MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2430228211 · doi:10.2527/2001.7992367x

Effect of energy and lysine intake in gestation on sow performance.

2001· article· en· W2430228211 on OpenAlexaffabout
Denise R. Cooper, John F. Patience, R. T. Zijlstra, M. Rademacher

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanGenome Prairie
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGestationLactationAnimal scienceWeaningLitterBiologyLysineParity (physics)PregnancyAmino acidBiochemistryAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nutrient intake during gestation has an impact on gestation parameters and subsequent lactation performance. The objectives of this experiment were to determine the impact of feeding two levels of amino acids in gestation on sow BW changes in gestation and lactation, and litter size, and to evaluate a factorial method for determining daily energy requirements. At mating, 419 sows (Camborough 15; Pig Improvement Canada, Acme, AB) were assigned randomly within Parities 1, 2 or 3+ to a gestation diet containing either 0.44% (low lysine) or 0.55% (high lysine) total lysine and 3,100 kcal DE/kg; other indispensable amino acids were adjusted to lysine based on ideal protein ratios. Feed allowance in gestation was determined factorially using estimated DE requirements for maintenance, maternal gain, and conceptus growth. Sows were allowed free access to the lactation diet. Gestation BW gain from d 0 to 110 was affected by parity (61.2, 60.0, and 42.3 kg for Parity 1, 2, and 3+, respectively; P < 0.05) but not (P > 0.10) by gestation lysine level. Sow BW changes from d 0 of lactation to weaning were affected by parity (0.5, 6.8, and 5.8 kg for Parity 1, 2, and 3+, respectively; P < 0.01) and gestation BW gain (P < 0.01), but not by gestation lysine level (5.0 vs 3.8 kg for low and high lysine, respectively; P > 0.10). Total piglets born was affected by parity (11.5, 12.1, and 12.5, for Parity 1, 2, and 3+, respectively; P < 0.01) and increased with increasing sow BW gain (P < 0.05). Total piglets born alive (mean = 11.2) was increased with increasing sow BW gain (P < 0.05). Total litter weight born alive was affected by parity (15.9, 18.6, and 19.4 kg for Parities 1, 2, and 3+, respectively; P < 0.01) and gestation BW gain (P < 0.05). The model used to determine daily energy intake requirements resulted in an average BW gain of 10.6 kg above the targets set by the model. Total lysine intakes greater than 10.6 g/d in gestation did not improve sow productivity. Setting target weight gains in gestation and feeding to meet these targets may not always provide predictable results due to a number of factors that affect the energy requirement in the sow.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.625
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207