207 The Ideal Dietary Protein Profile for Finishing Pigs in Precision Feeding Systems and Phase Feeding Systems: Threonine.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optimal AA ratios have been established for conventional group phase feeding (GPF) systems, but these ratios may differ in finishing pigs when fed with precision feeding systems (IPF). The aim of this study was to evaluate the response of different levels of threonine (Thr; 70, 85, 100, 115 and 130% of the 0.65 Thr: Lysine ideal protein ratio) in pigs raised in GPF or IPF systems. A 110 finishing pigs (110 kg BW ± 7.02; 11 pigs per treatment) were housed in the same pen and fed for 21 days using automatic feeders. Individual pigs were the experimental units. Five pigs per treatment were slaughtered at the end of the trial. Data were analyzed in a 2x5 factorial arrangement by the mixed model procedure of SAS. During this finishing phase, G: F presented a quadratic effect for Thr levels (P<0.05) and was not affected by feeding programs. The intake of SID Lys and Thr were greater (P<0.05) in GPF (Lys: 24 g/d; Thr: 18 g/d) than IPF (20 g/d; Thr: 15 g/d) pigs. Protein deposition (PD) was higher in GPF (130 g/d) than IPF pigs (122 g/d; P<0.05), while the level×feeding system interaction for protein in gain presented a quadratic effect of Thr level for GPF (average minimum: 10.7%, maximum: 12.4%; P<0.05) and a no effect of Thr level for IPF (average minimum: 10.3%, maximum: 11.7%; P<0.10). Pigs in IPF systems consumed 14% less crude protein and excreted 17% less nitrogen than GPF pigs (P<0.05). Pigs in IPF retained 9% more nitrogen than GPF pigs (P<0.05) and the Thr level effect was quadratic in both systems (P<0.05). Threonine concentration in plasma presented a linear increase (P<0.05) as Thr in the diet increased and Thr in plasma was 8% higher in the plasma for GPF (203 µmole/L) pigs than IPF pigs (187 µmole/L). Dietary Thr levels had a cubic effect on arginine and histidine, as well, quadratic effect on valine in the liver of pigs in both systems (P<0.05). Pigs in IPF had a different response to Thr levels than pigs in GPF system, the last had higher PD at Thr: Lys ratio of 0.85 while in IPF Thr: Lys ratio had no impact on PD.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".