MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1588859612 · doi:10.2527/2006.841212x

Use of supplementary tryptophan to modify the behavior of pigs1

2006· article· en· W1588859612 on OpenAlexaff
Y. Z. Li, B. J. Kerr, M.T. Kidd, H. W. Gonyou

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsGenome Prairie
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAggressionStimulus (psychology)Animal scienceTryptophanFeeding behaviorBiologyEndocrinologyPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three experiments were conducted to investigate the short-term use of supplementary Trp on the behavior of grow/finish pigs. Three levels of dietary Trp were used, representing the standard requirement for growth (control), twice (2x), and 4 times (4x) the control amount. In Exp. 1, pigs were fed the diets for 7 d, during which observations were made of their general behavior (time budget), aggression within the group of familiar pigs, and response to a startling auditory stimulus. Behavior effects were evident during the period of supplementation for both the 2x and 4x diets. During the treatment period, pigs fed supplemental Trp spent more time lying (P = 0.04) and less time eating (P = 0.05) than pigs fed the control diet. Although the response of the animals to the startling stimulus was to become alert and stand, similar behavioral effects caused by supplemental Trp also were evident after the startling stimulus (P < 0.01). Based on these observations, the subsequent studies retained the same dietary levels of Trp and incorporated a 3-d feeding of diets before behavior testing. In Exp. 2, pigs were fed the experimental diets for 3 d before being regrouped with unfamiliar pigs on the same diet. Subsequent aggression was affected by Trp supplementation, in that high levels of dietary Trp decreased the total duration of fighting by approximately 50% (P = 0.03). Supplemental Trp had no effect on the number of fights, and there were no differences between the 2 levels of supplemental Trp on any behavior. In Exp. 3, pigs were exposed to specific handling tests on the farm and meat quality assessments after being fed the experimental diets for 3 d. There were no differences among dietary treatments for any of the meat quality characteristic variables measured. The only behavioral or physiological difference observed among the treatments was a slower movement of pigs fed the 4x Trp treatment than control or 2x Trp-fed pigs in a minimal-forced situation (P = 0.04). Response to confinement on a scale, an electric prod, and movement in general did not differ among treatments. High levels of Trp may result in animals avoiding stressful situations if possible, but they seem to have no effect on responses to stressors that animals may experience in a forced situation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.273
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations69
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207