Digestible phosphorus requirement of grower pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phosphorus excretion may have a major impact on the environment if it is not managed properly. The success of management strategies for reducing P excretion of pigs is dependent partly on more accurate estimates of P requirements, specifically digestible instead of total P requirements. Performance and metabolism studies were conducted to determine digestible P requirements of grower pigs based on performance, plasma and bone P, and P excretion and retention variables, using 200 pigs (23 ± 0.9 kg) and 20 barrows (54 ± 3.1 kg), respectively. Pigs were fed one of five concentrations of dietary digestible P (0.19, 0.24, 0.33, 0.35, and 0.38%). Increasing digestible P quadratically increased average daily gain (ADG) (P < 0.01), feed intake (P < 0.05), and feed efficiency (P < 0.001). Barrows had a higher ADG than gilts (0.890 vs. 0.838 kg d -1 ; P < 0.05); however, digestible P requirement was higher for gilts than for barrows (6.92 vs. 6.17 g d -1 or 0.36 vs. 0.32% in diet; P < 0.05). In barrows, increasing digestible P intake quadratically increased P in plasma and urine (P < 0.01), and linearly increased P in faeces (P < 0.01), suggesting that P excretion depends on excess P intake. Using regression analysis, digestible P requirements were 6.45 g d -1 with ADG, 7.46 g d -1 with bone P, 6.01 g d -1 with plasma P, 3.61 g d -1 with urinary P, 5.86 g d -1 with retained P, and 5.11 g d -1 with retained N. Feeding P closer to pig requirements will reduce P excretion. Key words: Phosphorus, requirement, pig
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".