MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402396584 · doi:10.5539/jas.v16n10p1

The Use of Pomace as Animal Feed: A Review of Grape and Tomato Pomace

2024· review· en· W4402396584 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nathaniel Ogunkunle, Njideka O. Adeniyi, Monya Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBee Products Chemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPomaceFood scienceBiotechnologyAnimal feedAnimal healthPolyphenolAnimal nutritionAntioxidantBiologyAgronomyAnimal science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pomace is generated in large quantities yearly; high water content and bulkiness make it difficult to be easily disposed of thereby contributing to environmental pollution and providing breeding space for flies which can transmit diseases. Incorporating the pomace generated from grape and tomato fruits in animal nutrition will improve sustainable agriculture; the animals will also benefit from the polyphenols in the pomace which can improve their antioxidant status thereby improving animal health and welfare. Pomace consists of unfermentable sugars, tannins, anthocyanins, lycopene, and cellulose which have natural antioxidants, anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial properties. This review focused on the utilization of grape and tomato pomace as feedstuff for animals, the knowledge gap in the use of pomace in animal nutrition was also outlined. Supplementation of pomace generated from grape and tomato was evaluated on animal growth and reproductive performance, health, oxidative stress, animal products and gut health. In conclusion, incorporating agro-industrial byproducts into animal diet can be beneficial to farm animals by improving their health, welfare, performance as well as the environment, thereby leading to a more sustainable agricultural practice.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicBee Products Chemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207