Effect of a lysine depletion–repletion protocol on the compensatory growth of growing-finishing pigs1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of Lys restriction followed by a repletion period on the performance of growing pigs was studied during 3 feeding phases, each lasting 28 d. A total of 47 castrated male pigs (G Performer 8.0 × Fertilis 25 pigs; Genetiporc Inc., Saint-Bernard, QC, Canada; initial BW of 26.7 ± 2.7 kg) were given each d 70% or 100% of their Lys requirements according to 1 of the following 5 sequences: 70-70-70, 70-70-100, 70-100-70, 70-100-100, or 100-100-100 (for each sequence, numbers indicate the Lys supply percentage in phase 1, 2, and 3, respectively). Individual Lys requirements were estimated daily on the basis of each pig's actual BW and feed intake and BW gain patterns obtained by regression using each pig's historical data. At the end of phase 1, the pigs given 100% of their Lys requirements had higher ADFI ( = 0.01), ADG ( < 0.01), and average daily protein deposition ( < 0.01) than did the pigs given 70% of their requirements. Similar results were observed during phases 2 and 3. At the end of phase 2, the pigs in the 70-100 sequence did not display any compensatory response, given that their ADFI, ADG, and average daily protein deposition did not differ from those of the pigs in the 100-100 sequence. Similar results were observed during phase 3. Although no compensatory growth was observed during the growing phases, the fact that the pigs in the 70-100-100 treatment were able to catch up in terms of BW and body protein mass to the pigs in the 100-100-100 sequence could indicate that a small degree of compensation did occur; these research results cannot ascertain that any compensatory growth occurred.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".