MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3195680121 · doi:10.1093/tas/txab122

Dietary energy level, feeder space, and group size on growth performance and carcass characteristics of growing-finishing barrows and gilts

2021· article· en· W3195680121 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Animal Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaSwine Innovation Porc
KeywordsAnimal scienceStockingFeed conversion ratioBody weightCarcass weightEnergy densityBiologyMathematicsEndocrinologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To benefit from feeding low net energy (NE) diets, growing-finishing pigs must be able to increase feed intake to compensate for lower caloric density, but this might be difficult in pens with a high stocking density. Access to the feeder, trough space, and(or) floor area may limit voluntary feed intake. The objective of this study was to clarify the relationships among dietary NE level, feeder space, group size, sex, and interactions in growing-finishing pigs. In a 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design, 1,920 pigs (33 kg) housed in 96 fully slatted floor pens (6.1 × 2.4 m) with 2 or 3 feeder spaces, and 18 or 22 barrows or gilts per pen, were fed either low (9.2 MJ/kg) or high (9.85 MJ/kg) NE diets over 5 growth phases (Grower 1: day [d] 0 to 20, Grower 2: d 21 to 41, Grower 3: d 42 to 62, Finisher 1: d 63 to 80, Finisher 2: d 81 to slaughter). Pen body weight (BW) and average daily feed disappearance (ADFD) were measured for each growth phase, biweekly from the start of shipping and at slaughter. Warm carcasses were weighed and graded (Destron). For the entire trial, pigs fed low versus (vs.) high NE diets had 0.119 kg/d greater (P < 0.001) ADFD, but 0.556 MJ/d lower (P < 0.050) average daily caloric disappearance (ADCD), and 0.017 kg/kg lower (P < 0.001) gain-to-feed (G:F). Pens with 18 vs. 22 pigs had 0.062 kg/d greater (P < 0.001) ADFD, 0.730 MJ/d greater (P < 0.010) ADCD, and 0.029 kg/d greater (P < 0.001) average daily weight gain (ADWG). Pigs in pens with 3 vs. 2 feeding spaces had 0.051 kg/d greater (P < 0.010) ADFD, 0.511 MJ/d greater (P = 0.050) ADCD but 0.004 kg/kg lower (P < 0.050) G:F. Pigs fed low vs. high NE diets had 0.6 kg lower (P < 0.050) carcass weight and 0.9 mm lower (P < 0.050) loin depth. Pens with 18 vs. 22 pigs took 2.8 days less (P < 0.001) to reach 130 kg slaughter BW. Pens with 18 vs. 22 pigs had a 0.4 %-point decrease (P < 0.050) in dressing percentage. Feeding low vs. high NE diets reduced (P < 0.001) feed cost by Can$21.87/tonne, $3.34/pig, $0.03/kg gain, and increased (P < 0.05) gross income subtracting feed cost by $1.82/pig. Housing 18 vs. 22 pigs per pen increased (P < 0.010) ISFC by $1.98 per pig. Lack of interactions between NE level, feeder space, and group size for ADFD indicate that low NE diets can be fed to pigs even if they have lower than recommended floor area allowance during part of the finishing phase.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.187 · 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