ArticleJournal of animal science2024
On farm precision feeding of gestating sows based on energy and amino acids on farrowing performances and feeding behavior over 3 consecutive gestations.
Article in Journal of animal science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gestating sows are often fed a single diet throughout their gestation cycle, leading to situations of nutrients deficiency or excess at the individual level. The purpose of this study was to characterize, over 3 consecutive cycles, the impact of a precision feeding (PF), i.e., dietary supplies adjusted at individual level in terms of quantity (energy intake) and quality (standardized ileal digestible (SID) lysine (Lys) intake), on gestating sows' productive performance, feeding behavior, environmental outputs, and health status compared with sows fed a conventional feeding (CF, i.e., fixed SID Lys intake). At the start of the trial, 2 batches of 20 Landrace × Large White gestating sows were allocated to one of the 2 feeding strategies (PF vs. CF), based on their parity (1, 2, or 3 and more), body weight, and backfat thickness (BT) 3 days after insemination. The PF strategy consisted in mixing with automatic feeders 2 iso-energetic diets (9.8 MJ/kg of net energy with 3.3 and 8.5 g SID Lys/kg, respectively) in variable proportions at individual and daily levels, whereas for the CF strategy these proportions remained constant throughout gestation (73% and 27%, respectively, resulting in an SID Lys concentration of 4.7 g/kg). Sows were followed over 3 consecutive gestations and the sows remained allocated to the same strategy throughout the study. Some sows were culled before the end of the study and were replaced by other sows who therefore performed only 1 or 2 gestations during the study. Thus, 106 gestations and lactations from 51 sows were fully studied and their data analyzed. The PF strategy allowed the sows to reach more closely the expected BT values at farrowing across cycles than the CF strategy (P < 0.001). The PF sows consumed 16% less SID Lys per gestation than the CF sows (P < 0.001), resulting in a 4% improvement in N efficiency (P < 0.001), with no impact on performance at farrowing (P > 0.10). The sows consumed their daily ration in a single visit whatever the feeding strategy (P = 0.41), but CF sows spent more time in the feeder in cycles 2 and 3 (P < 0.001). Thus, compared to the CF strategy implemented by farmers, the individual and daily nutritional supplies implemented with the PF strategy were more efficient in enabling sows to achieve body condition objectives at farrowing over the long term, also with a reduced SID Lys intake and an improved N efficiency without negative impact on farrowing performances.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.