MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2035408605 · doi:10.4141/a04-071

Effect of supplemental copper proteinate on reproductive performance of first- and second-parity sows

2005· article· en· W2035408605 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J. T. Yen, J. J. Ford, J. Klindt

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal scienceWeaningBiologyEstrous cycleParity (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of copper supplementation in the form of copper proteinate (CuP) on sow reproductive performance were determined. In Trial 1, 140 parity-1 and parity-2 sows received basal (B) or CuP treatment from day 108 of gestation through day 14 after weaning. Each CuP-fed sow received daily 40 g dried molasses that contained 0.32% CuP, which supplied 14 mg d-1 Cu as CuP; B-fed sows received no dried molasses. After weaning, sows were housed in large breeding pens (3.6 m × 6.6 m). Weaning-to-estrus interval was shorter (P < 0.05) and percentage bred by day 7 postweaning was greater (P < 0.05) for CuP-fed than for B-fed sows. Trials 2 and 3 used 110 and 56 parity-1 sows, respectively. Treatments (40 g of dried molasses, B, or 40 g of CuP-supplemented dried molasses, which provided 14 mg d-1 Cu) were administered from day of farrowing to day 7 postweaning. Weaned sows were housed in small breeding pens (2.4 m × 3.6 m) in Trial 2, and in large pens (the same as used in Trial 1) in Trial 3. No treatment differences (P ≥ 0.48) were detected in Trial 2. In Trial 3, CuP supplementation tended to increase (P = 0.09) percentage of sows bred by day 7 postweaning. In conclusion, supplemental Cu as CuP fed to sows housed in large breeding pens can increase the percentage bred by day 7 postweaning. Key words: Copper proteinate, reproductive performance, sows

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal Science→Same topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies→French-language works237,207→