MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308480420 · doi:10.3390/agriculture12111860

Growth Performance, Carcass and Pork Quality Traits of Growing-Finishing Pigs with High and Low Breeding Values for Residual Feed Intake Fed Diets with Macauba (Acrocomia aculeata) Pulp as Alternative Raw Material

2022· article· en· W4308480420 on OpenAlexaff
Vinícius Eduardo Moreira, Renata Veroneze, Alysson Saraiva, Márcio de Souza Duarte, Simone Eliza Facioni Guimarães, Marcos S. Lopes, J.W.M. Bastiaansen, Gabryele A. Santos, Lorena Duarte Campos, Paulo Henrique Reis Furtado Campos

Bibliographic record

VenueAgriculture · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoMinistério da Ciência, Tecnologia e InovaçãoNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsBiologyAnimal scienceFeed conversion ratioPulp (tooth)Food scienceBody weightMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluated the effects of dietary macauba pulp on the growth performance, carcass, and pork traits of growing-finishing pigs; and whether differences in residual feed intake breeding values could influence the pigs’ growth responses to macauba pulp inclusion in the diet. A total of 282 (34.8 ± 4.40 kg) pigs (barrows and females), progeny of sires with high (HRFI) or low (LRFI) breeding value for residual feed intake, were pair-housed on the basis of sex, breeding value, and initial BW. Diets with (macauba) or without (control) of 50 g/kg of macauba pulp inclusion were randomly assigned to the experimental pens. There were eight treatment groups: HRFI barrows were fed the control diet; HRFI barrows were fed the macauba diet; LRFI barrows were fed the control diet; LRFI barrows were fed the macauba diet; HRFI female pigs were fed the control diet; HRFI female pigs were fed the macauba diet; LRFI female pigs were fed the control diet; and LRFI female pigs were fed the macauba diet. The trial lasted 90 days and was divided into four phases: growing phase 1 (G1) and 2 (G2); and finishing phases 1 (F1) and 2 (F2). There was no interaction between sex, breeding value, and diet for performance, carcass, and pork traits. Barrows had higher feed intake (ADFI), daily gain (ADG), feed conversion rate (FCR), and final body weight than female pigs. The breeding value had no effect on performance measurements. The inclusion of macauba pulp in the pigs’ diets did not affect any growth parameter during G1, G2 and F1 phases. However, reduced ADFI and improved FCR were observed in F2. Female pigs had lower backfat thickness (BF) and higher loin eye area (LEA) than barrows. HRFI pigs had higher hot carcass weight and LEA, and lower BF than LRFI pigs. There was no effect of macauba pulp inclusion on carcass traits. Pork from barrows presented lower Warner–Bratzler shear force and higher fat content than pork from the females. There was no effect of breeding value on pork traits. Pork from pigs fed the macauba diet showed lower moisture content and water-holding capacity. In conclusion, macauba pulp can partially replace corn without reducing the performance of pigs. Regardless of sex and breeding value for RFI, pigs responded similarly to macauba pulp inclusion in diets.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgricultureSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207