0477 Effect of high dietary canola meal inclusion in lactating sows on nutrient digestibility and sow and piglet performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim was to determine the effects of high canola meal inclusion levels in sow lactation diets on nutrient digestibility, reproductive performance, milk composition and piglet performance. Forty five sows (n = 15) with an average parity of 1.8 (SD = 0.83) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 dietary treatments; corn soybean meal control diet with 0, 15, and 30% canola meal (Diet A, B and C, respectively). All diets were formulated to be similar in standardized ileal digestible amino acids and NE, and were formulated to meet or exceed NRC (2012) nutrient requirement recommendations for lactating sows with an average post-farrowing BW of 210 kg, an expected average BW loss of 5.8 kg, and an expected piglet ADG of 230 g. Sows were moved to farrowing rooms and given the experimental diets from d 111of gestation until weaning on d 21. All sows were weighed and backfat thickness measured on d 111 of gestation and also on d 0, 7, and 21 post-farrowing. Litters were weighed on d 0, 7, and 21. Weaning to estrous interval in sows was also recorded. Blood samples, 2 h post feeding and milk samples were collected from sows on d 0, 7, and 21 to analyze plasma urea nitrogen (PUN) and milk composition, respectively. Fecal samples were collected on d 10, 11, and 12 post-farrowing to determine energy and nutrient digestibility. All data were analyzed as a randomized complete block design using mixed procedures of SAS 9.3 (SAS Inst., Cary, NC). There were no effects of higher levels of dietary canola meal inclusion on lactation feed intake, sow BW and backfat change, and weaning to estrous interval (P > 0.10). Also, there were no dietary effect on piglet mortality and piglet ADG (P > 0.10). There were no differences in the sow milk composition among dietary treatments (P > 0.10). However, sows fed 15 and 30% canola meal had lower (P < 0.05) PUN values compared with those fed control diet, on d 0, 7, and 21 post-farrowing. Also, apparent total tract digestibility of DM, GE, CP and P declined (P < 0.05) with increasing levels of canola meal inclusion. It was concluded that inclusion of up to 30% canola meal in lactation diet can support satisfactory sow and litter performance.
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 | 0.001 | 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".