MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388180969 · doi:10.1093/jas/skad341.140

218 Simple Blending of Gestation and Lactation Diets During the Transition Period Minimizes Losses in Back Fat Depth Around Parturition for Primi and Multiparous Sows

2023· article· en· W4388180969 on OpenAlexaff
Nicole Gregory, Lee‐Anne Huber

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLactationWeaningAnimal scienceLitterGestationBiologyCreep feedingWeight gainPregnancyBody weightEndocrinologyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fifty of each primiparous and multiparous sows were used to evaluate a blending feeding program using gestation and lactation diets during the transition period on sow back fat depth (BF), blood metabolites, and litter growth performance. Sows were randomly assigned to one of two feeding programs in a 2×2 factorial design (n = 25) from 104 ± 1 days of gestation: 1) a unique daily blend of standard gestation [0.58% standardized ileal digestible (SID) lysine and 2419kcal/kg NE] and lactation diets (0.95% SID lysine and 2507kcal/kg NE) until day 5 after farrowing to meet estimated daily SID lysine and net energy requirements (NRC, 2012; TRAN) or 2) approximately 2 kg per day of a standard lactation diet until farrowing (CON). Upon farrowing, sows on the CON feeding program received step-up access to the lactation diet according to a feeding curve. Five days after farrowing, both groups received ad libitum access to the lactation diet until weaning (20.0 ± 0.3 days). Sow body weight (BW) and BFwere measured on day 104 and 110 of gestation (BW only), after farrowing, and at weaning. Fasted blood samples were collected from sows at farrowing and weaning. Litters were standardized to 13 ± 1 piglets and were not provided creep feed. During gestation, TRAN sows consumed more feed than CON sows, which was especially evident for multiparous sows (2.95 vs. 2.13 ± 0.08kg/d for TRAN vs. CON; interaction and main effect; P < 0.05). During lactation, average daily feed intake was not influenced by feeding program but was greater for multi versus primiparous sows (5.98 vs. 4.20 ± 0.30kg; P < 0.001). At all time points, BW was greater for multi versus primiparous sows, regardless of feeding program (P < 0.05). During the gestation period, TRAN sows tended to have greater average daily gain (1.43 vs. 1.00±0.39kg/d; P=0.061) and had less back fat loss (-0.18 vs. -0.92 ± 0.37mm; P < 0.05) versus CON sows, regardless of parity. Only after farrowing, TRAN sows had greater BW and BF than CON sows, regardless of parity (221.5 vs. 215.5 ± 4.1kg and 17.0 vs. 16.3 ± 0.4mm; P < 0.05), but at weaning there were no feeding program-related differences in BW or BF. No feeding program-related differences were observed for litter characteristics, but litter birth weight and piglet BW at weaning were greater for multi versus primiparous sows (P< 0.01). Only after farrowing, serum BHBA (11.9 vs. 19.4 ± 7.8mmol/L) and NEFA (0.34 vs. 0.56 ± 0.10mmol/L) concentrations were less and serum glucose concentrations (4.4 vs. 3.9 ± 0.2mmol/L) were greater for TRAN versus CON sows (P < 0.05), regardless of parity. Therefore, a simple transition feeding program using standard gestation and lactation diets reduced energy mobilization by multi and primiparous sows in late gestation, with no impact on subsequent lactation performance.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.357
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 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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