MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410535701 · doi:10.1093/jas/skaf102.093

23 Evaluation of further processed soy protein sources on growth performance of nursery pigs fed a low complexity diet

2025· article· en· W4410535701 on OpenAlexaff
Sabrina May, Chad M Pilcher

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsCargill (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood scienceSoy beanSoy proteinBiologyAnimal scienceChemistryBiotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An experiment was conducted to evaluate various further processed soy protein sources on growth performance of nursery pigs. The sources evaluated included a hydrothermal mechanical processed (HTM) SBM (ProvisoyTM, Cargill, USA), an enzymatically modified (ENZ) SBM, a fermented (FM) SBM, and a soy protein concentrate (SPC). In total, 1,840 weaned pigs [6.4 ± 0.2 kg initial body weight (BW)] were allotted to 18 replicate pens per treatment (23 pigs per pen) in 2 barns. Pens were blocked by location within barn and randomly allotted to 4 treatments (HTM, ENZ, FM, and SPC). A low complexity diet with 22.5 and 30% conventional SBM in phase 1 (d 0-10) and 2 (d 10-22), respectively, and limited inclusion of highly digestible protein ingredients and health promoting additives was used as the basal diet. Soybean meal and SID Lys levels were constant across diets within phases by adjusting the levels of HTM, ENZ, FM, and SPC. Pigs were fed a common phase 3 diet during the last phase (d 22-39). Pig and feed weights were recorded at the beginning and end of each phase. Data were analyzed using the lme4 package of R 4.1.2, and the statistical model included the fixed effect of treatment, as well as the random effects of barn and location within barn. Mortality and removals were analyzed as generalized linear mixed models, with a binomial distribution. Contrasts were used to evaluate the effects of HTM vs ENZ, HTM vs FM, and HTM vs SPC. Results indicate that overall body weight, average daily gain, and average daily feed intake did not differ among treatments, but HTM tended to improve (P < 0.10) overall gain:feed compared to SPC and numerically reduced mortality and removals by 1.7% compared to FM. In conclusion, in a low complexity diet, pigs fed further processed soy protein, regardless of source, ended the trial with similar growth performance. However, feeding HTM resulted in numerically lower mortality and removals compared to FM.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.240 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Science→Same topicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology→French-language works237,207→