MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4396651668 · doi:10.1093/jas/skae102.166

251 Effects of feeding increasing levels of dimethylglycine (DMG) on growth performance, livability, and carcass characteristics of commercial finishing pigs

2024· article· en· W4396651668 on OpenAlexaff
Ran Song, N. W. Shelton, S. E. Schuling, Sue M Knudtson, Jodi Miller, Dan E Schimek, K G Friesen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsNutrasource
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood scienceChemistryAnimal scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study aimed to evaluate the impact of increasing dietary levels of 78% sodium dimethylglycine (DMG) on growth performance, livability, and carcass characteristics of commercial finishing pigs. A total of 1,115 mixed-sex finishing pigs [initial body weight (BW) = 70.1 ± 1.8 kg] were housed in pens with 25 to 27 pigs per pen. Pens within block were assigned randomly to one of four dietary treatments containing 0 (Control), 0.25 (DMG_0.25), 0.5 (DMG_0.5) or 1.0 (DMG_1.0) g DMG/kg of feed with 11 replicates per treatment. This experiment extended over an 8-wk period until pigs were harvested at 125.4 ± 0.8 kg of BW. Data were analyzed using the MIXED procedure of SAS, and preplanned orthogonal contrasts were conducted to evaluate pairwise comparisons as well as linear and quadratic effects related to the increased levels of DMG. While no linear effect was observed, there was a tendency for a quadratic response in closeout feed efficiency (G/F; P = 0.08) and the percentage of pigs with morbidity (P = 0.06), with the most favorable responses found in pigs fed DMG_0.25 (Table 1). Pairwise comparisons between Control and DMG_0.25 treatments suggest that pigs receiving DMG_0.25 showed a 6% increase in closeout average daily gain (ADG; 1.01 vs. 0.95 kg/d; P = 0.02) and a 4% increase in closeout G/F (0.337 vs. 0.324; P = 0.05) compared with those fed Control diet. Furthermore, DMG supplemented at 0.25 g/kg tended to be associated with decreased mortality (P = 0.08), reduced morbidity (P = 0.09) and more pigs sold to the primary market (P = 0.10) compared with Control. In contrast, dietary supplementation of greater concentrations of DMG at 0.5 and 1.0 g/kg were not different compared with Control (P > 0.10). Carcass characteristics, including hot carcass weight, carcass yield, fat depth, loin depth, and fat-free carcass lean, were not different among treatments. The findings of this study suggest dietary supplementation of DMG at 0.25 g/kg of feed enhanced growth performance and livability in finishing pigs. However, feeding greater concentrations of DMG, up to 1.0 g/kg of feed, did not produce different outcomes compared with Control. These results indicate the potential benefits of DMG at specific inclusion rate in optimizing the production and health of finishing pigs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Science→Same topicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology→French-language works237,207→