MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2409033094 · doi:10.2527/msasas2016-108

108 Liquid feeding fermented DDGS to weanling pigs: improvement of growth performance with added enzymes and microbial inoculants

2016· article· en· W2409033094 on OpenAlexaff
M. Wiseman, D. Wey, C. F. M. de Lange

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrobial inoculantFermentationFood scienceChemistryRandomized block designPediococcus acidilacticiSilageStrawAnimal scienceBiologyLactic acidAgronomyBacteriaHorticultureInoculation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Controlled fermentation of coproducts can improve energy availability and gut function through synergistic soluble fiber hydrolysis. This study assessed effects of extended DDGS fermentation on performance and digestive function of newly weaned piglets fed corn and soybean meal based liquid diets. Enzymes (67.2 IU β-glucanase and 51.4 IU xylanase/g DDGS; AB Vista) and silage inoculant (360,000 CFU Pediocoocus pentosaceus 12,455 and Propionibacterium jensenii 30,081/g DDGS; Lallemand Inc.) were added to dry DDGS at the time of liquid feed preparation and delivery (UNFER) or allowed to ferment with DDGS (1 to 7 d at 40°C; 16% DM; FER). Diets were composed of a common base supplement for each of three phases (P; d 0 to 7, 7 to 20, 20 to 42), mixed with DDGS (7.5 (P1), 16.25 (P2), and 25 (P3) % of DM) and water (25% DM). Pigs were separated into two rooms according to initial body weight (BWi; heavy (HBW, 7.6 ± 0.8 kg) or light (LBW, 5.8 ± 0.6 kg)). The study was a randomized block design with results presented as lsmeans ± SEM (FER vs. UNFER, respectively). Owing to a BWi by diet interaction (P < 0.05), data were analyzed separately for the two BWi groups (4 pens/BWi and dietary treatment, 14 pigs/pen). To obtain uniform final BW, LBW pigs were fed P3 diets until d 48. On d 42, pH and organic acid concentration were determined in ileal digesta pooled from 2 pigs/pen. Complete liquid FER diet (n = 9) had higher content of lactic acid (42.6 ± 17.4 vs. 17.6 ± 1.4 mM) and acetic acid (55.3 ± 37.1 vs. 3.9 ± 0.7 mM) than the UNFER diet (n = 3). Overall, there were no differences (P > 0.10) in ADG (424 vs. 424 ± 14 g/d for HBW and 404 ± 15 vs. 386 ± 12 g/d for LBW) and DMI (605 vs. 581 ± 16 g/d for HBW and 540 ± 19 vs. 509 ± 16 g/d for LBW). For d 42 to 48, LBW pigs fed FER had greater ADG (941 ± 60 vs. 773 ± 52 g/d, P < 0.05), resulting in higher end BW (25.8 ± 0.5 vs. 24.5 ± 0.4 kg, P < 0.05). In digesta, total organic acid concentration and pH did not differ between treatments (P > 0.10). Digesta fermentation patterns (% of total organic acids), however, differed with FER increasing n-butyric acid (15.0 vs. 1.0 ± 3.8%, P = 0.04) and tending to lower lactic acid (30.0 vs. 47.1 ± 6.9%, P = 0.06) within HBW, while within LBW, FER tended to increase acetic acid (53.7 ± 7.4 vs. 31.1 ± 6.4%, P = 0.07). FER benefited LBW pigs late in the nursery period, altering the gut metabolome, possibly due to soluble fiber hydrolysis and improved gut development in pigs potentially compromised by low weaning BW.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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