The effect of lean growth rate on puberty attainment in gilts2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two hundred sixteen prepubertal Genex Manor hybrid F1 gilts were used to determine the impact of lean growth rate on sexual development of gilts. This study was composed of two experiments (Exp. 1 and Exp. 2). In Exp. 1, at approximately 96 d of age and 54 kg weight, gilts were allocated with respect to growth rate and litter origin to one of two dietary treatments: 1) a diet formulated to maximize lean growth potential (LP; n = 84) or 2) a diet formulated to produce a lower lean growth rate (LL; n = 84). In Exp. 2, at approximately 88 d of age and 50 kg weight, gilts were allocated with respect to growth rate and litter origin to one of two dietary treatments: 1) a diet formulated to maximize lean growth potential (LP; n = 24) or 2) a diet formulated to restrict lean growth further than was achieved in LL in Exp. 1 (RL; n = 24). All gilts were fed treatment diets for ad libitum consumption and housed in groups of six. Weight, backfat depth and loin depth, and feed intake were measured weekly. Starting at 135 d of age, gilts received 20 min of direct daily exposure to a boar as a pen group for pubertal stimulation. Puberty attainment was determined as the day gilts first exhibited the standing reflex in response to contact with a boar. At pubertal estrus, body weight, backfat depth, and loin depths were recorded. Diet affected (P < or = 0.05) estimated fat-free lean gain (LP, 424 vs LL, 347 g/d, Exp. 1; LP, 397 vs RL, 376 g/d, Exp. 2) during the growth period (start to stimulation). However, age at puberty was not affected by diet (LP, 157.3 vs LL, 157.6, Exp. 1; LP, 166.7 vs RL, 167.3, Exp. 2) or overall lean growth at stimulation (P > or = 0.05 in both experiments), confirming that innate variability in sexual development of commercial genotypes, rather than growth performance, determines onset of sexual maturity. A negative correlation between age at puberty and growth rate from 50 kg until puberty (P < or = 0.05) (LP, r = -0.40, LL, r = -0.36, Exp. 1; LP, r = -0.64, RL, r = -0.48, Exp. 2) was a consequence of reduced lean tissue growth during the stimulation period in later-maturing gilts.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".