Assessing the effect of ingredients variability on the composition of the final complete feed for swine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To characterize the variability of 11 feed ingredients and their impact on the final feed, 728 ingredient samples were collected during 5 months in a feed-plant and were analyzed by near-infrared spectrophotometry (NIRS). Six diets for fattening pigs and gestating sows were formulated using regional information of ingredient chemical composition (reference): LIM, limited; EU, common European; and MULT, multi-ingredient; respectively, including 5, 7, and 10 ingredients. The formulas were replicated 15 times using actual chemical composition (NIRS) from three samples per ingredient and month. This theoretical procedure was validated through small-scale manufacturing 30 LIM-diets, which samples were proximal (PA) and NIRS analyzed for dry matter and crude protein (CP) contents. Those mixtures were also PA analyzed. The ingredients showed coefficient of variation (CV %) higher for crude fiber (CF) (2.6%–18.3%) than CP (2.0%–9.3%). Comparing all diets for all chemical components, variability was reduced when including more ingredients from 0.5%–5.5% to 0.3%–2.6% CV. In most cases, the actual chemical composition of the diets underestimated their reference formula (1.3%–10.8%, CP and CF). A deviation from the targeted diet occurs if variability is not regarded. Therefore, a proper method to predict ingredient composition and nutritional value before use may increase the accuracy of diet formulation between 2% and 10%.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".