MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2745202330 · doi:10.2527/asasann.2017.242

242 Performance response of piglets to acid-preserved high moisture wheat or barley as an alternative to in-feed acidification

2017· article· en· W2745202330 on OpenAlexaff
Danilo J Marcos Sotto, A. D. Beaulieu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhosphoric acidAnimal scienceMoisturePhytaseWeanlingPhytic acidChemistryFood scienceFactorial experimentAgronomyBiologyPhosphorus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two experiments were conducted to compare the effectiveness of acidified high moisture wheat or barley in the diet of weanling pigs as an alternative to in-feed acidification. Wheat and barley were stored for 34 and 38 days, respectively, following reconstitution to 20% moisture and the addition of the appropriate acid (propionic acid or a commercial acidifier with 30–50% phosphoric acid). Weight loss of galvanized and carbon steel coupons, embedded in the acidified grain, was used to estimate corrosion rate. Trial 1 (wheat) and trial 2 (barley) used 160 and 90 pigs, respectively (weaned at 21 ± 2 days, 6.50 to 6.70 kg BW, housed 4 pigs/pen). Pigs were fed stage 1 and 2 treatment diets from day 0 to 7 and 8 to 21, respectively, and a common commercial diet from day 22 to 35. The treatments in trial 1, arranged as a 2 × 2 factorial, were type of acid (propionic or phosphoric) and application method (wheat preservation or diet supplementation) plus a negative control (5 treatments). The 3 treatments in trial 2 were phosphoric acid applied either as barley preservation or diet supplementation, plus a negative control. Mold was observed on phosphoric acid-preserved wheat and barley (7,000 and 820,000 cfu/gram, respectively); however, mycotoxin levels were below acceptable limits. During storage, the pH of phosphoric acid-preserved wheat and barley increased from 4.27 to 5.72 and 4.60 to 5.47, respectively, while the pH of propionic acid-preserved wheat increased from 4.56 to 4.85. In trial 1, treatment had no effect on ADG or ADFI (P > 0.05), but G:F (0.78 negative control vs 0.84 propionic acid) was improved in stage 2 in pigs fed diets with propionic acid, regardless of application method (P < 0.05). Treatment had no effect on ADG, ADFI, or G:F in trial 2 (P > 0.05). Corrosion rate was higher with propionic than phosphoric acid on carbon steel but not galvanized steel (acid × coupon interaction, P < 0.05). Regardless of acid, a higher corrosion rate was observed on galvanized steel than carbon steel (P < 0.05). In conclusion, propionic acid addition to weanling pig diets improved G:F, and wheat preserved with propionic acid provided comparable feed efficiency benefits to diet supplementation with the acid. Phosphoric acid in wheat or barley-based diets did not affect piglet performance and requires further investigation as a grain preservative. Furthermore, a higher corrosion rate can be expected if propionic acid preserved grains are stored in bins made of galvanized steel.

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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Science→Same topicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology→French-language works237,207→