MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2805657222 · doi:10.1139/cjas-2017-0170

Effects of dried citrus pulp and fermented medicinal plants on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, blood characteristics, and meat quality in growing–finishing pigs

2018· article· en· W2805657222 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xin Jian Lei, Yong‐Min Kim, In Ho Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulp (tooth)NutrientFeed conversion ratioLongissimus muscleBiologyAnimal scienceCholesterolFood scienceBody weightMedicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present experiment was conducted to determine the effects of dried citrus pulp and fermented medicinal plants in growing–finishing pigs. A total of 96 pigs (62.34 ± 1.96 kg body weight) were randomly allotted into three dietary treatments: (1) control, basal diet (CON); (2) diet containing 10% dried citrus pulp (DCP); (3) diet containing 10% dried citrus pulp supplemented with 0.1% fermented medicinal plants (DCPFMP). From weeks 0 to 5 and 0 to 10, pigs fed the DCPFMP diet had significantly decreased (P < 0.05) average daily feed intake and increased (P < 0.05) gain:feed ratio compared with those fed the CON diet. The apparent total tract digestibility of gross energy was greater (P < 0.05), and serum total cholesterol concentration was decreased (P < 0.05) for pigs fed the DCPFMP diet compared with those fed the DCP diet in week 10. In addition, an increase (P < 0.05) in Longissimus muscle area was observed for pigs fed the DCPFMP diet compared with those fed the CON diet. In conclusion, supplementation with fermented medicinal plants in a diet containing 10% dried citrus pulp improved growth performance and Longissimus muscle area and lowered serum low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and total cholesterol concentrations.

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 score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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