MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2550232089 · doi:10.2527/msasas2016-197

197 Diet nutrient digestibility and growth performance of weaned pigs fed chickpea

2016· article· en· W2550232089 on OpenAlexaff
Y. K. Han, L. F. Wang, E. Beltranena, R. T. Zijlstra

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRabbits: Nutrition, Reproduction, Health
Canadian institutionsAlberta Ministry of Agriculture and ForestryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMealNutrientSoybean mealAnimal scienceBiologyFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using alternative feedstuffs to replace soybean meal (SBM) and cereal grains in swine diets is economically important for pork producers. Chickpea may serve as an alternative source of protein and energy; however, little information is available regarding its dietary inclusion for weaned pigs. The effects of increasing dietary inclusion of chickpea by substituting SBM and wheat grain on nutrient digestibility and growth performance of young pigs were evaluated. Three hundred pigs (initial body weight 9.6 kg) weaned at 20 ± 1 d of age and housed in pens with 4 pigs were involved. Pigs were fed a SBM diet or diets with 7.5, 15, 22.5, or 30% Kabuli chickpea in substitution for up to 20% SBM and 10% wheat grain for 3 wk starting 2 wk postweaning. The chickpea sample contained (DM basis) 23.9% CP, 4.7% ADF, 5.2 mg/g trypsin inhibitor activity, and 0.4% tannin. Diets were formulated to provide 2.34 Mcal NE/kg and 5.1 g standard ileal digestible (SID) Lys/Mcal NE and were steam-pelleted. Increasing dietary inclusion of chickpea quadratically increased (P < 0.001) diet apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of DM and GE by up to 2.5%-units, quadratically increased (P < 0.001) DE and predicted NE value by up to 0.13 and 0.21 Mcal/kg, respectively, but quadratically reduced (P < 0.001) ATTD of CP by 4.6%-units. Overall (d 1–21), increasing dietary chickpea quadratically increased (P < 0.05) ADFI, quadratically increased then decreased (P < 0.001) ADG, and quadratically decreased (P < 0.001) G:F and final BW. Pigs fed 15% chickpea had increased ADFI by 66 g/d and ADG by 55 g/d, but similar G:F and increased final body weight compared with pigs fed diet with 0% chickpea. In conclusion, increasing inclusion of up to 30% chickpea in diets for weaned pigs reduced growth performance. Dietary inclusion of 15% chickpea increased feed intake and growth performance of weaned pigs and sustained feed efficiency.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicRabbits: Nutrition, Reproduction, HealthFrench-language works237,207