM) or EECM as the sole source of protein, and a low-casein cornstarch-based diet, which was used to estimate basal endogenous N and AA losses to determine the SID of N and AA. All 3 diets contained chromic oxide as an indigestible marker for determining nutrient digestibility by the indicator method. In Exp. 2, a total of 18 intact barrows (average initial BW = 25.9 kg) were fed 3 diets in a completely randomized design (6 pigs per diet) to determine apparent total tract digestibility and retention of nutrients and the DE and ME contents of EECM. The diets were a basal corn-based diet or the basal diet with corn replaced by 35% SECM or EECM. The basal diet was used for determining the total tract digestible nutrient content by the difference method. Solvent-extracted canola meal, which is commonly used in the formulation of swine diets, was fed in both experiments for comparison with EECM. The SECM and EECM were similar in CP content (41.8 vs. 41.4%). Expeller-extracted canola meal was, however, greater in ether extract content (12.03 vs. 5.54%) and decreased in NDF content (23.8 vs. 29.9%) compared with SECM. The EECM also had a greater content of all the AA except Met, Cys, and Ser, by approximately 6.6%; Cys was greater in SECM, whereas Met and Ser were similar between the 2 meals. The EECM had greater (P < 0.05) SID of N, Arg, Ile, Leu, Phe, Glu, and Pro. The SID contents of Arg, His, Ile, Leu, Phe, Val, Ala, Asp, Glu, Gly, Pro, and Tyr were also greater (P < 0.05) for EECM than for SECM by an average of 15%. The EECM had greater (P < 0.01) DE (4,107 vs. 3,790 kcal/kg) and ME (3,978 vs. 3,564 kcal/kg) values compared with SECM. The results show that the EECM used in the current study had greater digestible AA and energy and a greater ME content than the SECM; hence, it may be a better source of protein and energy for growing pigs than SECM.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".