Effect of oat particle size on energy and nutrient utilization in growing pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experiment was conducted to determine the energy content of oats and to investigate the effects of oat particle size on nutrient and energy balance in growing pigs. Eighteen barrows (23.56 ± 0.94 kg initial body weight) were randomly assigned to one of the three dietary treatments with six replicates per treatment. Whole oats were ground with a hammermill fitted with 4.8- and 3.2-mm screens to make coarse and medium particle size oats, respectively. Medium oats were further ground with a rotary steel cutting grinder fitted with a 2.0-mm screen, and the further ground oats were mixed with medium oats in a 1:3 ratio to make fine oats. Three experimental diets consisted of 96.3% of the coarse, medium, or fine oats as a sole source of energy were used. Pigs were fed diets for 16 d, including 10 d for adaptation and 6 d for total fecal and urine collection. Pigs were then moved into indirect calorimetry chambers to determine 24-h heat production and 12-h fasting heat production. All data were analyzed using the MIXED procedure of SAS with the individual pig as the experimental unit. The geometric mean particle sizes for coarse, medium, and fine oats were 765, 619, and 569 μm, respectively. Pigs fed the medium oats diet tended to have (P < 0.10) greater apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of starch, neutral detergent fiber, and gross energy than those fed coarse oats diet. The medium oats diet contained greater (P < 0.05) digestible energy (DE), metabolizable energy (ME), and net energy (NE) than the coarse oats diet. Pigs fed the fine oats diet had lower (P < 0.05) ATTD of Ca and P than those fed the coarse oats diet. The DE, ME, and NE contents of fine oats were comparable with those of coarse oats. The determined NE contents for coarse, medium, and fine oats were 2,335, 2,615, and 2,521 kcal/kg on a dry matter basis, respectively. The NE content in medium oats was greater (P < 0.05) than the NE values predicted using published equations. In conclusion, it was suggested to grind whole oats for 619 μm concerning energy utilization. Further grinding to 569 μm reduces Ca and P digestibility.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".