Water intake and wastage at nipple drinkers by growing-finishing pigs1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three experiments were conducted to assess water intake, water wastage, and a means to decrease water wastage by growing-finishing pigs from nipple drinkers. In Exp. 1, 48 pigs were studied during two periods (average BW = 53 and 72 kg for Period 1 and 2, respectively). Water disappearance and wastage were determined for 4 d, while nipple drinkers were set at 50 mm above the shoulder height of the smallest pig in the pen (recommended heights), with flow rates at 700 mL/min during Period 1, and 1,000 mL/min during Period 2. Water intake rate was assessed at two nipple flow rates, approximately 650 and 1,300 mL/min during the Period 1, and 1,000 and 2,000 mL/min during the Period 2. The average water intake was 4.01 and 5.38 +/- 0.19 L.pig(-1).d(-1) during Periods 1 and 2, respectively (P < 0.01). Water wastage as a percentage of water disappearance was similar between the two periods (25.8 and 27.0 +/- 1.9% for Periods 1 and 2, respectively). Water intake rate was 467 and 795 mL/min (+/-34.2; P < 0.01) during Period 1, and 722 and 1,422 mL/min (+/-80.0; P < 0.01) during Period 2, at the lower and higher flow rates, respectively. In Exp. 2, 32 pigs were used in a 2 x 2 factorial design to determine effects of nipple heights (recommended vs. unadjusted = 330 mm) and flow rates (500 vs. 1,000 mL/min) on water intake and wastage. Water wastage was increased (P < 0.01) on the unadjusted vs. recommended nipple height, and the higher flow rate also resulted in greater wastage (P = 0.03) compared with the lower rate. In Exp. 3, water disappearance and manure output in 16 pens of 18 pigs per pen were monitored for 12 wk (average initial BW = 32 kg) using four drinker treatments (bowl drinker, nipple drinker at recommended heights, an unadjusted nipple set at 480 mm, and high nipple drinker height of 730 mm with a step underneath). For pigs on the high nipple drinker, the average water disappearance and manure output did not differ from those of the pigs on the recommended nipple heights and bowl drinker, but these measurements were 15 and 12% lower, respectively, than for the pigs on the low nipple drinker. The results indicate that growing-finishing pigs can maintain adequate water intake from a variety of drinker types and management. Water wastage can be controlled through drinker management.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".