Effects of feeding 10% rapeseed meal (<i>Brassica napus</i>) during gestation and lactation over three reproductive cycles on the performance of hyperprolific sows and their litters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quiniou, N., Quinsac, A., Crépon, K., Evrard, J., Peyronnet, C., Bourdillon, A., Royer, E. and Etienne, M. 2012. Effects of feeding 10% rapeseed meal (Brassica napus) during gestation and lactation over three reproductive cycles on the performance of hyperprolific sows and their litters. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 92: 513–524. Largely due to increased production of biodiesel, there is a greater availability of solvent-extracted rapeseed meal (RM) in France, making it competitive for feeding pigs. Nevertheless, the long-term effects of dietary glucosinolates (GSL) when feeding RM on sow reproductive and litter performance are a persistent concern to feed manufacturers. Four batches of 24 hyperprolific sows were fed to evaluate the effects of including 0 or 10% RM [14.5 µmol GLS g −1 dry matter (DM) basis] in the gestation and lactation diets over three reproductive cycles. Intake of dietary GLS remained below 5 mmol d −1 over the gestation period and averaged 8 mmol d −1 over the lactation period, corresponding to less than 2 µmol GLS g −1 DM basis. Lactation feed intake, sow body weight and backfat, and the length of the weaning-to-estrus interval were not different (P>0.05) between treatment groups. Sows fed diets with 10% or no RM farrowed 43.6 and 43.8 piglets over three reproductive cycles, respectively (P>0.05). Piglet weight at birth or weaning, survival and litter weight gain were not affected (P>0.05) by dietary RM inclusion. Similar (P>0.10) plasma thyroxin levels of sows and piglets indicated that thyroid function was not altered by RM inclusion. In conclusion, feeding gestation and lactation diets including 10% RM to hyper prolific sows over three parities was safe and did not affect sow longevity, reproductive or litter performance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".