Effect of dietary almond hull on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, fecal microbial, fecal score, and noxious gas emission in growing pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a 42-day study, 195 growing pigs (Landrace × Yorkshire × Duroc) weighing 23.83 ± 1.95 kg were randomly divided into three treatments, each with 13 replicates and 5 pigs (3 barrows and 2 gilts) per pen. The treatments were control (CON)—basal diet, and basal diet with 3% and 6% almond hull as treatment (TRT) 1 and 2, respectively. The results show a significant increase ( p < 0.05) in average daily gain (ADG) and average daily feed intake (ADFI) for both treatment 1 and treatment 2 by week 6 when compared to the control group. This improvement in ADG and ADFI exhibits a consistent trend ( p < 0.10) throughout the overall trial period in comparison to the control group. Additionally, there is a tendency for enhanced gain-to-feed ratio (G:F) at the end of week 6 ( p < 0.10) in comparison to the control group and remained constant ( p > 0.05). No significant impact ( p > 0.05) on nutrient digestibility and fecal microbiota was observed. However, NH 3 gas showed a tendency to decrease ( p < 0.10). Results suggested that almond hulls could improve growth and reduce ammonia gas without adverse effects on digestion, microbiota, and fecal score.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".