MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967582171 · doi:10.1093/jas/skz242

Effects of supplementing processed straw during late gestation on sow physiology, lactation feed intake, and offspring body weight and carcass quality1

2019· article· en· W2967582171 on OpenAlexaff
Atta Kofi Agyekum, Daniel A Columbus, C. Farmer, A. D. Beaulieu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaGenome PrairieUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLactationOffspringStrawBiologyAnimal scienceGestationBody weightPhysiologyPregnancyEndocrinologyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the effects of supplementing late gestation sow diets with processed or unprocessed oat or wheat straw on physiology, early lactation feed intake, and offspring performance. One hundred fifty gestating sows were randomly assigned to 1 of 5 dietary treatments (30 sows per diet) from day 86 of gestation until farrowing. Treatments, arranged as a 2 × 2 factorial plus a control, were a standard gestation diet (control) or control supplemented with 10% wheat or oat straw, processed or unprocessed. Sows were fed a standard lactation diet postfarrowing. The processed straws were produced by high-pressure compaction at 80 °C. On day 101 of gestation (day 15 of the trial), blood samples were collected from a subset of sows (n = 8 per treatment) through ear vein catheters and analyzed for insulin, insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), prolactin, glucose, and urea concentrations. Fecal samples were collected on days 103 to 104 of gestation to determine nutrient digestibility, and feeding motivation was investigated on day 104. Litter characteristics and sow feed intake were recorded for 7 d postfarrowing. Three piglets per litter were selected at weaning, fed standard diets, and followed to market. Treatment had no effect on feeding motivation, piglet characteristics at birth, estimated milk production, and offspring BW at market or carcass quality. Processed straw improved DM digestibility and energy content and the effect was greater with oat straw (straw × processing effect, P < 0.05). Pre- and postprandial glucose concentrations tended to decrease (P < 0.10) with processing of wheat, but not oat straw, and this effect was more apparent in the preprandial samples. Preprandial prolactin concentration increased with oat but decreased with wheat straw, whereas postprandial IGF-1 and prolactin concentration increased with processing of wheat, but not oat straw (straw × processing, P < 0.05). Sow lactation feed intake improved (P < 0.05) with oat straw supplementation relative to wheat straw. Piglet weaning weight increased (P < 0.05) with oat straw supplementation and processing improved (P < 0.05) nursery exit BW. However, straw supplementation, regardless of processing, had no effect on offspring BW at market or carcass quality. Overall, oat straw supplementation had a greater impact on sow physiology and provided benefits for sows in late gestation, and there was some indication that further benefits could be obtained through mild processing.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207