MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210730063 · doi:10.1093/jas/skab309

Effects of neutral detergent fiber digestibility estimation method on calculated energy concentration of canola meals from twelve Canadian processing plants

2021· article· en· W3210730063 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
José Arce, Eduardo Marostegan de Paula, João Luiz Pratti Daniel, Lorrayny Galoro da Silva, G.A. Broderick, A.P. Faciola

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanola Council of Canada
KeywordsNeutral Detergent FiberCanolaDigestion (alchemy)Dry matterAnimal scienceChemistryNutrientFiberIn situAgronomyFood scienceBiologyChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our aim was to determine whether the method used to estimate truly digestible neutral detergent fiber (tdNDF) affects calculated concentrations of total digestible nutrients (TDN1x) and net energy of lactation (NEL3x) of canola meal (CM). Samples were collected from 12 CM processing plants in Canada over 4 yr (2011 to 2014, n = 47) and analyzed for dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), ether extract (EE), ash, neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), lignin (ADL), and neutral detergent insoluble CP (NDICP). Ruminal in situ incubation of CM samples was performed at 0, 24, 48, 96, and 288 h to determine NDF fractions (A, B, and C), effective ruminal NDF digestibility (ERNDFD), and indigestible NDF (iNDF) of CM. Three tdNDF-estimation methods were evaluated: 1) National Research Council (NRC) = 0.75 × (NDF - NDICP - ADL) × {1- [ADL/ (NDF - NDICP)]0.667}; 2) iNDF = 0.75 × (NDF - NDICP - NDF remaining after 288 h in situ); and 3) ERNDFD estimated from in situ NDF digestion kinetics. Resulting tdNDF values were used for calculation of TDN1x and NEL3x according to NRC (2001) equations. Data were analyzed with MIXED procedure of SAS 9.4 to determine the effect of processing plant on chemical composition, NDF degradation kinetics and NEL3x of CM. Effect of tdNDF estimation method on calculated TDN1x and NEL3x of CM was also evaluated. Model for analysis of processing plant included the fixed effect of plant and the random effect of year (plant) as replication, while analysis of tdNDF methods included the fixed effect of tdNDF estimation method and the random effects of processing plant and of year(plant) as replication. There was an effect of processing plant on DM (P = 0.03), CP (P < 0.01), EE (P < 0.01), and NDF (P < 0.01) of CM. Processing plant also had an effect on NDF fractions A (P < 0.01) and B (P = 0.02) but did not affect fraction C and ERNDFD. The tdNDF estimation method had an effect on tdNDF (P < 0.01), TDN1x (P < 0.01), and NEL3x (P < 0.01) of CM, yielding average NEL3x values of 1.72, 1.87, and 2.07 Mcal/kg for NRC, iNDF, and ERNDFD, respectively. Our results indicate that calculated energy concentration of CM according to NRC (2001) equations varies depending on the method used for estimation of tdNDF. Further research will be needed to determine the most accurate estimation method.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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