Effect of dietary methionine to lysine ratio on lactation performance of first and second parity Yorkshire and Hampshire lean genotype sows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 196 Yorkshire (Y) sows, 137 of first and 59 of second parity, and 97 Hampshire (H) sows, 55 of first and 42 of second parity, were used to determine the effect of increased dietary amino acids and two methionine-to-lysine ratios on sow lactation performance. The three treatment diets were: (1) a barley-wheat-soybean meal diet containing lysine at 0.43 g MJ-1 DE with no supplemental amino acids, 2) the same as diet 1, except the lysine content was increased to 0.68 g MJ-1 DE with supplemental threonine and methionine providing threonine and methionine to lysine ratios of 0.60 and 0.26, respectively, and 3) the same as diet 2, except with an increased methionine-to-lysine ratio of 0.30. All diets were fed as pellets, ad libitum in self-feeders, with free access to drinking water during a 28-d lactation period. Nursing piglets were given creep feed after 14 d of age. The average daily feed intake increased during lactation, and it was higher (P < 0.05) in the second than the first parity sows. Feeding diets 2 and 3 increased (P < 0.05) sow lactation weight and backfat gains, compared to diet 1 for both breeds. Feeding diet 3 increased (P < 0.05) the sow lactation weight and backfat gains and piglet weight gains in the second parity Y sows, but not H sows. Post-weaning sow weight loss and weaning to estrus interval were not different (P > 0.10) among the diets in both breeds. Feeding diets 2 and 3 decreased (P < 0.05) the serum urea nitrogen concentration in Y sows indicating less amino acid catabolism. The results indicated that a dietary methionine-to-lysine ratio higher than 0.27 was not beneficial in maximizing lactation performance of modern lean genotype sows. Key words: Sows, lactation, ideal amino acid, Yorkshire, Hampshire, piglet
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".