MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307035819 · doi:10.1093/jas/skac351

The effect of moderate energy and protein restriction during gilt development on changes in body weight and backfat depth and subsequent lactation performance

2022· article· en· W4307035819 on OpenAlexaff
Nicole Gregory, C. Farmer, Robert Friendship, Lee‐Anne Huber

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLactationAnimal scienceBiologyBody weightCompensatory growth (organ)PregnancyEndocrinologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eighty-eight gilts [initial body weight (BW) 49.8 ± 0.8 kg] were recruited to determine the effects of moderate energy and protein restriction during the development period on changes in BW and backfat depth (BF) and subsequent lactation performance. Gilts were randomly assigned to one of four feeding programs: 1) standard commercial diet fed ad libitum (CON), 2) standard commercial diet fed 10% or 3) 20% below ad libitum, or 4) a high-fiber diet fed ad libitum [2.5 times more fiber (neutral detergent fiber) than the commercial diet to dilute net energy and crude protein by approximately 20% and 13%, respectively; FIB]. The gilts were housed individually and received the feeding programs between 90 and 190 (breeding) d of age and standard gestation and lactation diets thereafter. Litters were standardized to 12 ± 1 pigs within 48 h of farrowing; weaning occurred at 20.0 ± 0.4 d of age. Gilts that received the 20% restricted program had lower overall average daily feed intake (ADFI) during the development period (2.64 ± 0.04 kg; P < 0.05) versus all other feeding programs and gilts that received the 10% restricted program had lower ADFI than FIB and CON, which were not different (2.96 vs. 3.44 and 3.47 ± 0.04 kg for 10%, FIB and CON, respectively; P < 0.05). Plasma free fatty acid (FFA) concentrations on day 180 of age were lower for gilts that received the 10% and 20% restricted programs compared to gilts that received the FIB and CON programs, which were not different (97 and 86 vs. 220 and 149 ± 29 µEq/L, respectively; P < 0.05). Plasma concentrations of glucose, urea, prolactin, and IGF-1 were not different among feeding programs on day 180 of age. At breeding, gilts that received the FIB and 10% programs had lower BW and BF versus CON (145.7 and 144.8 vs. 155.2 ± 0.9 kg and 14.4 and 14.8 vs. 16.5 ± 0.2 mm for BW and BF, respectively; P < 0.05) but greater BW than gilts that received the 20% restricted program (137.9 kg; P < 0.05). The BW and BF of gilts did not differ at the end of gestation or at weaning. The ADFI of sows during lactation and offspring birth weight and growth rate during lactation and the 5-wk nursery period were not influenced by gilt development feeding program. Therefore, a high-fiber feeding program could be used in group-housing gilt-development scenarios, where feed is offered ad libitum, to control BW and BF prior to breeding without influencing milk production in the subsequent lactation period.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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