Increasing food intake in late gestation improved sow condition throughout lactation but did not affect piglet viability or growth rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Increasing sow food intake in late gestation prevents loss of sow fatness prior to farrowing. However, this may result in reduced food intake and greater overall fat loss during lactation and has also been associated with increased incidence of agalactia. In this experiment 78 Camborough sows (parities 1 to 3) were given food at one of two levels: either 1·15 × maintenance energy (normal-N sows, 2·3 (s.e. 0·03) kg/day) or 2·00 × maintenance energy (high-H sows, 3·9 (s.e. 0·04) kg/day) from day 100 of gestation until farrowing. Lactation food intake, changes in sow live weight and backfat thickness and piglet growth rates were then measured. Diet digestibility in early lactation was measured using a chromium III oxide marker in the food. There was no change in backfat thickness in late gestation in H sows (0·2 (s.e. 0·25) mm), whereas N sows lost backfat during this period (1·6 (s.e. 0·23) mm, P <; 0·001). There was no difference in lactation food intake between the two groups (6·5 (s.e. 0·13) kg/day) and differences in backfat thickness at parturition were maintained through to weaning. H sows did not show increased incidence of agalactia compared with N sows. There was no difference in diet digestibility between the two treatment groups. Food intake level in late gestation did not affect piglet birth weights, growth rates or mortality. It is concluded that the main benefit of increasing sow food intake in late gestation was to reduce sow backfat loss during the reproductive cycle.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".