MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402698408 · doi:10.1093/jas/skae285

Evaluation of precision feeding standardized ileal digestible lysine and other amino acids to determine and meet the lactating sow’s requirement estimates

2024· article· en· W4402698408 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mikayla S. Spinler, Jason C Woodworth, Mike D Tokach, Robert D Goodband, Joel M DeRouchey, H. L. Frobose, Amanda Uitermarkt, Jordan T Gebhardt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLactationAnimal scienceLitterLoinLysineBody weightChemistryBiologyAmino acidEndocrinologyBiochemistryPregnancyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two experiments evaluated the effects of precision feeding standardized ileal digestible (SID) Lys during lactation. Sows were blocked by parity and allotted to treatment on day 2 of lactation. In both experiments, sow body weight (BW), backfat (BF), loin depth (LD), and estimated N excretion were evaluated as well as litter growth performance. In experiment 1, 95 sows and litters were used. Three dietary treatments were provided using 2 diets: a low (0.25% SID Lys) and high Lys diet (1.10% SID Lys). Treatments included a control diet (1.10% SID Lys) fed throughout lactation, and NRC or INRA treatment curves for Lys intake. Sows fed NRC or INRA treatment curves received blends of low and high Lys diets using a computerized lactation feeder (Gestal Quattro Opti Feeder, Jyga Technologies, St-Lambert-de-Lauzon, Quebec, CA) to target a specific Lys intake each day of lactation based on NRC and INRA models for parity and litter size. In experiment 2, 56 sows and litters were used with 3 treatments, a control diet (1.10% SID Lys fed throughout lactation) and either a static or dynamic blend curve. For both curve treatments, low (0.40% SID Lys) and high Lys (1.10% SID Lys) diets were blended to reach target Lys intake. The difference between the static and dynamic curves was that the dynamic curves were adjusted based on actual Lys intake and static curves were not. Lysine intake curves were based on NRC model estimates, but targets were increased by 20% to target average Lys intake of 60 g/d across parities based on results of experiment 1. In both experiments, no differences (P > 0.05) in sow average daily feed intake or sow BW, BF, or LD change were observed. Sows fed the control diets had greater Lys intake (grams per day; P < 0.05) compared to sows fed either of the blended treatment curves. In experiment 1, pigs from sows fed the control diet had greater (P < 0.05) BW at weaning and preweaning average daily gain (ADG) compared to sows fed the INRA treatment curve, with pigs from sows fed the NRC treatment curve intermediate. However, in experiment 2, no differences (P > 0.05) were observed in pig weight at weaning or ADG. In both experiments, sows fed the blended treatment curves had lower (P < 0.05) calculated N excretion. In summary, for a litter size of 13.5 weaned pigs, 60 g/d of SID Lys is sufficient to maximize litter weight gain and can be achieved through blending low and high Lys diets. Precision feeding reduced N excretion compared to feeding a single diet throughout lactation.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207