MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396651577 · doi:10.1093/jas/skae102.342

PSIII-18 Effects of HiPhorius and Ronozyme HiPhos on performance of nursery pigs

2024· article· en· W4396651577 on OpenAlexaff
Huyen Tran, Aileen Joy L Mercado, T L Weeden, Jon R Bergstrom, Brenda de Rodas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgribrands Purina (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the new phytase HiPhorius (encoded by a 6-phytase gene from Citrobacter braakii and expressed from Aspergillus oryzae; dsm-firmenich) compared with Ronozyme HiPhos (a 6-phytase product produced with a genetically modified strain of the filamentous fungus Aspergillus oryzae; dsm-firmenich) on performance of nursery pigs. A total of 528 weaned pigs [PIC Camborough female × PIC 337 boar; 19 d of age, initial body weight (BW) = 6.5 kg] were blocked by initial BW and gender and allotted to 48 pens which were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 dietary treatments (10 to 12 pigs/pen; 12 pens/treatment), including T1) Ronozyme HiPhos 3,000 FYT/kg, T2) HiPhorius 1,000 FYT/kg, T3) HiPhorius 1,500 FYT/kg, and T4) HiPhorius 2,000 FYT/kg. Pigs were fed a 3-phase feed-budget program, consisting of 1.4 kg/pig in Phase 1, 5.5 kg/pig in Phase 2, and Phase 3 diets fed to d 42 postweaning. Diets were formulated to be isocaloric and contained 1.41, 1.34, and 1.27% SID Lys for phase 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Phytase levels were tested at the same dose in phase 1 and 2 diets, while in phase 3, phytase levels were tested at 2,000 and 1,000 FYT/kg, respectively, for the Ronozyme HiPhos and HiPhorius treatments. During d 0-15 and d 0-22, pigs fed HiPhorius 1000 had reduced (P < 0.05) feed conversion than Ronozyme HiPhos and HiPhorius 2000. No significant treatment effects were observed on average daily gain (ADG) or average daily feed intake (ADFI) during these periods. During d 22-42, pigs fed HiPhorius 2,000 had greater ADG (P = 0.08), final BW (P = 0.09), and ADFI (P = 0.03) than HiPhorius 1,000 and Ronozyme HiPhos; however, there were no treatment effects on feed conversion. Overall (d 0 - 42), feeding HiPhorius 2,000 improved ADG compared with feeding Ronozyme HiPhos, HiPhorius 1,000, and HiPhorius 1,500 (476 vs. 458, 449, and 458 g, respectively; P = 0.07); however, similar ADFI and feed conversion were observed among treatments. Data from this study suggest that feeding HiPhorius at 2,000 FYT/kg provided greater ADG compared with feeding HiPhorius at reduced amounts or Ronozyme HiPhos. While the two sources of phytase had similar responses on nursery ADFI and feed conversion overall, feeding HiPhorius at 1,000 FYT/kg resulted in decreased feed conversion during the first 3 wk post-weaning.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.246
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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