Dietary protein restriction during lactation in primiparous sows with different live weights at farrowing: I. Consequences on sow metabolic status and litter growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hypothesis that the restriction of dietary protein during lactation has different impacts on sow metabolic status and milk production according to body weight was evaluated. From 5-months of age until farrowing, the gilts were fed to achieve body weights of 180 or 240 kg at farrowing. At this time, 38 sows were assigned to one of three groups: " 180 kg" sows not restricted in dietary protein during lactation (180CP); "180 kg" restricted in protein (180LP), or "240 kg" sows restricted in protein (240LP). Catheters were fitted in the jugular vein of 24 sows and serial blood samples were collected 1 d before and 1 d after weaning. Amongst the protein-restricted animals, heavy sows (240LP) had a smaller appetite than light sows in early lactation, resulting in lower energy and protein intakes in the 240LP than in the 180LP sows. Body protein losses were 8, 11 and 13.5% of calculated body protein mass at farrowing in the 180CP, 180LP and 240LP sows, respectively. At the end of lactation, IGF-I concentrations were lower in the 180LP than in the sows from the other groups, probably because of the uncoupling between GH and IGF-I secretions. Low IGF-I concentrations likely promote lean tissue mobilization. Glucose and insulin profiles suggested an insulin resistance state in the 240LP sows compared with the 180LP sows, which may explain, at least in part, the lower feed intake and body reserve mobilization in these sows. Plasma pre- and post-prandial concentrations of amino acids in late lactation differed among the three treatment groups. Throughout lactation, litters from the 180LP and 240LP sows had a slower growth rate than litters from sows which were not restricted, suggesting that endogenous protein mobilization throughout lactation does not completely compensate for a low protein intake.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".