PSXII-28 Physiochemical and nutritional characteristics of the newly developed value-added blended fat stimulated feed product in comparison with commercial protein and energy feeds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objectives of this study were to determine physiochemical and nutritional characteristics of the newly developed value-added blended fat stimulated feed product (BFSFP) in comparison with commercial protein and energy feeds. The new value-added BFSFB with three-batch samples (BFSFP1, BFSFP2, BFSFP3) were developed. Barley grain (n = 3) and canola meal samples (n = 3) were obtained from Canadian Feed Research Center. Chemical composition and nutrient profiles were determined using standard feed analysis methods (e.g., AOAC, NRC-energy). The treatment design was a one-way structure. The experimental design was a CRD with feed treatments as a fixed effect. The data were analyzed using the Mixed model procedure of SAS. Tukey’s method was used for multi-treatment comparison. The results showed that compared with commercially available energy-rich and protein-rich feeds, the BFSFP had greater (P < 0.05) ether extract (EE) than both canola meal and barley grain [4.8 vs. 1.0, 1.6 % dry matter (DM), respectively]. It had decreased ash content than canola meal but greater than barley grain (P < 0.05). For protein chemical profiles, the BFSFP had less (P < 0.05) CP (31.0 vs. 41.6, 12.5%DM), SCP (4.9 vs. 9.1, 3.4% DM), and NPN (11.0 vs. 18.2, 9.2% CP) than canola meal but greater than barley grain. The BFSFP had greatest NDICP (2.6 vs. 0.9, 0.4%CP) and ADICP (0.14 vs. 0.30, 0.06%DM) than both canola meal and barley grain. For carbohydrate chemical profiles, the BFSFP had greater (P < 0.05) carbohydrate (58.1 vs. 50.4, 83.7%DM) and starch (4.5 vs. 1.3, 55.9%DM) than canola meal but less than barley grain. The BFSFP had greater (P < 0.05) NDF (42.9 vs. 28.6, 18.9%DM) and hemicellulose (27.7 vs. 10.5, 12.9%DM) than both canola meal and barley grain. The BFSFP had had less (P < 0.05) ADF (12.7 vs. 17.5, 5.7%DM) and ADL (3.0 vs. 8.0, 0.8%DM) than canola meal but greater barley grain. As to energy profle, the BFSFP had no significant difference in NE for lactation when compared with barley grain and canola meal (1.80 vs 1.93 vs. 1.69 Mcal/kg DM, P > 0.05). The BFSFP had similar in NE for growth (1.29 Mcal/kg DM) when compared with canola meal (1.29 vs. 1.20 Mcal/kg DM, P > 0.05) but less than barley (1.29 vs 1.42 Mcal/kg DM, P < 0.05). In conclusion, the newly developed blended fat stimulated feed product differed in physiochemical and nutritional characteristics in comparison with commercially available energy-rich and protein-rich feeds.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".