Response of growing pigs to the inclusion of hybrid rye in low or high-energy diets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Previous research has shown reduced feed intake and growth rate in pigs fed diets with hybrid rye replacing wheat. A reduction in growth rate caused by reduced feed intake will conceivably be counteracted by increasing the dietary energy level. Our objective, therefore, was to determine the effects of 40% hybrid rye inclusion replacing wheat in diets formulated to be either low or high net energy (NE) on growth, feed intake, energy digestibility, and lesion scores in growing-finishing pigs. We hypothesized that pigs fed 40% hybrid rye would perform better on the high than the low energy diets. A total of 160 pigs (body weight [BW] 70.1 kg) housed in 32 pens, 5 pigs per pen, were fed diets with 0% or 40% hybrid rye (var. ‘KWS Bono’; KWS LOCHOW GMBH), either with low (2,350) or high (2,450) kcal NE per kg of diet over two growth phases (phase 1; 70 to 85 kg BW; phase 2; 85 to 130 kg BW). The BW, and feed disappearance were measured on days 0, 8, 17, 28, 42, and 50. Fecal samples obtained in phase 2 (~100 kg BW) were used to calculate apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of gross energy (GE). Lesion scores were measured weekly. The ATTD of GE was unaffected by rye inclusion and was reduced in low vs. high NE diets. Overall, (days 0 to 50), pigs fed the low-energy rye diet gained 0.08 kg/d less (P < 0.01) than those fed the high-energy rye diet or the low-energy diet without rye, which was caused by a reduced weight gain during the initial 17 d of the trial. Final BW and overall feed intake were not affected by rye inclusion or NE level. The NE intake was greater (P < 0.05) and feed efficiency (G:F) was reduced (P < 0.05) in pigs fed rye diets compared to those fed diets without rye, whereas there was no effect of NE level on NE intake or G:F. There was no effect of rye inclusion or NE level on lesion scores. In conclusion, pigs can be fed diets including 40% hybrid rye with only minor changes in growth performance. Increasing the NE level of the first phase diet in the grower-finisher barn may be useful to avoid a reduction in growth performance when feeding hybrid rye.
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) | 0.000 | 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".