MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2597550846 · doi:10.2527/asasmw.2017.082

082 Growth performance responses of growing pigs when fed corn-soybean meal diets with corn DDGS treated with fiber degrading enzymes with or without extended steeping

2017· article· en· W2597550846 on OpenAlexaff
Youngji Rho, Kory Moran, D. Wey, Cui Zhu, M. C. Walsh, Elijah G. Kiarie, E. van Heugten, C. F. M. de Lange

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSteepingSoybean mealMealFood scienceBiologyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Steeping high fiber ingredients like DDGS with carbohydrases may potentially improve their feeding value. We investigated growth performance of growing pigs fed diets containing DDGS treated with a blend of β-glucanase and xylanase (XB) with or without extended steeping. Treatments were 1) corn- soybean meal based diet with 30% DDGS (C), 2) C + XB without steeping (XBNS), and 3) C + XB with the DDGS steeped with XB (16% DM) for 3 to 8 d at 40°C (XBS). All diets had phytase (750 FTU/kg) and met nutrient requirements for growing pigs. The target activities for XB were 1050 and 5500 U/g of DDGS for β-glucanase and xylanase, respectively. Samples were taken during DDGS steeping and at feeding for pH analyses. A total of 144 pigs (25 kg BW) were assigned to pens (3 barrows and 3 gilts) based on initial weight and allocated to the three treatments in a 2-phase feeding program (3-wk/phase). Diets were delivered by computer controlled liquid feeding system at a feed to water ratio of 1:4, four times per day. Pigs had free access to water. At the end of the experiment, 1 pig per pen was sacrificed for gastrointestinal measurements. The average pH of steeped DDGS on d 0, 1, 3, 5, and 8 was 4.42, 3.65, 3.86, 3.89, and 3.92, respectively. The pH of diets at feeding time was lower (P < 0.01) for XBS (4.7) compared to C and XBNS (5.5). Pigs fed XBNS had higher (P = 0.02) ADG than C in phase 1 and in phase 2. Overall ADG was higher (P < 0.05) for XBNS than XBS, while pigs receiving C were similar to XBS pigs. There were no effects (P > 0.05) on ADFI throughout the experiment. However, pigs fed XBS had numerically lower ADFI in phase 1 (−4.0%) and phase 2 (−5.2%) relative to XBNS pigs. Pigs receiving XBNS (1.68) and XBS (1.69) had better feed:gain (P = 0.001) than C (1.78) during phase 1. Treatments did not influence (P > 0.05) empty gastrointestinal weight. In conclusion, treating DDGS with XB with or without steeping resulted in improved feed efficiency for the first 3 wk, suggesting degradation by XB of dietary fibrous components that may limit nutrient utilization in younger pigs. Supplementation with XB improved ADG when DDGS were not steeped; however, steeping appeared to reduce feed intake, resulting in poorer ADG.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.266
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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