The use of feed-grade amino acids in lactating sow diets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of feed grade amino acids can reduce the cost of lactation feed. With changing genetics, increasing feed costs, and higher number of pigs weaned with heavier wean weights further evaluation of higher inclusion levels of feed-grade amino acid in lactation diets than previously published is warranted. Two experiments (Exp.) were conducted to determine the optimal inclusion level of L -lysine HCl to be included in swine lactation diets while digestible lysine levels remain constant across dietary treatments and allowing feed grade amino acids to be added to the diet to maintain dietary ratios relative to lysine to maximize litter growth rate and sow reproductive performance. Furthermore, the studies were to evaluate minimal amino acid ratios relative to lysine that allows for optimal litter growth rate and sow reproductive performance. Exp. 1: Increasing L -lysine HCl resulted in similar gilt feed intake, litter, and reproductive performance. Average litter gain from birth to weaning was 2.51, 2.49, 2.59, 2.43, and 2.65 kg/d when gilts were fed 0.00, 0.075, 0.150, 0.225, and 0.30% L -lysine HCl, respectively. Exp. 2: The average litter gain from birth to weaning was 2.68, 2.73, 2.67, 2.70, and 2.64 kg/d ( P < 0.70) when sows were fed 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and 0.4% L -lysine HCl plus valine, respectively. No other differences among dietary treatments were observed. Collectively, these studies demonstrate corn-soybean meal based lactation diets formulated with a constant SID lysine content for all parities containing up to 0.40% L -lysine HCl with only supplemental feed grade threonine and a methionine source have no detrimental effect on litter growth rate and subsequent total born.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".