MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3131259623 · doi:10.1139/cjas-2020-0074

Evaluation of dietary-coated omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on reproduction performance, growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and blood profiles in lactating sows and suckling piglets

2021· article· en· W3131259623 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Huan Wang, Hyeok Min Yun, In Ho Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolyunsaturated fatty acidWeanlingAnimal scienceReproductionMealNutrientFatty acidBiologyOmega 3 fatty acidFood scienceEndocrinologyDocosahexaenoic acidBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A total of 16 sows (Landrace × Yorkshire) were used in a 33-d trial (7 d before expected parturition) to determine the effects of dietary-coated omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on reproduction performance, growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and blood profiles in lactating sows and suckling piglets. Pigs were randomly allotted into two treatments with eight replicates per treatment, and the parity was 4.9. The dietary treatments were as follows: CON, corn–soybean-meal-based diet [omega-6:omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) ratio of 17:1] and TRT, CON + 0.9% omega-3 PUFA (omega-6:omega-3 PUFA ratio of 5:1). The supplementation of coated omega-3 increased piglet’s body weight (BW) (day 7) and average daily gain (ADG) (days 0–7) (P < 0.05) from farrowing to weanling compared with control. No differences (P > 0.05) were observed on reproduction performance, nutrient digestibility, and blood profile in sows. In conclusion, our study demonstrated that the dietary supplementation of 0.9% omega-3 PUFA in corn–soybean-meal-based diet (omega-6:omega3 PUFA ratio of 5:1) improved BW and ADG of suckling piglets during the first week.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal Science→Same topicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology→French-language works237,207→