Feed restriction and type of forage influence performance and behaviour of outdoor gestating sows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forages can contribute to the nutrient supply for sows but the extent to which they can replace concentrate feeding is not well known. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of level of feed restriction and type of forage on the performance and activity of gestating sows under outdoor conditions. A total of 45 sows were distributed among three treatments, with five replicates of three sows/treatment, from week 5 of gestation until farrowing. Treatments differed in the daily level of concentrate feed provided and the type of forage offered during gestation: 90% of metabolisable energy (ME) requirements provided by concentrates and free access to a pasture (P90); 40% of ME requirements provided by concentrates and free access to a pasture (P40); and 40% of ME requirements provided by concentrates and free access to a bare paddock with hay ad libitum (H40). From farrowing to weaning (5 weeks), concentrate feed was offered to all sows ad libitum. Body weight and backfat thickness (BF) were measured seven times during gestation and lactation. Postures of sows and time spent in the pasture were assessed at the beginning, middle and end of gestation. Forage intake was estimated with a method based on sow performance using the InraPorc® model. At farrowing, P90 sows were heavier and had greater BF than P40 and H40 sows. At weaning, P90 sows maintained a higher BW and tended to have greater BF than H40 sows, but no longer differed from P40 sows. Treatments did not influence litter size, but piglets from P40 sows were lighter at birth than those from P90 sows (1.44 vs. 1.69 kg, P = 0.004). In late gestation, P90 sows spent less time standing over 24 h and less time in the pasture during daytime than P40 sows, suggesting less foraging behaviour. Sows fed concentrates to meet 40% of ME requirements during gestation did not consume enough forage to maintain the same body condition as sows fed at 90% of ME requirements. Despite their inability to fully compensate for concentrate restriction during gestation by consuming more forage, P40 sows reached a similar body condition to P90 sows at weaning. In conclusion, forage intake for outdoor gestating sows can compensate a concentrate feed reduction of 10% and possibly more, but not as much as 60%.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".