Effects of dietary supplementation with different forms of flax in late-gestation and lactation on fatty acid profiles in sows and their piglets1,2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of feeding flax as seed, meal, or oil to late-pregnant and lactating sows on fatty acid profiles in sows and their piglets was studied. Sixty second- and third-parity sows (Yorkshire x Landrace) were fed 1 of 4 diets from 68 d of gestation until 21 d of lactation. Diets were: control without flax (CTL, n = 15); 10% flaxseed supplementation (FS, n = 16); 6.5% flaxseed meal supplementation (FSM, n = 14); and 3.5% flaxseed oil supplementation (FSO, n = 15). All diets were isonitrogenous and isocaloric. Jugular blood samples were obtained from sows on d 62 and 110 of gestation and on d 2 and 21 of lactation. Milk samples were obtained on d 3 and 20 of lactation. Fatty acid profiles were established in plasma and milk. One piglet per litter was slaughtered on d 1 for determination of fatty acid profiles in carcass and brain tissue. On d 110 of gestation, sows fed FS and FSO had less SFA (P < 0.05), more PUFA (P < 0.001), more n-3 fatty acids (P < 0.001), and a decreased n-6/n-3 ratio (P < 0.001) in their serum than sows fed FSM. These same differences were present on d 21 of lactation with a decrease in MUFA also being observed (P < 0.05). Milk from sows fed FS and FSO showed increased n-3 fatty acids (P < 0.01) and decreased n-6/n-3 ratio (P < 0.001) on d 3 and 20 of lactation, as well as less SFA (P < 0.01) and MUFA (P < 0.05) and greater PUFA (P < 0.001) concentrations on d 20. Carcass and brain tissues from their newborn piglets also exhibited increased n-3 fatty acids (P < 0.001) and decreased n-6/n-3 ratio (P < 0.01) compared with piglets farrowed by sows fed FSM. Results demonstrated that feeding flax as seed or oil has significant effects on the fatty acid profile in sows and their offspring and that these changes are due to the oil content of flax because they were not observed when sows were fed FSM.
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 | 0.001 | 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".