Effect of feeding on hormones related with feed intake in reproductive sows with different energy balances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Martínez, S., Valera, L., Villodre, C., Madrid, J., Orengo, J., Tvarijonaviciute, A., Cerón, J. J. and Hernández, F. 2014. Effect of feeding on hormones related with feed intake in reproductive sows with different energy balances. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 94: 639–646. The different phases that occur during the reproductive life of the sow involve different energy balances, which can affect the levels of hormones that regulate appetite. This study analyzes the behaviour of serum insulin, leptin, ghrelin, cortisol and butyryl-cholinesterase, before and after feeding in pregnant, lactating and post-weaning sows. Hormones were analyzed in blood samples, which were collected after fasting overnight (0 min) and 30 min after feeding at day 109 of pregnancy, at day 9 post-farrowing and at day 3 post-weaning. Before feeding, insulin and leptin levels were not statistically different between reproductive stages. Feeding increased serum insulin and leptin levels of pregnant sows, increased insulin and decreased leptin levels in lactating sows, but had no effect on post-weaning sows. Deacylated ghrelin was higher in pregnant sows and acylated ghelin in post-weaning sows before feeding. Feeding intake did not affect the concentration of deacylated and acylated ghrelin in any group. Cortisol was positively correlated with acylated ghrelin before feeding in pregnant and lactating sows, and negatively with deacylated ghrelin before and after feeding in pregnant sows. There was a negative correlation between deacylated and acylated ghrelin before and after feeding in pregnant and post-weaning sows. So, sows with different energy balances had different insulin, acylated ghrelin and cortisol dynamics before and after feeding, suggesting that these analytes could be used as biomarkers to detect situations resulting in a poor energy balance in order to improve handling programs.
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) | 0.001 | 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".