The effect of dietary energy concentration and total lysine/digestible energy ratio on the growth performance of weaned pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amino acids should be defined in relation to dietary energy concentration in diets for young pigs. However, the literature contains diverse estimates of the optimum lysine:digestible energy (DE) ratio for weanling pigs performing at levels commonly observed in commercial practice. Further, there is a poor understanding of the reponse of the weanling pig to dietary energy concentration. A growth experiment was conducted to define the optimum total lysine:DE ratio for pigs from 4 to 8 wk of age. Dietary treatments were arranged as a 2 × 5 factorial: low (LDE, 3.4 Mcal kg -1 ) or high DE (HDE, 3.6 Mcal kg -1 ) and the following total lysine:DE ratios: 3.7, 4.0, 4.3, 4.6, or 4.9 g Mcal -1 ). The experiment ran for 28 d, beginning 7 d post-weaning, using four pigs per pen and six pens per diet for a total of 240 pigs (27 ± 2 d; 7.5 ± 1.1 kg). No DE × lysine:DE ratio interactions were detected for any performance parameter (P > 0.05). The average daily feed intake (ADFI) was 4% greater with pigs on LDE than HDE diets (DE,P < 0.05), but was not affected by lysine:DE ratio (P > 0.05). Conversely, DE did not affect average daily gain (ADG) (P > 0.05), but increased quadratically (day 0 to 14; P < 0.05) and (day 0 to 28; P < 0.10) with increasing lysine:DE ratio. Feed efficiency increased linearly with increasing lysine:DE ratio (P < 0.05) and was 4% greater with the HDE than LDE diets (P < 0.05). The optimum total lysine:DE ratio for ADG was determined to be 4.46 and 4.27 g Mcal -1 for pigs between 7.5 to 13 kg and 7.5 to 22.5 kg BW, respectively. Key words: Pig, total lysine, digestible energy, growth
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".