MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402541288 · doi:10.1093/jas/skae234.189

492 Effects of particle size and protease supplementation on amino acids digestibility in peas fed to growing pigs

2024· article· en· W4402541288 on OpenAlexaff
Alicia Olivo, Jinyoung Lee, Rob Patterson, C. M. Nyachoti

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProteaseAnimal scienceAmino acidBiologyParticle sizeAgronomyChemistryFood scienceBiochemistryEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study aimed to determine the effects of particle size and protease supplementation on amino acid (AA) digestibility in peas fed to growing pigs. A total of 8 barrows (65.9 ± 5.0 kg initial body weight), each fitted with a T-cannula in the distal ileum, were allocated in an 8 × 7 incomplete Latin square design. Eight experimental diets were arranged in a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design, consisting of two varieties of field peas (Amarillo, Meadow peas), two particle sizes (400, 700 μm), and without or with protease supplementation (0, 250 g/ton). The Amarillo and Meadow peas were similar in crude protein (20.6 vs 21.3%). Field peas were included in the diets as the only source of AA, with a 96.1% inclusion rate. All diets contained 0.3% titanium dioxide as an indigestible marker. A casein diet was used to estimate basal endogenous N and AA losses. The experiment was conducted for seven consecutive periods. Each experimental period lasted 7 d, including 5 d of adaptation and the last 2 d for ileal digesta collection from 0800 to 1700 h. Data were analyzed using the PROC MIXED of SAS. The statistical model included variety, enzyme, particle size, and their interaction as fixed effects, and replication, animal within replication, and period within replication as random effects. There was no 3-way interaction between variety, enzyme supplementation, and particle size on apparent ileal digestibility (AID) and standardized ileal digestibility (SID) of AA in diets. Moreover, there were no differences in AID and SID between different varieties of field peas except for Cys where AID (66.2 vs 63.4%) and SID (71.9 vs 69.0%) were greater (P < 0.05) in Amarillo peas than in Meadow peas. Similarly, no difference was found between the diets with and without enzyme supplementation except for AID of Pro (71.9 vs 75.4%), which was less (P < 0.05) when protease was included. Also, no effects of particle size were observed except for SID of Ala (80.0 vs 77.0%), which was greater as particle size was reduced to 400 μm. The average SID values for essential AA were Arg (88.3%), His (80.9%), Ile (77.7%), Leu (78.7%), Lys (83.9%), Met (75.8%), Phe (79.3%), Thr (72.9%) and Val (74.9%). In conclusion, the variety of field peas, enzyme supplementation, or particle size did not affect the AID and SID of the field peas, and no interaction was observed among the factors. Future studies will investigate dose-response relationships to determine whether the observed enzyme effect was due to inadequate ratios between enzyme and substrate.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 Science→Same topicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology→French-language works237,207→