MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992252615 · doi:10.2527/jas.2008-1231

Dietary fiber for pregnant sows: Influence on sow physiology and performance during lactation1

2008· article· en· W1992252615 on OpenAlexaff
Hélène Quesnel, M. C. Meunier‐Salaün, Alice Hamard, Rozenn Guillemet, Michel Louis Etienne, C. Farmer, Jean-Yves Dourmad, Marie-Christine Pére

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLactationGestationBiologyAnimal scienceMealPregnancyInternal medicineEndocrinologyMedicineFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was conducted to investigate the effects of feeding sows a bulky diet during gestation on their physiological and metabolic adaptations during the peripartum period, and to determine how these effects may relate to sow and piglet performances. From d 26 of gestation until farrowing, gilts were fed diets that contained 2.8 or 11.0% crude fiber (control and high-fiber diets, respectively, n = 9/group). Daily feed allowance provided the same amount of DE daily (33 MJ of DE/d). Throughout lactation, sows were allowed to consume a standard lactating sow diet ad libitum. Litters were standardized to 12 piglets beyond 48 h after birth. On d 105 of gestation, a jugular catheter was surgically implanted. Preprandial blood samples were collected from d 109 of gestation to the day after farrowing and on d 4, 18, and 26 of lactation. Meal tests and glucose tolerance tests were performed on d 109 of gestation and d 4 and 18 of lactation. During gestation, BW and backfat gain did not differ between treatment groups. During lactation, sows fed the high-fiber diet ate an average of 0.94 kg/d more than control sows (P < 0.02). Piglets born from sows fed the high-fiber diet grew faster than piglets from control sows (P = 0.03). Body weight and backfat losses did not differ between the 2 treatment groups. Sows fed the high-fiber diet during gestation had lesser concentrations of leptin before farrowing than control sows (P < 0.01). Leptin concentrations were negatively correlated with feed intake during lactation (P < 0.05). The prepartal increase in prolactin concentrations tended to be greater in sows fed the high-fiber diet than in control sows (P < 0.1). Preprandial concentrations of glucose, NEFA, lactate, and IGF-I fluctuated over time without significant treatment effect. Glucose half-life was shorter in late gestation than during both stages of lactation, but did not differ between sows in the 2 groups. In late gestation, the postprandial increases in glucose and insulin were delayed, and smaller, after a high-fiber meal than after a control meal. During lactation, glucose and insulin profiles after a standard meal did not differ between sows from treatment groups. In conclusion, the greater appetite of lactating sows fed a high-fiber diet during gestation does not seem related to changes in glucose and insulin metabolism and may be partly due to decreased secretion of leptin. The greater feed consumption was accompanied by a faster growth rate of piglets without sparing effect on maternal body reserves.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations134
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207