30 The Effect of Creep Feed Composition and Form on Pre- and Post-weaning Growth Performance of Pigs and the Utilization of Low-quality Nursery Diets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fifty-six litters standardized to 12 piglets from first-parity sows were used to determine the effects of creep and nursery diet compositions on pre- and post-weaning pig growth performance. At three days of age, litters (initial BW 2.31±0.61kg) were assigned to one of four creep feeding regimens (n=14): [1] commercial creep feed (COM), [2] liquid milk replacer (LMR), [3] pelleted milk replacer (PMR), or [4] no creep feed (NO); creep feeds contained 1.0% brilliant blue as a fecal marker. Fecal swabs were collected every 3±1 days to identify piglets that regularly consumed creep feed. At weaning (18±1 days of age), six pigs per litter that consumed creep feed were placed on either a HIGH- (contained highly digestible animal proteins) or LOW- (contained corn and soybean meal as the main protein sources) quality nursery diet (n = 7) in a three-phase feeding program over 38 days. The LMR disappeared at the greatest rate (37.7 g/pig/d; DM-basis) versus COM and PMR (10.8±1.5 g/pig/d; P < 0.001). Litters that received LMR had the greatest proportion of pigs with blue fecal swabs between study days 4 and 15 (85.0 vs 59.0±0.4%; P < 0.05) and LMR piglets had greater BW at weaning versus all other treatments (6.32, 6.02, 5.92, 5.67±0.14 kg, for LMR, COM, NO, and PMR, respectively; P < 0.001). Over the entire nursery period, pigs that received LOW diets had reduced ADG (399 vs 485±42 g; P < 0.001), ADFI (520 vs 595±37 g; P< 0.001), G:F (0.77 vs 0.82±0.03; P < 0.01), and BW at the end of the nursery period (21.2 vs 24.4±1.6 kg; P < 0.001), with no carryover effects of creep feeding regimen. Providing supplemental nutrition during the suckling period via LMR improved pig body weight at weaning, but did not improve post-weaning growth performance, regardless of nursery diet quality.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".