The world's first wiki where authorship really matters (Nature Genetics, 2008). Due credit and reputation for authors. Imagine a global collaborative knowledge base for original thoughts. Search thousands of articles and collaborate with scientists around the globe.

wikigene or wiki gene protein drug chemical gene disease author authorship tracking collaborative publishing evolutionary knowledge reputation system wiki2.0 global collaboration genes proteins drugs chemicals diseases compound
Hoffmann, R. A wiki for the life sciences where authorship matters. Nature Genetics (2008)

An experimental comparison of equivalent terminal and rotational crossbreeding systems in swine: sow and litter performance.

Two hundred sixty-two rotational and F1 sows were mated to Duroc, Yorkshire, or Landrace boars to study performance differences between equivalent three-breed rotational and three-breed terminal crossbreeding systems. Matings were made to maximize heterosis. The sows were fed either 1.8 or 2.7 kg/d (2.25 and 3.15 kg/d in winter months) during gestation. These matings produced 934 litters to determine the effect of crossbreeding system, breed composition within crossbreeding system, and gestation feeding level on litter sizes and weights, sow weight and backfat thickness at weaning, daily feed intake of the sow during lactation, interval from weaning to estrus, and farrowing rate. Feeding level during gestation was not an important source of variation for any of the traits except litter birth weight and daily feed intake of the sow during lactation. Litter size marketed was .37 pigs/litter greater (P < .05) for the terminal-cross sows than those sows from the rotational crossbreeding system. Litter weights at birth and 56 d were .8 and 6.5 kg heavier (P < .02, .03), respectively, for the terminal crossbreeding system than for the rotational crossbreeding system. Sow weight and backfat thickness at weaning, daily feed intake during lactation, and farrowing rate were not affected (P > .10) by crossbreeding system. Weaning-to-estrus interval was 1.3 d shorter (P < .03) for sows in the terminal crossbreeding system than for those in the rotational system.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)[1]


WikiGenes - Universities