MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396651768 · doi:10.1093/jas/skae102.180

271 The effects of supplementing diets with 25-OH-D3, with or without increased vitamin E, on the performance of nursery pigs

2024· article· en· W4396651768 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jon R Bergstrom, Jose Landero, Malachy Young, Sara Hough

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVitaminAnimal scienceFood scienceVitamin D and neurologyChemistryBiologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A total of 1,440 pigs (Camborough × line 800, PIC Canada) were weaned [(20 d of age, 5.5 kg body weight (BW)] and used to compare the effects of 3 dietary fortification strategies for vitamin D and vitamin E, specifically, on growth performance from d 0 to 42 post-weaning. The 3 vitamin fortification strategies were fed over 3 dietary phases; d 0 to 7 (P1), d 7 to 21 (P2), and d 21 to 42 (P3); and consisted of 1) Control (C), “industry-type” diet that met or exceeded NRC (2012) requirement estimates for each diet phase with 1,500 IU vitamin D3 and 70 IU vitamin E/kg diet; 2) HyD, C with 50 μg 25-OH-D3 added per kg diet; and 3) HyD+E, HyD with 140 IU vitamin E/kg diet. There were 16 pens of 28 to 32 pigs allotted to each fortification strategy in a RCBD based on initial BW. Pens were weighed and feed consumption for each was recorded weekly, and average daily gain (ADG), average daily feed intake (ADFI), and feed to gain (F/G) were calculated for each week, diet phase, and the overall period. During P1, ADFI was greatest (P < 0.05, 137 g/d) for pigs fed HyD, and pigs fed HyD or HyD+E had greater (P < 0.05) ADG compared with C (117, 110, and 103 g/d, respectively). Pigs fed HyD were heavier (P < 0.05, 6.37 kg) on d 7 compared with pigs fed C (6.27 kg), with pigs fed HyD+E intermediate (6.31 kg), but there were no differences in F/G during P1. During P2, ADFI was greatest (P < 0.05, 502 g/d) for pigs fed HyD, and pigs fed HyD or HyD+E had greater (P < 0.05) ADG compared with C (419, 412, and 401 g/d, respectively). Pigs fed HyD or HyD+E were heavier (P < 0.05) on d 21 compared with pigs fed C (12.22, 12.13, and 11.91 kg, respectively), but there were no differences in F/G during P2. There were no differences in growth performance during P3 or overall (d 0 to 42). Nevertheless, in conclusion, performance differences during P1 and P2 resulted in pigs fed HyD or HyD+E having numerically greater BW (+0.34 kg) and Income-Over-Feed-Cost (+CA $0.31/pig) on d 42 when compared with pigs fed C.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207