In Vitro and In Vivo Comparisons of Activated Charcoal and Biochar as Dietary Treatments for Controlling Boar Taint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Activated charcoal (AC) is an adsorbent that can prevent the accumulation of boar taint-causing compounds in the fat, but is not an approved dietary additive for livestock animals. Biochar (BC) is a similar feed-approved charcoal adsorbent that may be an alternative dietary additive to control boar taint. This study was conducted to evaluate AC and BC, both in vitro and in vivo, as dietary treatments for boar taint. This was done by first conducting an in vitro binding study to compare binding between AC, BC, and spent filter aid (SFA) for boar taint compounds. Results of the in vitro study showed that both AC and BC had significantly higher Bmax for androstenone (AC: 97.2 ± 0.4% and BC: 84.5 ± 0.8%) and skatole (AC: 106.1 ± 0.2%, BC: 113.2 ± 0.7%), compared to SFA with a Bmax of 50.5 ± 0.2% for androstenone and 97.1 ± 5.3% for skatole. AC and BC were then tested as feed additives in finisher diets fed to slaughter weight boars. Both adsorbents were successful at preventing boar taint in a subset of animals (83%), while having no effect on plasma levels of estrone sulfate or androstenone, and growth and performance parameters. These findings suggest that BC is a suitable alternative for AC as a dietary additive to prevent boar taint.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".