MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410542194 · doi:10.1139/cjas-2025-0002

The soybean oil equivalency of soybean meal indicates a high energy value of soybean meal when fed to growing pigs

2025· article· en· W4410542194 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jimena A Ibagon, Hans H Stein, Su A Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoybean mealSoybean oilMealFood scienceEnergy densityBiologyAnimal scienceMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An experiment was conducted to test the hypothesis that the energy in soybean meal (SBM) fed to pigs determined using a fat equivalency procedure is greater than current book values for net energy (NE). A total of 120 growing pigs were allotted to five dietary treatments. A diet based on corn, soy protein concentrate (SPC), and synthetic cellulose and three diets containing 2%, 4%, or 6% soybean oil (SBO) were formulated. A fifth diet that contained corn, SPC, and 12% SBM, but no SBO, was also formulated. Pigs were fed experimental diets for four weeks and daily gain, daily fed intake, and gain-to-feed ratio (G:F) were calculated. Regression of G:F for pigs fed diets without SBM against the increasing levels of SBO was used to create an equation to predict the response in G:F of adding SBO to the diets. Results demonstrated that G:F increased (linear, P < 0.001) by increasing SBO in the diets and the G:F of pigs fed the diet containing 12% SBM corresponded to a diet containing 4.70% SBO, which is equivalent to 2955 kcal NE per kg. In conclusion, the NE of SBM in diets for pigs is greater than previously thought.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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