19 Evaluation of precision feeding standardized ileal digestible lysine to meet the requirements of lactating sows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Two experiments evaluated the effects of precision feeding lactating sows. In both experiments, sows were blocked by parity and allotted to treatment on d 2 of lactation. The first experiment included a total of 95 mixed parity sows and litters. Treatments included a control, NRC (2012), or INRA (2009) treatment curve. Sows on the NRC or INRA treatment curves received a blend of a low (0.25% SID Lys) and high (1.10% SID Lys) Lys diet using the Gestal Quattro Opti Feeder (Jyga Technologies, St-Lambert-de-Lauzon, Quebec, Canada) to target specific SID Lys intake/d based on parity and litter size according to NRC and INRA models. Control sows received only the high Lys diet. Blend of the high and low Lys diets were adjusted every 2 d based on actual Lys intake to more closely meet target Lys intake (NRC and INRA curves). Control sows had greater (P < 0.05) average Lys intake (76.7 g/d) compared with sows fed either NRC (53.1 g/d) or INRA (42.8 g/d) curves (Table). Pigs from sows fed the high Lys diet had greater (P < 0.05) body weight at weaning and average daily gain (ADG) compared with pigs from sows fed INRA treatment, with NRC curve fed sows intermediate. Nitrogen excretion, estimated from NRC equations, was greatest (P < 0.05) in sows fed the high Lys diet, followed by sows fed the NRC curve, and INRA curve sows the least. In Exp. 2, 56 mixed parity sows and litters were used. Treatments included a control where sows were provided a high Lys (1.10% SID Lys) diet and two treatments where sows were fed either a static or dynamic blend of a low (0.40 % SID Lys) and high Lys diet to target a specific SID Lys intake/d based on parity and litter size. The dynamic curve blend was adjusted based on actual Lys intake every 2 d to reach target Lys intake while the static curve was not adjusted. Lysine intake curves were based on the NRC (2012), but targets were increased by 20% to reach an average Lys intake of 60 g/d across parities. Control sows had greater Lys intake (P < 0.05; 77.7 g/d) compared with sows fed the blend curves, with no differences between the two blend curves (P > 0.05; 60.1 vs. 59.7 g/d). There were no differences (P > 0.05) observed in litter size, piglet or litter weight at weaning, or ADG. Estimated nitrogen excretion was greater (P < 0.05) for sows on the control diet compared with both blend curves. These data would suggest that 60 g/d of SID Lys is sufficient to maximize litter weight gain for litter sizes of 13.5 weaned piglets. Overall, feed blending can be used to decrease N excretion while achieving similar performance compared with feeding a standard high Lys diet.
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 | 0.001 | 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".