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 OpenAlexafffund
M.N. Smit, Xun Zhou, J.L. Landero, Malachy Young, E. Beltranena

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0020.000

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

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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTranslational Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207