MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410535541 · doi:10.1093/jas/skaf102.098

35 Viral disease alters feed preferences in grower pigs

2025· article· en· W4410535541 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth M Due, David S Rosero, Wesley Schweer, Eric Burrough, Nicholas K Gabler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Virus Infections Studies
Canadian institutionsCargill (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyVirologyAnimal science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS) virus reduces feed intake and growth rates and increases mortality risk in pigs. During this disease state, it is unclear if macronutrient and feed preferences change to support the immune response. Our objective was to evaluate how diet composition impacts feeding preferences during PRRS. In Exp. 1, pigs were offered a choice between a corn-soybean meal (CON) and a CON + 3.75% glucose and fructose high sugar (HS) diet. In Exp. 2, pigs were offered both CON and CON plus functional amino acids (10–20% increase in methionine, threonine, and tryptophan; FAA) diets. In Exp. 3, pigs were presented with CON, a high-protein diet (28% increase in CP; HCP), or a high-fat diet (20% increased metabolizable energy; ME) diets. Each experiment contained six pens of mixed-sex pigs (40 ± 5.5 kg) that were randomly allotted to pens (Exp. 1 and 2 contained three pigs/pen, Exp. 3 contained four pigs/pen). On day post inoculation (dpi) 0, one pig/pen was inoculated intramuscularly with a live PRRS virus. Body weights and feed disappearance were recorded weekly (-1 week post-inoculation [wpi] and at 1, 2, and 3 wpi) to calculate ADG, ADFI, and feed preference. Feed preference was expressed as the percentage of each tested diet relative to total feed intake. Data were analyzed using a linear mixed model with the fixed effect of wpi and wpi by diet. As expected, ADFI decreased (P< 0.001) in Exp. 1 (2.17, 2.27, 1.74 and 2.16 kg/d), Exp. 2 (2.10, 2.06, 1.62 and 1.92 kg/d), and Exp. 3 (1.64, 1.93, 1.53, and 1.96 kg/d) over wpi. In Exp. 1, ADG and G:F did not differ by wpi. Over the challenge period, ADG decreased by up to 50% (P< 0.05) in Exp. 2 and 3. In Exp. 2, G:F tended to decrease during 2 wpi compared to -1 and 1 wpi, recovering by 3 wpi (P=0.08), and did not differ for Exp. 3 (P=0.114). In Exp. 1, HS diets were preferred over CON in wpi -1 and 1 wpi (84% vs. 16%, respectively); however, by wpi 2 and 3, HS preference decreased to 55% compared to 45% for CON (P=0.015). Across all wpi, HS diets were preferred over CON (69% vs. 31%, P=0.001). In Exp. 2, no diet by wpi was reported. However, overall, the CON was preferred over FAA (63% and 37%, respectively, P=0.02). No wpi by diet interaction was reported in Exp. 3 (P=0.17). However, overall, the HCP and ME were preferred over CON (42, 36, and 22%, respectively, P=0.003). In conclusion, pigs prefer diets containing natural sweeteners, higher crude protein, or energy during peak PRRS. Further research is needed to determine if this is driven by olfactory or gustatory factors.

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
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Virus Infections StudiesFrench-language works237,207