Energy and nitrogen utilisation of sow colostrum and milk by the piglet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty-four newborn piglets were used to evaluate the digestibility of sow colostrum and milk and the efficiency of milk utilisation by the piglet. Within a litter, four piglets were allotted to one of the four treatments: killed at birth, or bottle-fed sow colostrum for 30 h and sow milk thereafter at the rate of 100, 200, or 300 g kg-1 d-1. Piglets were killed on day 8. Faeces and urine were daily collected and heat production (HP) was determined by indirect calorimetry on days 6 and 7, each day during three successive periods of 105–110 min. Energy retention (ER) was calculated as the difference between metabolisable energy intake (ME) and HP. ER was also determined over the 8-d period using the comparative slaughter (CS). There was no effect of level of feeding on energy and nitrogen digestibility. Milk energy digestibility and metabolisability (ME/GE × 100) and nitrogen digestibility were 98.2 ± 1.2 (SEM), 96.8 ± 1.4 and 98.3 ± 1.3%, respectively. Corresponding values for colostrum were lower (P < 0.01), averaging 95.2 ± 2.8, 92.6 ± 3.1 and 95.3 ± 2.9%, respectively. Efficiency of using milk ME for ER determined by indirect calorimetry or CS was similar and averaged 0.72 ± 0.02. The energy cost of 1 kJ of protein deposition was 1.77 (± 0.04) kJ (efficiency, 0.56), whereas the energy cost of 1 kJ of fat deposition was not different to 1 kJ. Key words: Piglet, colostrum, milk, energy, nitrogen
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".