Evaluation of Precision Feeding SID Lysine to Lactating Sows on Sow and Litter Performance, Nitrogen Level, and Feed Cost
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 95 mixed parity sows (DNA 241) and litters (DNA 241 × 600) were used across four batch farrowing groups to evaluate the effects of precision feeding Lys during lactation. Sows were blocked by parity and allotted to 1 of 3 treatments on day 2 (the day after farrowing) of lactation. Dietary treatments were formed by using 2 diets: a low Lys diet (0.25% SID Lys) and a high Lys diet (1.10% SID Lys). Treatments included a control, NRC (2012), or INRA (2009) treatment curve. Sows on the NRC or INRA treatment curves received a blend of the low and high diet using the Gestal Quattro Opti Feeder (Jyga Technologies, St-Lambert-de-Lauzon, Quebec, Canada) to target a specific SID g/d of Lys intake for each day of lactation based on the NRC and INRA models for each sow parity and litter size combination. Sows on the control treatment received only the high Lys diet with no diet blending or specific g/d of Lys target. Sows were allowed ad libitum access to feed throughout lactation. Lysine intake was 102% of targeted average g/d of Lys intake during lactation for sows fed the NRC treatment curve and 98% of targeted average g/d for sows fed the INRA treatment curves. Sows fed only the high Lys diet (control) had greater (P < 0.05) average g/d of Lys intake compared to sows fed either the NRC or INRA treatment curves. No differences (P > 0.05) in sow weight, backfat, caliper score, or loin depth change were observed among treatments. However, litters from sows fed the control treatment had greater (P < 0.05) litter weight on d 9 and weaning compared to litters from sows fed either the NRC or INRA treatment curves. Pigs from sows fed the control treatment had greater (P < 0.05) BW at weaning and preweaning ADG compared to pigs from sows fed the INRA treatment curve, with pigs from sows fed the NRC treatment curve intermediate. Sows fed the NRC treatment curve had a greater (P < 0.05) feed cost per lb of litter gain compared to sows fed the control treatment, with sows fed the INRA treatment curve intermediate. This was unexpected because sows fed the NRC treatment curves had a blend of the low and high Lys diets which had a decreased feed cost per lb compared to the control diet. However, this was the result of
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".