Ileal digestibility of amino acids, phosphorus, phytate and energy in pigs fed sorghum-based diets supplemented with phytase and Pancreatin®
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of phytase supplementation on the apparent ileal digestibility (AID) of amino acids (AA) have been inconsistent. Two experiments evaluated the effect of providing a mixture of pancreatic enzymes (Pancreatin(®) ) to growing pigs fed sorghum-soybean meal diets supplemented with phytase on the AID of AA, energy, and phosphorus (P), as well as the ileal digestibility (ID) of phytate; there were four periods per experiment. In Experiment 1, eight pigs (BW 22.1±1.3 kg) were fitted with a T-cannula at the distal ileum. Each period consisted of 9 days; 7 days for diet adaptation, and 2 days for digesta collection. Treatments (T) were: (i) basal sorghum-soybean meal diet, (ii) basal diet plus Pancreatin®, (iii) basal diet plus phytase and (iv) basal diet plus phytase and Pancreatin®. Phytase increased the digestibilities of phytate and P (p<0.001), but did not affect the AID of AA and energy (p>0.10). Except for methionine (p=0.07), Pancreatin® did not affect the AID of AA. Phytase and Pancreatin® did not interact (p>0.10). Experiment 2 was similar to Experiment 1, but Pancreatin® was infused into duodenum. Pancreatin® infusion did not affect the AID of AA (p>0.10); and tended to reduce (p=0.09) the AID of lysine. Phytase × Pancreatin® interactions were not observed (p>0.10). In conclusion, phytase and Pancreatin® did not improve the AID of AA in growing pigs fed sorghum-soybean meal diets indicating that phytates did not affect AA digestibility.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".