488 Evaluation of the newly developed value-added blended fat stimulated feed product (BFSFP): Comparison with commercial protein and energy feeds on invitro fermentation characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study aimed to compare the nutritional fractions of a newly developed blended fat stimulated feed product (BFSFP) with traditional feed sources as barley grain and canola meal in terms of DM digestibility, neutral detergent fiber (NDF) digestibility, and volatile fatty acids (VFA) using the in vitro batch culture method. Data were analyzed using “Mixed Procedure” of SAS software (SAS Institute, Inc., 2004) using a Completely Randomized Design (CRD). The CRD model assumption test was carried out using Proc Univariate with Normal and Plot option. Multi treatment comparison was carried out using Tukey’s method. Significance was declared at P < 0.05 and tendency at 0.05 < P < 0.10. In terms of NDF digestibility, the newly developed BFSFP was not significantly different from the commercial protein feed [i.e., canola meal and energy feeds (barley)]. At 6 h of incubation the NDF digestibility was 4.98% while the NDF digestibility of barley was 15.32% and canola meal was 9.70%. Similarly at 48 h of incubation NDF digestibility of BPSFP was 45.95% which was not significantly different from barley feed having digestibility 47.22% and canola meal 45.68%. Moreover, in terms of dry matter digestibility (DMD) the BFSFP was significantly different from commercial barley and canola meal. At 6 h of incubation the dry matter digestibility of BFSFP was 46.31% which was greater than canola meal (42.13%) but less than barley (55.19%) at P > 0.05. However, at 48 h of incubation the BFSFP (73.98%) was significantly less from both canola meal (80.04) and barely (90%) at P > 0.05. In terms of VFA, BFSF had an intermediate acetate proportion (48.89 mol/100 mol) compared with canola meal and barley feed (50.35 and 45.90 mol/100 mol), respectively P > 0.05. Propionate was greater for barley feed (29.39 mol/100 mol) than BFSF and canola meal (25.43 and 23.19), respectively P > 0.05. Butyrate was similar for BFSFP and barley feed (13.00 mol/100 mol) and greater than canola meal (10.97 mol/100 mol) at P > 0.05. BFSFP showed an intermediate total VFA concentration (60.12 mMol/L) compared with barley feed (65.69 mMol/L) and canola meal (56.15 mMol/L) at P > 0.05.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".