MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048537533 · doi:10.1093/jas/skaa255

Evaluation of a decision support system for precision feeding of gestating sows

2020· article· en· W3048537533 on OpenAlexaff
Charlotte Gaillard, Nathalie Quiniou, Raphaël Gauthier, L. Cloutier, Jean-Yves Dourmad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre de Développement du Porc du Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal scienceGestationNutrientInseminationBiologyChemistryPregnancyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Precision feeding (PF) with the daily mixing of 2 diets with different lysine content (high (H) or low (L)) was previously reported for growing pigs to reduce protein intake and N excretion compared with a conventional feeding (CF) based on a single diet (C). Using a simulation approach based on farm data, the objective of the present paper was to describe and evaluate a decision support system for the PF of gestating sows allowing the daily distribution of a tailored ration to each sow. Two datasets, 1 of 2,511 gestations (farm A) and 1 of 2,528 gestations (farm B), reporting sows' characteristics at insemination and objectives at farrowing were used as inputs for a Python model. This model, mainly based on InraPorc, calculates the nutrient requirements of each sow over gestation and simulates the impact of PF in comparison to CF. Simulated diets L, H, and C contained 3.0, 6.5, and 4.8 g/kg of standardized ileal digestible lysine (SID Lys) and 2.0, 3.3, and 2.5 g/kg of standardized total tract digestible phosphorus (STTD-P), respectively. The influence of farm, parity, gestation week, and their interactions, on calculated SID Lys and STTD-P requirements was analyzed applying a mixed model. The calculated SID Lys and STTD-P requirements increased markedly in the last third of gestation (P < 0.01) and were higher for primiparous than for multiparous sows, unless after week 14 for STTD-P requirement. The calculated SID AA and mineral requirements were lower for farm B than farm A (respectively, 2.94 vs. 3.08 g/kg for SID Lys and 1.30 vs. 1.35 g/kg for STTD-P, P < 0.01). On average, feed L represented 86% and 92% of the feed projected to be delivered by the PF strategy in farms A and B, respectively. Compared to CF, average calculated dietary SID Lys content was lowered by 27% and 32% with PF, for farms A and B, respectively, while average calculated dietary phosphorus content was lowered by 13% and 16%. The simulated proportions of sows in excess and deficient in SID Lys were reduced with PF. Compared to CF, the PF strategy allowed for a 3.6% reduction in simulated feed cost per sow during gestation, and reduced nitrogen and phosphorus intake (by 11.0% and 13.8%, respectively) and excretion (by 16.7% and 15.4%, respectively). To conclude, these simulations indicate that PF of gestating sow appears to be relevant to meet the amino acid requirement while reducing feed cost, and supplies and excretion of nitrogen and phosphorus.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.209
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations34
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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