MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143675835 · doi:10.2527/jas.2009-2223

Energy and amino acid utilization in expeller-extracted canola meal fed to growing pigs1

2009· article· en· W2143675835 on OpenAlexaff
Tofuko A Woyengo, Elijah G. Kiarie, C. M. Nyachoti

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanolaMealLatin squareAnimal scienceNutrientCHROMIC OXIDEChemistryDry matterFood scienceComposition (language)BiologyFermentationRumen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations116
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207