MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2529824336 · doi:10.2527/jas.2015-9736

Digestibility responses of growing pigs fed corn plus corn distiller grains or wheat plus wheat coproduct-based diets without or with supplemental xylanase

2016· article· en· W2529824336 on OpenAlexaff
Elijah G. Kiarie, M. C. Walsh, L.F. Romero, S. K. Baidoo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoproductAgronomyDistillers grainsXylanaseBiologyAnimal scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We evaluated efficacy of xylanase (X) on apparent ileal (AID) and total tract digestibility (ATTD) of energy, nutrients, and fiber in growing pigs fed corn- or wheat-based diets. The corn diets had 40% corn DDGS and wheat diets had 25% wheat middlings. Diets were fed without or with 2,000 X U/kg to individually housed ileal cannulated growing barrows (n=6). All diets contained phytase (500 FTU/kg) and celite (0.3%) as indigestible markers. Pigs were fed a daily amount of feed equivalent to 3% of BW, equally divided into 2 feedings at 0800 and 1600 h. The experiment lasted for 9 d: 5 d for adaptation, d 6 and 7 for fecal samples, and d 8 and 9 for ileal digesta sample collection. Interaction between diet and X was only observed for the neutral detergent fiber (NDF) digestibility such that X improved ATTD (P = 0.04) of NDF in corn diets only. Xylanase effects were observed for digestible energy (DE) such that pigs fed X had higher DE (3,732 vs. 3,644 kcal/kg, P = 0.04) that corresponded to higher AID (P < 0.05) of nitrogen and fat than non-X-fed pigs. Generally, wheat diets had higher (P < 0.05) AID of DM, nitrogen, and NDF than corn diets. Although diet type impacted digestibility, xylanase improved DE independent of diet types as a result of improved nutrients digestion in the ileum.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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