Average daily gain and the impact of starting body weight of individual nursery and finisher Ugandan pigs fed a commercial diet, a forage-based diet, or a silage-based diet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To compare average daily gain (ADG) of Ugandan nursery and finisher pigs fed a commercial diet, a forage-based diet, or a silage-based diet, and to compare the cost effectiveness of the diets. Materials and methods: Each pig was randomly assigned to the commercial diet, the forage-based diet, or the silage-based diet. Pigs were weighed every 3 weeks from 65 to 230 days of age. Growth was compared within and across diet on the basis of starting body weight (BW). The cost of feed per kg of BW gain was determined. Results: As age and BW increased, mean BW variability increased in pigs fed the forage-based or silage-based diets and decreased in pigs fed the commercial diet. Starting BW was positively associated with ADG (P < .01). Average daily gain of nursery pigs fed the commercial diet was higher than that of pigs fed the forage-based and silage-based diets. At sufficient BW (≥ 11.9 kg), pigs fed the silage-based diet achieved ADG similar to that in pigs fed the commercial diet. Implications: At sufficient BW (11 to 12 kg) pigs grow well on forage- or silage-based diets. If some ingredients are in surplus on farms, the forage- and silage-based diets are more cost effective than the commercial diet when pigs reach 8.5 kg BW. Interventions to improve weaning weights and provision of creep feed, and identification of nutrient-dense, digestible, palatable feedstuffs for development of low-cost balanced diets are needed in order to improve pig growth performance in East Africa.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".