494 Long-term effects of canola meal inclusion in gestation and lactation diets on sow and piglet performance over two reproductive cycles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The experiment was conducted to determine the long-term effects of dietary canola meal (CM) inclusion as the main protein source in gestation and lactation diets on sow and litter performance. Sows (n = 68) from two baches were randomly allotted 1 of 2 diets on d 80 of pregnancy. The two diets were a corn-barley and soybean meal control diet (CTRL) and a corn-barley and CM treatment diet (CCM). All diets were formulated to be similar in standardized ileal digestible amino acid and net energy contents. Sow body weight (BW) and backfat (BF) thickness were determined on d 1, 35, 80, and 111 of pregnancy, on d 1 and 21 post-farrowing. Piglets were weighed on d 0 and at weaning (d 21). Data were analyzed using the PROC MIXED procedure of SAS 9.4 for a randomized complete block design with repeated measures. Over the two reproductive cycles, dietary treatments did not influence sow BW and BF thickness on d 80 and 111 of pregnancy, as well as d 1 and 21 post-farrowing (P > 0.10). However, sows fed the CCM diet had less (P < 0.05) BW and BF thickness on d 1 and 35 of pregnancy in the second reproductive cycle than sows fed the CTRL diet. The CCM diet decreased gestation gain from d 80 to d 111 of pregnancy compared with the CTRL diet over the two reproductive cycles (P < 0.05). No dietary effect on litter size or litter performance was found during the experimental period (P > 0.10). However, reproductive cycle had significant effects (P < 0.05) on BW gain and BF thickness from d 80 to 111 of pregnancy as well as BW and BF thickness on d 1 of lactation. In addition, litter weight at birth and after cross-fostering were significantly improved during the second reproductive cycle compared with the first cycle (P < 0.05). An interaction between dietary treatment and reproductive cycle on BW gain and BW on d 1 of lactation was observed (P < 0.05). In conclusion, feeding gestation and lactation diets containing CM as the main protein source to sows over two reproductive cycles supported similar sow reproductive and litter performance as the control.
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 | 0.000 | 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".