MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2739197257 · doi:10.2527/jas.2017.1478

Effects of steeped or fermented distillers dried grains with solubles on growth performance in weanling pigs1

2017· article· en· W2739197257 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Wiseman, B.W. McBride, Junfei Li, D. Wey, Julia Zhu, 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
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsDistillers grainsFood scienceMicrobial inoculantChemistryFermentationSoybean mealSilageBiologyInoculationHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coproduct feeding value may be improved by enzyme and microbial inoculant treatment in liquid diets. Three experiments were conducted to assess growth performance in newly weaned 20-d-old pigs fed corn- and soybean meal-based diets with untreated, steeped, or partially fermented distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS) from day of weaning. In Exp. 1, conventionally dry fed diets with untreated DDGS (DDGS) or without DDGS (Control) were fed. In Exp. 2, liquid diets (25% DM [75% moisture]) were fed with enzymes (β-glucanase and xylanase at 67.2 and 51.4 U/g DDGS, respectively) added to dry DDGS at the time of liquid feeding (UNSTP) or steeped with DDGS and added to liquid feed from d 5 to 12 of each batch prior to liquid feeding (STP). In Exp. 1 and 2 DDGS inclusion levels were 7.5% in phase 1 (d 0 to 7) and 25% in phase 2 (d 7 to 21) and phase 3 (d 21 to 35). In Exp. 3 liquid diets were fed with the Exp. 2 enzymes and silage inoculant (360,000 combined cfu and /g DDGS) added to dry DDGS at the time of liquid feeding (UNFER) or fermented with DDGS and added to liquid feed from d 1 to 7 of each batch before liquid feeding (FER). The inclusion levels of DDGS were 7.5% in phase 1 (d 0 to 7), 16.25% in phase 2 (d 7 to 21), and 25% in phase 3 (d 21 to 42 or 48). Experiment 3 diets were fed to light (LBW; 5.8 ± 0.6 kg) or heavy (HBW; 7.6 ± 0.8 kg) BW pigs at weaning, and results were analyzed separately. Pig BW and ADFI were measured weekly in each experiment. In Exp. 1, feeding diets with DDGS depressed ( < 0.05) ADFI on d 7 to 21 (491 vs. 375 ± 21 g DM/pig) and d 0 to 35 (456 vs. 405 ± 13 g DM/pig). In Exp. 2 growth performance was not affected. In Exp. 3 ADFI of HBW pigs was not affected. The HBW pigs fed FER had lower ( < 0.05) ADG and G:F on d 7 to 21 (323 vs. 264 ± 15 g/pig and 0.86 vs. 0.72 ± 0.02 g:g, respectively) and lower ( < 0.05) BW on d 21 (12.4 vs. 11.6 ± 0.2 kg) compared with HBW pigs fed UNFER. The LBW pigs fed FER had lower ( < 0.05) ADFI on d 0 to 7 and 7 to 21 (190 vs. 168 ± 3 and 318 vs. 273 ± 13 g DM/pig, respectively) and had greater ( < 0.05) ADG on d 42 to 48 (773 vs. 941 ± 60 g/pig) and BW on d 48 (24.5 vs. 25.8 ± 0.5 kg) compared with LBW pigs fed UNFER. Results show that up to 25% DDGS inclusion in weaning pig diets did not affect overall growth performance. Liquid-fed partially fermented DDGS had an influence on the growth performance of weanling pigs, particularly during the extended nursery period of pigs of light weaning weight in this study.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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