MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402533661 · doi:10.1093/jas/skae234.665

PSVIII-13 A comparison of biochar and activated charcoal as feed additives to prevent boar taint

2024· article· en· W4402533661 on OpenAlexaff
Melissa Parent, Christine Bone, E. James Squires

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiocharActivated charcoalCharcoalChemistryActivated carbonBoar taintFood scienceAnimal scienceAgronomyPyrolysisBiologyOrganic chemistryAdsorption

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Boar taint is a urine or feces-like odor that occurs when meat from entire male pigs is heated and is caused primarily by the deposition of androstenone in the fat. Androstenone is thought to circulate in the body similarly to sex steroids; this may facilitate the recirculation of androstenone to the liver or systemic circulation for deposition in the fat. Previous studies from our lab concluded that feeding activated charcoal (AC) can reduce the accumulation of androstenone in fat. However, this is not a practical solution as AC is expensive and not approved for use in livestock feed. Biochar is a charcoal-based adsorbent that is approved as a feed additive and has similar physical binding properties to AC, such as high porosity and large surface area. Our in vitro binding studies showed similar binding efficiency between AC and biochar for androstenone; however, the efficacy of biochar for reducing boar taint has not been assessed in vivo. Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of biochar and AC as dietary treatments for reducing fat androstenone concentrations. Beginning at 71.3 ± 1.3 kg, [(Yorkshire x Landrace) x Duroc] boars (n = 34) were acclimated to a standard corn and soybean meal-based finisher diet, for 1 wk. Animals were then randomly assigned to a finisher diet containing 5% AC (n = 17) or 5% biochar (n = 17) for 4 wk, followed by a 2-wk recovery period on the standard finisher diet. Backfat biopsies were performed bi-weekly and fat androstenone concentrations were quantified using an androstenone-specific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. All animals were evaluated on the change in fat androstenone concentrations quantified at the end of the treatment and recovery period. Boars with increased fat androstenone concentrations at the end of recovery were classified as having a positive response to the treatment. Statistical analysis was performed using a Student’s t-test to evaluate differences in fat androstenone concentrations between the end of treatment and recovery periods in animals with positive treatment responses. Fat androstenone concentrations at the end of treatment were 1.721 ± 0.152 μg/mL and 1.431 ± 0.412 μg/mL for AC (n = 9) and biochar (n = 6), respectively; these values significantly increased to 5.475 ± 0.804 μg/mL (P = 0.0003) for AC and 3.924 ± 0.586 μg/mL (P = 0.004) for biochar at the end of recovery. Moreover, concentrations of androstenone in the fat at the end of treatment and recovery were similar between AC and biochar treatments. These findings demonstrate that biochar can decrease fat androstenone concentrations in some mature boars, with comparable efficacy to that of AC. However, additional work is needed to identify biomarkers associated with positive treatment responses so that biochar can be provided in a targeted manner to boars that will respond favorably.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207