Drinker to Nursery Pig Ratio: Preference for a Drinker Location within a Pen and its Effects on Aggression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to (1) calculate aggressive interactions around the water bowl drinkers and to (2) determine preference for a water bowl location when pigs were offered either one, two or three water bowl drinkers per pen. Information is available on the current drinker to nursery pig’s ratios (drinker: pigs). In the UK producers are recommended 1:15, while in the US it is 1:10 for nursery pigs. A total of 225 crossbred were seven weeks of age. Conventional nursery pens had plastic flooring and all pigs had ad-libitum access to a commercially formulated diet. Water was delivered through a single stainless steel water bowl drinker and was provided ad libitum. All pigs received a natural light cycle from a curtain sided building. Nine pens were used for behavioral measures. Three treatments were compared. Treatment one (TRT 1; n = 3) was defined as one water bowl drinker per pen. Treatment two (TRT 2; n = 3) was defined as two water bowl drinkers per pen. Treatment three (TRT 3; n = 3) was defined as three water bowl drinkers per pen. One day prior to visual recording of drinking behavior, all pigs in a pen were identified with an individual number. One 12 V black and white CCTV camera was positioned over each water bowl drinker and behavior was recorded from 0700 to 1300 h over two consecutive days onto a DVR at 1 frame per second. The acquisition of drinking behavior (defined as the pig having its head in the water bowl drinker for 5 s or longer) was obtained by three experienced observers who viewed the recordings using 24 h mode (5 frame / s) onto the Observer software. Total number of aggressive interactions and length of aggression around the water bowl drinker over the 6 h period was not (P < 0.05) different between the treatments. The total amount of time that nursery pigs spent when offered two (F vs. O) water bowl drinkers in a pen did not (P = 0.47) differ. However, when pigs were offered three (F vs. O vs. A) water bowl drinkers in a pen there was a difference (P < 0.0001) for total amount of time spent at all three locations. In conclusion, pigs displayed a water bowl drinker preference with the alley location being the least favored; however, there were no difference in the number or length of aggressive interactions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".