MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399871773 · doi:10.1093/tas/txae096

Blending gestation and lactation diets during the transition period reduces energy mobilization by sows in late gestation, with no impact on subsequent lactation performance

2024· article· en· W4399871773 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsLactationGestationGestation periodObstetricsPeriod (music)PregnancyMedicineBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fifty-three gilts and fifty-three multiparous (MP) sows were used to evaluate a blended feeding program using gestation and lactation diets during the transition period on changes in sow back fat (BF) depth and BW, blood metabolites, and litter growth performance in the subsequent lactation period. A 2 × 2 factorial experimental design was generated including the factors of parity and feeding program. The MP sows and gilts were assigned to one of two feeding programs on day 104 ± 1 of gestation: 1) 2 kg/d of a standard lactation diet until farrowing when sows received step-up access to the lactation diet until ad libitum access was given on day 4 of lactation (CON) and 2) a dynamic blend of standard gestation and lactation diets that met estimated daily requirements for standardized ileal digestible Lys and net energy according to the NRC (2012) until day 4 of lactation where sows were provided ad libitum access to the lactation diet (TRAN). Litters were standardized to 13 ± 1 piglets within 24-h of birth. In gestation, ADFI was greatest for TRAN-MP sows (interaction; P < 0.05), with greater ADFI for TRAN versus CON sows (main effect; 2.95 vs. 2.13 ± 0.08 kg; P < 0.05). Feeding program did not influence ADFI in lactation, but MP sows had greater ADFI versus gilts (main effect; 5.96 vs. 4.47 ± 0.28 kg; P < 0.001). Immediately after farrowing, TRAN sows had greater BW and BF vs. CON sows, regardless of parity (main effect; 224.1 vs. 215.4 ± 4.1 kg and 17.3 vs. 16.2 ± 0.4 mm, respectively; P < 0.05). At weaning, no feeding program-related differences were observed for BW or BF, but MP sows had thicker BF compared to gilts (main effect; 14.4 vs. 13.4 ± 0.5 mm; P < 0.05). The TRAN-MP sows had heavier piglets at birth compared to all other groups (interaction; P < 0.05) and MP sows had greater litter birth weight and average piglet BW at birth versus gilts (main effect; P < 0.05). No effect of feeding program was observed for piglet BW at weaning. On lactation day 1, serum beta-hydroxybutyric acid and non-esterified fatty acid concentrations were lower for TRAN compared to CON sows (main effect; 12.0 vs. 19.4 ± 7.8 mmol/L and 0.35 vs. 0.57 ± 0.10 mmol/L, respectively; P < 0.05) and serum glucose concentration was greater for TRAN compared to CON sows (main effect; 4.41 vs. 3.88 ± 0.22 mmol/L; P < 0.05), but these differences were no longer detectable at weaning. Therefore, a simple transition feeding program using a blend of a standard gestation and lactation diets reduced energy mobilization by sows in late gestation, with no impact on subsequent lactation performance.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.278 · 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