PSIII-21 Optimum SID Threonine to Lysine Ratio in Nursery Pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A total of 270 pigs (PIC 1050 x DNA 600, 6.0 kg) were used in a 42-d nursery trial to determine the optimum SID threonine to SID lysine (SID Thr/Lys) ratio for young pigs. Pigs were sorted by sex and initial BW, and were allotted to each pen (3 barrows, 3 gilts). Pens were then randomly assigned to diets containing incremental levels of SID Thr/Lys ratio (0.55, 0.60, 0.65, 0.70, 0.75), achieved using THRPRO 80 (CJ America, CA) as the source of L-threonine. Each treatment consisted of 45 piglets and 9 replicates per treatment. There were 3 dietary phases (2 weeks each) and the same levels of SID Thr/Lys were tested for each phase. All performance data (ADG, ADFI, and Gain to Feed (G:F)) were analyzed using Proc Mixed in a RCBD model with SID Thr/Lys ratio as fixed effect and weight block as random effect. Orthogonal contrasts were performed to test for linear and quadratic effects of SID Thr/Lys ratio on all performance parameters. Final BW averaged around 20.8 kg (±0.6) and was not influenced by SID Thr/Lys ratio (P>0.20). It was however lower than previously observed from previous nursery batches and might be due to pig infection with Lawsonia intracellularis and Streptococcus suis. A linear trend on ADG was observed during the last phase of nursery (P=0.10) but this response was not significant for the overall study (P>0.15). SID Thr/Lys ratio had no significant effect on ADFI during any phase or overall experimental period (P>0.20). Increasing SID Thr/Lys ratio, however, linearly increase G:F of nursery pigs overall (P< 0.05). The results of this study suggest that there is value in terms of increasing efficiency of gain with higher level of SID Thr/Lys as compared to current NRC recommendation (0.59), especially under disease challenge conditions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".