353 Optimal dietary lysine for growth development of gilts until first parity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Unacceptable sow longevity in modern production systems has placed nutritional programs for developing gilts into question. Nutritional programs are well defined for terminal pigs, but not for developing gilts. To achieve breeding targets and allow gilts to meet their maternal genetic potential for lifetime productivity, the optimum lysine requirement for developing gilts should be well understood. The National Pork Board Animal Science Committee commissioned trials to determine the optimum lysine levels for developing gilts in U.S. pig production systems. An experiment was conducted to challenge proposed dietary lysine concentration for optimum growth rate during gilt development. A total of 2,960 growing crossbred gilts were fed three grower-finisher diets, formulated to provide low lysine (0.68 and 0.52% SID lysine), medium lysine (0.79 and 0.60% SID lysine), and high lysine (0.90 and 0.68% SID lysine) levels and fed to developing gilts starting from 142 to 200 d of age. Gilts fed the high lysine dietary treatment had significantly increased body weight (BW), flank-to-flank length, backfat thickness (BF), loin depth (LD), average daily gain, and fat-to-lean ratio (P < 0.05). Moreover, gilts fed the high lysine treatment during development phase had greater BW (202.4 ± 1.2 kg), BF (14.8 ± 0.2 mm), and LD (5.4 ± 0.5 cm) at first farrowing and BF (15.1 ± 0.2 mm) at weaning when compared with gilts fed the medium and low lysine treatments (P < 0.05). Litter birth weight (17.4 ± 0.3 kg), number weaned (9.0 ± 0.2), and litter weaning weight (46.6 ± 0.9 kg) from the gilts fed the high lysine sow treatment were greater when compared with performance from gilts fed the medium and low treatments (P < 0.05). Gilt development diets containing 2.79 g and 2.08 g SID lysine per MCal ME (high lysine grower and finisher diets, respectively) allowed gilts to achieve good growth and first parity reproductive 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 | 0.000 | 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".