Nutritional Evaluation of Pulses and Soybean Meal in Dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Six adult Labrador dogs were used in this experiment to evaluate total tract apparent nutrient digestibility and energy values of some protein feedstuffs. Seven digestibility trials were conducted. The 30% of basal diet was replaced with test ingredient which included one conventional feed ingredient i.e. soybean (Glycine max) meal (SBM) and five pulses (black-eyed pea or roongi (Vigna unguiculata), red lentil or masoor (Lens culinaris) dhuli, moong (Vigna radiata) dhuli, split bengal gram or chana (Cicer arietinum) dal and split black gram or urad (Vigna mungo) dhuli dal). The prepared mash diets were cooked and then fed to each dog as per their body weight and nutrient requirement. The difference/substitution method was used to estimate total tract apparent nutrient digestibility and energy values of these six protein ingredients. The DM, OM, CP, EE digestibility of masoor dhuli dal was significantly (P<0.05) higher than all other protein ingredients. The digestibility of DM, CP, EE, CF and DE in SBM was similar to that in masoor dhuli dal, however, ME value of masoor dhuli dal was higher (P<0.05) than that of SBM. The ME value of chana dal and mung dhuli dal was similar to that of SBM. It was concluded that masoor dhuli dal could be used as an effective protein source in dog diets.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".