Animal-related factors associated with piglet mortality in a bedded, group-farrowing system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Li, Y. Z., Anderson, J. E. and Johnston, L. J. 2012. Animal-related factors associated with piglet mortality in a bedded, group-farrowing system. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 92: 11–20. To understand pre-weaning mortality of piglets in a bedded, group-farrowing system, associations with sow parity, mortality of piglets during the first 24 h after birth, farrowing behavior, cross-fostering, birth weight and gender of piglets were investigated. Sows (n=169, parity 1 to 10) from eight contemporary groups were evaluated. Litter size at birth, dead piglets from birth to weaning, and individual weight of piglets at birth and weaning (27±2.6 d) were recorded. Behavior of 46 focal sows during farrowing was video-recorded. Piglet mortality within litter increased (P<0.001) with increasing parity. Piglets that died before weaning were lighter (P<0.001) at birth than weaned piglets. Mortality of pigs during the first 24 h postpartum was correlated positively with pre-weaning mortality within litter (R2=0.34; P<0.001). Farrowing behaviors were not associated with piglet mortality, and were not different among sows of different parities, or between sows with and without 24 h piglet mortality. Gender of piglets and cross-fostering did not affect piglet mortality. Results indicate that parity, 24 h mortality, and birth weight of piglets were the major animal-related factors associated with piglet mortality in the loose farrowing system studied.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".