MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153910702 · doi:10.2527/jas.2009-1980

Characterization of the nutritional value of air-classified protein and starch fractions of field pea and zero-tannin faba bean in grower pigs1

2009· article· en· W2153910702 on OpenAlexaff
C. K. Gunawardena, R. T. Zijlstra, E. Beltranena

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture Food and Rural DevelopmentUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField peaStarchTanninFood scienceLegumeDigestion (alchemy)Protein digestibilityChemistryAnimal scienceFecesPea proteinProtein qualityBiologyAgronomyCropChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most pulse (nonoilseed legume) seed flours can be fractionated rapidly and economically by air classification into protein and starch concentrates. The nutritional value of air-classified field pea and faba bean concentrates requires characterization to assess the feeding opportunity for pigs. Thus, the objectives were to characterize the apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of DM, OM, energy, starch, CP, fat, and ash; apparent ileal digestibility of CP and starch; standardized ileal digestibility (SID) of AA; and the SID AA, DE, and NE content of air-classified zero-tannin faba bean and field pea protein and starch concentrates in grower pigs. Pulse protein and starch concentrates were compared with soy protein concentrate and corn starch, respectively, as corresponding standards. The corn starch diet served as an N-free diet to correct for basal endogenous AA losses. In a Youden square design, 8 ileal-cannulated barrows (24.9 +/- 2.3 kg of BW) were fed 6 diets over 7 periods at 3 times the maintenance DE requirement. Periods encompassed a 5-d diet acclimation, 3-d feces collection, and 3-d ileal digesta collection. The ATTD of GE was 2% greater (P < 0.05) for faba bean than soy and was intermediate for field pea protein (95.6, 93.7, and 94.9%, respectively). The ATTD of GE was 3.6% greater (P < 0.05) for corn and field pea than faba bean starch (96.2, 95.1, and 92.3%, respectively). The DE content of faba bean was 5.0% greater (P < 0.05) than for field pea or soy protein (4.47, 4.23, and 4.26 Mcal/kg, respectively). The DE content of faba bean and field pea was 1.7% greater (P < 0.05) than for corn starch (3.72, 3.77, and 3.68 Mcal/kg, respectively). The NE content was 5% greater (P < 0.05) for faba bean than field pea and soy protein (3.08, 2.94, and 2.92 Mcal/kg, respectively). The NE content for field pea starch was 2.0% greater (P < 0.05) than for corn starch and faba bean starch (2.68, 2.63, and 2.61 Mcal/kg, respectively). Protein concentrates had a 14 and 11% greater (P < 0.05) DE and NE content, respectively, than starch concentrates. The SID of Lys was 6.0% greater (P < 0.05) for faba bean and field pea protein than soy protein (95.5, 92.6, and 88.7%, respectively). The SID of Lys was 6.0% greater (P < 0.05) for faba bean than field pea starch. Nutrient digestibility and digestible nutrient profiles indicated that air-classified fractions of zero-tannin faba bean and field pea constitute concentrated sources of AA and energy for pigs with high nutritional demands.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations44
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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