Evaluation of Dietary Inclusion of Specialty Protein Ingredients on Nursery Pig Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 1,215 pigs (PIC 337 × 1050; initially 11.0 lb body weight) were used in a 42-d growth trial to evaluate a new specialty protein blend prototype (Protein Blend, International Ingredient Corp., St. Louis, MO) on nursery growth performance. Pigs were randomly assigned to pens (27 pigs per pen) and pens were allotted by weight to 1 of 5 dietary treatments in a randomized complete block design with 9 pens per treatment. Treatments were arranged in a 2 × 2 + 1 negative control factorial arrangement with main effects of protein source (HP300, Hamlet Protein, Findlay, OH; and Protein Blend) and 2 dietary levels (5 and 10%). Treatment diets were fed in two phases for 21 days (phase 1 = d 0 to 7; phase 2 = d 7 to 21). All pigs were then fed a common phase 3 diet from d 21 to 42. For the treatment period (d 0 to 21), there was a protein source effect with pigs fed diets containing HP300 having greater (P < 0.05) average daily gain (ADG) and average daily feed intake (ADFI) and improved (P < 0.05) feed efficiency (F/G) compared to pigs fed diets containing the Protein Blend. Also, ADG and ADFI decreased (linear, P < 0.05) for pigs fed increasing levels of Protein Blend. Furthermore, pigs fed increasing levels of the Protein Blend had worse (quadratic, P = 0.050) F/G. Overall (d 0 to 42), there was a protein source effect in which pigs fed HP300 had improved (P < 0.05) ADG and tendency (P < 0.086) for improved F/G compared to pigs fed diets with the Protein Blend. Subsequent lab analysis revealed that Protein Blend was lower in crude protein and amino acids than formulated values. In summary, feeding the Protein Blend at increasing levels decreased performance compared to feeding diets containing HP300.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".