MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200388955 · doi:10.1093/tas/txab227

Precision feeding gestating sows: effects on offspring growth performance and carcass and loin quality at slaughter

2021· article· en· W4200388955 on OpenAlexafffund
Lauren Hansen, Victoria Stewart, I. B. Mandell, Lee‐Anne Huber

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Animal Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsLoinLitterAnimal scienceOffspringWeaningBiologyGestationPregnancyParity (physics)Ecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A total of 601 pigs from 65 litters were used to determine the effects of closely meeting estimated daily Lys and energy requirements for sows during gestation for three consecutive parities on offspring postweaning growth performance and carcass and loin quality at slaughter. Sows were assigned a control (static diet composition; CON) or precision (individual daily blend of two diets to meet estimated Lys and energy requirements; PRE) feeding program between days 7 and 110 of gestation for three consecutive pregnancy cycles, starting with primiparous sows (parity 1: 12 CON and 12 PRE sows; parity 2: 8 CON and 13 PRE sows; parity 3: 8 CON and 12 PRE sows). At weaning (20 ± 2 d of age), up to 10 pigs per litter were randomly selected and placed in a pen (1 litter per pen). All pens received ad libitum access to commercial diets in six phases (four-phase nursery, grower, and finisher, respectively). Four pigs per pen were slaughtered at ~125 kg BW for evaluation of carcass characteristics and loin quality. The ADG and ADFI of offspring were not influenced by maternal feeding program in any parity during nursery phases I through III. During nursery phase IV, ADG and ADFI were greater for litters from PRE- vs. CON-fed sows (0.70 vs. 0.66 ± 0.03 and 1.15 vs. 1.08 ± 0.06 kg/d for ADG and ADFI, respectively; P < 0.05). The BW for litters from PRE- vs. CON-fed sows tended to be greater by day 66 of age (end of nursery period; 29.7 vs. 28.7 ± 1.1 kg; P = 0.076). Within the grower phase, litters from PRE-fed sows had a greater ADG in parity 2 but lower ADG in parity 3 vs. litters from CON-fed sows (0.99 vs. 0.94 and 0.93 vs. 1.01 ± 0.03 kg/d for parities 2 and 3, respectively; P < 0.05). No differences were observed for ADG or ADFI in the finisher phase or G:F in any phase for any parity. Loin eye area was smaller (52.2 vs. 55.0 ± 1.8 cm2; P < 0.05) for offspring from PRE- vs. CON-fed sows. In parity 2, carcass lean yield tended to be less for offspring from PRE- vs. CON-fed sows (58.6 vs. 59.6 ± 0.4%; P = 0.051). Minimal differences were observed for subjective and objective evaluations of loin quality. Closely meeting the estimated daily energy and Lys requirements for sows throughout gestation for three consecutive pregnancy cycles improved offspring growth performance (ADG and ADFI) in the final nursery stage, but generally did not affect growth performance in grower/finisher periods or carcass and loin quality at ~125 kg BW.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTranslational Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207