MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200315103 · doi:10.1093/tas/txab211

The effect of creep feed composition and form on pre- and post-weaning growth performance of pigs and the utilization of low-complexity nursery diets

2021· article· en· W4200315103 on OpenAlexafffund
Brenda Christensen, Lee‐Anne Huber

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Animal Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsCreep feedingWeaningFecesAnimal scienceLitterComposition (language)CreepBiologyDry matterSoybean mealMealWeight gainBody weightFood scienceAgronomyMaterials scienceEcologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fifty-six litters from first-parity sows standardized to 12 piglets were used to determine the effects of creep feed composition and form on pre- and post-weaning pig growth performance and the utilization of low-complexity nursery diets. At 5 days of age, litters (initial body weight [BW] 2.31 ± 0.61 kg) were assigned to one of four creep feeding regimens (n = 14): 1) pelleted 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. Individual piglet BW and fecal swabs were collected every 3 ± 1 days during the creep-feeding period. The latter was to identify piglets that regularly consumed creep feed via the visual appearance of blue dye in the feces. At weaning (21 ± 2 days of age), six pigs per litter with median BW 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) complexity nursery diet (n = 7) in a three-phase feeding program over 39 days. On day 8, two pigs per pen were sacrificed to collect organ weights and digesta. The LMR disappeared at the greatest rate (average 37.7 g/pig/d; dry matter-basis) versus COM and PMR (10.6 and 10.3 ± 1.5 g/pig/d, respectively; P < 0.001). Litters that received LMR had the greatest proportion of pigs with blue fecal swabs throughout the creep feeding period (85.0 vs. 54.9 and 63.0% ± 0.4% for COM and PMR, respectively; P < 0.05) and LMR piglets had greater BW at weaning versus all other treatments (6.32 vs. 6.02, 5.92, and 5.67 ± 0.14 kg, for LMR, COM, NO, and PMR, respectively; P < 0.001). Overall, pigs given LOW (vs. HIGH) diets in the nursery period had reduced average daily gain (25.1 vs. 27.7 ± 0.4 g/kg BW; P < 0.001), gain:feed (0.75 vs. 0.81 ± 0.02; P < 0.001), and exit BW (21.2 vs. 24.4 ± 0.6 kg; P < 0.001); no carryover effects of creep feeding program were observed. Creep feed regimen had limited effects on nutrient digestibility of nursery diets but the apparent ileal digestibility of organic matter tended to be less at 28 days of age for pigs that received the LOW nursery diet (64.2 vs. 68.8% ± 2.5%; P = 0.076). Providing supplemental nutrition during the suckling period via LMR improved piglet BW at weaning, which did not correspond to improved post-weaning growth performance, regardless of nursery diet complexity.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations18
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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