MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205573172 · doi:10.1093/jas/skab306

Hindgut fermentation of starch is greater for pulse grains than cereal grains in growing pigs

2021· article· en· W3205573172 on OpenAlexafffund
Felina Tan, Li‐Fang Wang, Jun Gao, E. Beltranena, Thava Vasanthan, R. T. Zijlstra

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSwine Innovation Porc
KeywordsStarchLatin squareField peaAmyloseDigestion (alchemy)Food scienceAgronomyChemistryDry matterResistant starchFermentationAnimal scienceBiologySativumRumen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nutritive value of starch, the major source of dietary energy in pigs, varies depending on its susceptibility for digestion. The botanical origin of starch determines starch structure, and therefore, digestibility. To compare digestibility of starch, fiber, gross energy (GE), crude protein, and amino acid (AA), and to characterize undigested starch of grains in growing pigs, seven ileal-cannulated barrows (initial body weight, 30 kg) were fed six diets containing 96% of one of six test ingredients (three pulse grains: zero-tannin faba bean, green field pea, or mixed-cultivar chickpea; three cereal grains: hulled barley, hard red spring wheat, or hybrid yellow, dent corn), or a N-free diet in a 7 × 7 Latin square at 2.8 × maintenance digestible energy. Grain samples were ground with a hammer mill through a 2.78-mm screen. Amylose content ranged from 29% to 34% for pulse grains and from 22% to 25% for cereal grains. The apparent ileal digestibility (AID) of starch was greater (P < 0.05) in cereal (94% to 97%) than pulse grains (85% to 90%) and was lowest (P < 0.05) in faba bean (85.3%) followed by field pea (87.2%) and chickpea (90.1%). However, apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of starch of all tested grains was close to 100%. Apparent hindgut fermentability (AHF, as ATTD - AID) of starch was greater (P < 0.05) in pulse grains (9.9% to 15%) than cereal grains (3.3% to 4.8%). The AHF of total dietary fiber tended to be the greatest (P < 0.10) for corn (43.5%) and lowest for wheat (25.3%). The AHF of GE was greater (P < 0.05) in pulse grains (17% to 20%) than in cereal grains (9% to 11%) and resulted in greater (P < 0.05) digestible energy (DE) contribution from hindgut fermentation for pulse grains than cereal grains (0.9 vs. 0.5 Mcal/kg). Wheat had the greatest standardized ileal digestibility of total AA (90.2%; P < 0.05). Confocal laser scanning microscopy images revealed that 20% to 30% of starch granules of pulse grains were entrapped in protein matrixes. In scanning electron microscopy images, starch granules were larger in faba bean and field pea than cereal grains. Digesta samples revealed pin holes and surface cracks in starch granules of corn and wheat, respectively. In conclusion, hindgut fermentation of starch and fiber was greater in pulse grains than cereal grains resulting in a greater DE value despite lower ileal DE for pulse grain than cereal grains. Defining the digestible and fermentable fractions of starch may enhance the accuracy of equations to predict the net energy value of these feedstuffs.

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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207