Effects of Standardized Ileal Digestible Tryptophan to Lysine Ratio on Growth Performance of PIC Line 337 × 1050 Pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of these experiments was to evaluate the impact of varying SID Trp:Lys ratios on growth performance, removals, and mortality rates of PIC 337 × 1050 finishing pigs. In each experiment, pens of pigs were blocked by BW and randomly assigned to 1 of 5 dietary treatments in a randomized complete block design with 22 to 27 pigs per pen and 6 or 7 replications per treatment. In Exp. 1, 840 pigs (initially 101.2 ± 2.08 lb) were used from 101 to 161 lb. In Exp. 2, 801 pigs (initially 219.8 ± 3.44 lb) were used from 220 to 281 lb. Dietary treatments were corn-soybean meal-based with 30 or 20% DDGS (Exp. 1 and 2, respectively) and contained increasing SID Trp:Lys ratios at 15, 17.5, 19, 21, and 23%. Diets containing low and high Trp:Lys ratios were blended to achieve the target SID Trp:Lys treatment levels in Exp. 1, while diets containing low, medium, and high Trp:Lys ratios were blended to achieve the target SID Trp:Lys treatment levels in Exp. 2. Between experiments, all pens of pigs were placed on a common diet for 27 d and pens were reallotted to dietary treatment at the start of Exp. 2. In Exp. 1, increasing the SID Trp:Lys ratio increased (quadratic, P ≤ 0.008) ADG, ADFI, and final BW and improved (quadratic, P = 0.007) F/G. As expected, increasing SID Trp:Lys increased (linear, P < 0.001) Trp intake, g/d. In addition, Trp intake per kg of gain and Lys intake/d increased (quadratic, P ≤ 0.009), while Lys intake per kg of gain decreased (quadratic, P = 0.008) with increasing SID Trp:Lys ratio. There was no difference between Trp:Lys ratios on the percentage of removals, mortalities, or total removals (P > 0.10). For model analysis in 101- to 161-lb pigs, the developed broken-line linear models suggested no further improvement to ADG and F/G beyond 19.0 and 19.3% SID Trp:Lys, respectively. Meanwhile, a similar fitting quadratic polynomial (QP) model suggested minimum F/G was achieved at 21.5% SID Trp:Lys. In Exp. 2, increasing the SID Trp:Lys ratio increased (linear, P ≤ 0.001) Trp intake and Trp intake per kg of gain (quadratic, P = 0.050). However, no other observed response criteria were significantly impacted (P≥ 0.10). Models to predict optimal Trp:Lys ratios were not analyzed for 220- to 281-lb pigs due to the lack of observed differences for ADG and F/G. In summary, these
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".