Feeding behavior of growing and finishing pigs fed different dietary threonine levels in a group-phase feeding and individual precision feeding system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Feeding behavior is an important aspect of pig husbandry as it can affect protein deposition (PD) in pigs. A decrease in plasma threonine (Thr) levels may influence feed intake (FI) due to amino acid imbalance. We set out to study whether different Thr inclusion rates of 70%, 85%, 100%, 115%, and 130% of the ideal Thr:lysine (Lys) ratio of 0.65 in two different feeding programs (individual precision feeding and group-phase feeding could affect pig feeding behavior and consequently PD. Two 21-d trials were performed in a 2 × 5 factorial setup (feeding systems × Thr levels) with 110 pigs in the growing phase [25.0 ± 0.8 kg of body weight (BW)] and 110 pigs in the finishing phase (110.0 ± 7.0 kg BW), which correspond to 11 pigs per treatment in each trial. Pigs were housed in the same room and fed using computerized feeding stations. The total lean content was estimated by dual x-ray absorptiometry at the beginning (day 1) and the end (day 21) of the trial. Multivariate exploratory factor analysis was performed to identify related variables. Confirmatory analysis was performed by orthogonal contrasts and Pearson correlation analysis. Graphical analysis showed no difference in feeding patterns between feeding systems during the growing or finishing phase. Pigs exhibited a predominant diurnal feeding, with most meals (73% on average) consumed between 0600 and 1800 h. Exploratory factor analysis indicated that feeding behavior was not related to growth performance or PD in growing or finishing pigs. Changes in feeding behavior were observed during the growing phase, where increasing dietary Thr resulted in a linear increase in the FI rate (P < 0.05). During the finishing phase, the duration of the meal and FI rate increased linearly as dietary Thr increased in the diet (P < 0.05). These changes in feeding behavior are, however, correlated to BW. In conclusion, the exploratory factor analysis indicated that feeding behavior had no correlation with growth performance or protein and lipid deposition in growing or finishing pigs. Dietary Thr levels and feeding systems had no direct effect on FI.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".