MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2743173586 · doi:10.2527/asasann.2017.250

250 Muscle amino acid composition of pigs is influenced by the feeding system and amino acid intake

2017· article· en· W2743173586 on OpenAlexaff
Aline Remus, M.P. Létourneau Montminy, Luciano Hauschild, C. Pomar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThreonineLysineLongissimus dorsiAnimal scienceComposition (language)Amino acidLongissimus muscleChemistryBiologyFood scienceBiochemistrySerine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pigs fed individually with daily tailored diets (PF: precision feeding) may respond differently to amino acid (AA) supply compared to pigs fed under conventional group-phase feeding (GF) systems. The response of growing pigs in PF and GF systems fed with different levels of threonine (70%, 85%, 100%, 115%, and 130% of the ideal threonine-to-lysine ratio of 0.65) was studied in a 21-d experiment. A total of 110 pigs of 25 (±0.8) kg BW were housed in the same pen and fed using electronic feeders. Individual pigs were the experimental unit. Five out of eleven pigs per treatment were slaughtered to obtain organs and muscle composition. The chemical composition of the longissimus dorsi and the pool of other carcass muscles were estimated by near-infrared transmittance, and AA were analyzed by gas chromatography. Data were analyzed by SAS mixed model procedures in a 2 × 5 factorial arrangement. Threonine intake increased linearly (P < 0.05) with increasing dietary Thr levels for PF (6.28 to 11.76 g/d) and GF pigs (6.85 to 11.01 g/d). Lysine intake was similar (12.5 g/d) across treatments. Dietary Thr supply did not affect longissimus dorsi CP concentration but increased Thr concentration (g/100 g of CP) in a quadratic manner in PF pigs without effect on GF pigs (interaction P < 0.05). Threonine concentrations in the muscle pool presented an interaction between feeding system and Thr level as it changed in a cubic manner (4.56 to 4.38 g; P < 0.05) in PF and GF pigs. Muscle pool CP concentration was greater for GF than PF pigs (18.06% vs. 17.79%; P = 0.05) and tended (P < 0.10) to increase linearly with increasing Thr levels in both systems. Threonine concentrations (g/100 g of CP) in the small intestine (4.62 g) and liver (4.41 g) were similar across dietary Thr levels, confirming that these organs have priority over muscles under Thr restriction. However, Thr liver concentration tended (P < 0.10) to be greater in PF than GF pigs (4.44 vs. 4.39 g), showing that AA retention in organs may be more efficient in PF than GF pigs. Threonine restriction can, therefore, modify longissimus dorsi AA composition based on the AA intake. However, muscles respond differently to dietary Thr supply, and, under restriction, organs seem to be prioritized over muscles. These results indicate that feeding systems can affect the way pigs use Thr.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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