271 Impact of Amount and Solubility of Dietary Fiber Fed During Late Gestation and During the Pre-Farrowing Period on Sow and Litter Performance in Lactation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study evaluated the impact of level and solubility of total dietary fiber (TDF) on sow and litter performance when fed during late gestation and early pre-farrowing. Sows (n = 241) were assigned by body condition to a 2×2 factorial arrangement plus a control treatment (with no supplement) with the following factors: 1) Amount of a fiber supplement (0.45 or 0.90 kg), and 2) Fiber solubility (high soluble dietary fiber (SDF) of 9.63% with 25.25% insoluble dietary fiber (IDF) or high IDF of 30.73% with 4.18% SDF). Fiber supplements were formulated using sugar beet pulp and soybean hulls and were provided in addition to a common gestation (12.0% TDF) and lactation diet (11.3% TDF) from day 99 (± 1 d) of gestation until parturition. Total number of pigs born, and piglet birth weight were not impacted by treatment. Number of stillborn pigs was reduced by 0.45 kg IDF supplement (P = 0.03), but it increased ( P= 0.008) the number of low-birth weight pigs (< 1 kg) compared with control, 0.90 kg IDF, and 0.45 and 0.90 kg SDF supplement (1.31a vs. 0.50b, 0.33b, 0.47b, and 0.40b, respectively). Treatment did not affect number of pigs weaned and pig weaning weight. Number of small-weaned pigs (< 3.6 kg) was least (P < 0.001) with 0.90 kg IDF, and 0.45 kg SDF compared with control, 0.45 kg IDF and 0.90 kg SDF (0.53c and 1.00bc vs 3.31a, 3.27a, and 2.00ab, respectively). Weaning to estrus interval was reduced (P = 0.003) by 0.90 kg IDF and 0.45 and 0.90 kg SDF compared with control and 0.45 kg IDF (5.00b, 4.77b, and 5.22ab vs. 6.51a, and 6.59a days, respectively). Results suggest that composition of fiber is important, and that fiber provided as a supplement to the standard feed may be a practical strategy to improve sow performance during the late gestation and the pre-farrowing 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".