Evaluation of Precision Feeding Standardized Ileal Digestible Lysine to Meet the Lactating Sow’s Requirement and Maximize Piglet Growth Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 56 mixed parity sows (DNA 241, Columbus, NE) and litters (DNA 241 × 600) were used across two batch farrowing groups to evaluate the effects of precision feeding SID Lys during lactation. Sows were blocked by parity and allotted to 1 of 3 treatments on day 2 of lactation (the day after the start of farrowing). The first treatment was a control treatment where sows were provided a 1.10% SID Lys diet throughout lactation. The second and third treatments included sows fed either a static blend curve or a dynamic blend curve. Both blend curve treatments utilized the Gestal Quattro Opti Feeder (Jyga Technologies, St-Lambert-de-Lauzon, Quebec, Canada) to blend a low and high Lys diet to target a specific SID g/d of Lys intake for each day of lactation. The only difference between the static blend curve and dynamic blend curve was that the dynamic blend curve of the low and high Lys diet was adjusted every 2 days based on a rolling average of Lys intake to more closely reach target g/d of Lys intake while the static blend curve was not adjusted throughout lactation. Lysine intake curves were based on the NRC (2012) model estimates, but targets were increased by 20% to reach an average Lys intake of approximately 60 g/d across parities. Dietary treatments for sows on the blend curve treatments were formed by blending a low Lys diet (0.40% SID Lys) and the control high Lys diet (1.10% SID Lys). Actual SID Lys intake was 97% of the targeted g/d for sows fed the static blend curve and 96% of targeted g/d for sows fed the dynamic blend curve. Sows fed the control treatment had greater Lys intake (g/day; P < 0.05) compared to sows fed either of the blend curve treatments, with no differences between the two blend curve treatments (P > 0.05). No differences in sow ADFI or sow body weight, backfat, or loin depth at entry or weaning were observed among treatments (P > 0.05). There were no differences among treatments observed in litter size, piglet weight at birth or weaning, ADG, and litter weight or ADG (P > 0.05). Because sows fed either blend curve had a numerically greater ADFI, no differences in sow feed cost were observed (P > 0.05). Sows fed the control treatment excreted more N and had a higher serum urea N concentration compared to
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".