Effect of diet composition on water consumption in growing pigs1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concerns relating to use of water resources by the livestock industry, combined with the rising cost of manure management, have resulted in greater interest in identifying ways to reduce drinking water utilization by pigs while maintaining animal well-being and achieving satisfactory growth performance. The objective of this experiment was to determine if increasing the dietary CP or mineral concentrations increases water intake and excretion and, conversely, if reducing the dietary CP content reduces water intake and excretion. Forty-eight barrows (34.3 +/- 4.6 kg of BW; 12/treatment) were given free access to diets containing a low protein (16.9% CP), high protein (20.9% CP), or excess protein (25.7% CP) level, or a diet with excess levels of Ca, P, Na, and Cl. Water was available to each pig on an ad libitum basis via dish drinkers that were determined to waste less than 3% of total water flow. The excess CP diet tended to increase average daily water intake (ADWI) and urinary excretion (P < 0.10) and increased the water:feed ratio (P < 0.05); lowering dietary CP did not lower water intake or excretion. The excess mineral diet did not increase ADWI or urinary excretion but did increase water excretion via the feces. Daily nutrient intake and dietary nutrient concentration were poor predictors of ADWI; only daily intake of N and K were significantly correlated with ADWI (P < 0.05), and the r-values were low (0.39 and 0.32, respectively). There was no relationship between ADFI and ADWI. The average water:feed ratio was 2.6:1. Any study of water utilization is complicated by behavioral as well as nutritional and physiological influences, and isolating physiological need from so-called luxury intake is a significant experimental challenge. Because the impact of dietary treatment on water utilization was small, we conclude that factors other than dietary protein and mineral concentration and daily protein and mineral intake have a relatively large effect on water intake and excretion. Consequently, strategies to reduce water intake must recognize, understand, and manage these additional behavioral and physiological factors. Diet composition may be a part of strategies designed to reduce excessive water utilization by the pig industry but may have a limited effect if other important factors are ignored.
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".