PSVI-12 Evaluation of amino acid digestibility in several feed ingredients fed to growing pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This experiment aimed to determine the apparent ileal digestibility (AID) and standardized ileal digestibility (SID) of CP and AA in common feed ingredients fed to pigs: two sources of soybean meal, two sources of high-fat rice bran, one wheat middlings and one wheat. Six diets were formulated containing one of the above ingredients as the only source of protein and AA. An N-free diet was formulated to assess basal endogenous losses of CP and AA. Titanium dioxide (0.4%) was used in diets as an indigestible marker. Eight barrows (BW: 35.2 ± 1.9 kg) fitted with T-cannulas at the distal ileum were randomly allotted to an 8 x 8 Latin square design with 8 diets and 8 periods. A standard grower diet was used as the eighth diet. Pigs were fed for eight 7-d periods and ileal digesta was collected on d 6 and 7 of each period. Results showed that SID of CP between the two soybean meals (87.2 ± 8.1% vs 88.4 ± 5.7%) and two high-fat rice brans (77.1 ± 4.9% vs 75.8 ± 7.6%) were not different. Averages of SID for CP in wheat middlings and wheat were 63.1 ± 8.3% and 91.2 ± 3.3%, respectively. Differences were detected (P < 0.01) for AID and SID of indispensable AA between the two high-fat rice brans, but not the two soybean meals. The AID and SID of dispensable AA except Glu and Pro were different (P < 0.05) between the two high-fat rice brans. The SID of indispensable AA ranged from 50.1% for Lys to 72.8 % for Met in wheat middlings, and from 81.0% for Lys to 89.4% for Met in wheat. In conclusion, the AID and SID of CP and AA in soybean meals were similar, but differed between the two high-fat rice brans.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".