MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402541806 · doi:10.1093/jas/skae234.183

490 Lifetime growth performance and carcass composition of offspring when inactivated Saccharomyces cerevisiae was included in gestating and lactating gilt diets and/or offspring nursery diets

2024· article· en· W4402541806 on OpenAlexaff
Brenda Christensen, Hagen Schulze, Elijah G. Kiarie, Lee‐Anne Huber

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOffspringBiologyComposition (language)Animal scienceSaccharomyces cerevisiaeFood scienceLactationYeastBiochemistryPregnancyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Gilts [n = 90; initial body weight (BW) = 189.1 ± 3.9 kg] were used to determine the effect of feeding a yeast additive (Saccharomyces cerevisiae inactivated through hydrolyzation; HY) to gestating and lactating gilts and/or the offspring during the nursery period on lifetime offspring growth performance. Gilts were randomly assigned to one of three dietary treatments (n = 30/treatment): standard gestation and lactation diets (GHY0) or supplemented with 0.25% (GHY0.25) or 1% (GHY1.0) HY. Diets were fed between d 85 of gestation until weaning at d 21 (2.6 kg/d in gestation, ad libitum in lactation). At weaning, 8 piglets/litter were placed in nursery pens and pens were randomly assigned to a control (NO) or a HY-supplemented diet (NHY), apart from GHY1.0 offspring who were only provided NO during the nursery period (n = 12). In nursery phases 1, 2 and 3, HY was included at 0.75, 0.50, and 0.25% respectively. Thereafter, pigs received standard grower and finisher rations until slaughter (160 d of age). Data were analyzed in SAS using GLIMMIX with gilt treatment as the main effect (pre-weaning); post-weaning performance used gilt and nursery treatments as the main effects, and interactive effects were tested separately due to the incomplete 3 × 2 factorial design. Mean comparisons were conducted using the Tukey-Kramer test to separate LSmeans. Gilt BW was unaffected by gilt treatment, but gilts fed GHY1.0 had greater total lactation feed intake versus GHY0.25 (128.6 vs. 109.4 ± 7.7 kg; P < 0.01). At birth, GHY0.25 offspring were 70 g heavier than pigs from GHY0 (P < 0.001) with GHY1.0 intermediate. At weaning, GHY0.25 and GHY1.0 offspring were heavier than GHY0 offspring (5.9 vs. 5.6 kg; P < 0.001). After weaning, neither gilt nor nursery diet influenced offspring BW. Pigs fed GHY1.0-NO had greater ADFI versus all other treatments in the nursery (interaction; P < 0.001), GHY0.25-NHY had greater ADFI than GHY0.25-NO and GHY1.0-NO in the grower (interaction; P = 0.005), and NHY consumed more feed than NO in the finisher phase (main effect; P < 0.001). In the nursery, NHY had less average daily feed intake (ADFI) than NO (main effect; P < 0.05), but in grower and finisher, NHY had greater ADFI than NO pigs (main effect; P < 0.001). In the nursery, gain to feed (G:F) was greater for GHY0-NHY versus GHY0.25-NHY and GHY1.0-NO, and greater for GHY0-NO versus GHY0.25-NHY with all other treatments intermediate (interaction; P < 0.05). In the grower phase, G:F was unaffected by maternal or nursery diet, but in the finisher phase, G:F was less for pigs fed NHY versus NO during the nursery phase (main effect; P < 0.05). Slaughter BW, hot carcass weight, and fat and lean percents were not influenced by gilt or nursery diet. Therefore, HY provided to gilts during gestation and lactation, improved pre-weaning offspring growth, but HY supplemented to pigs during the nursery period had greater positive effects on lifetime growth 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.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207