Sow shoulder lesions: Risk factors and treatment effects on an Ontario farm1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to identify risk factors for the development of shoulder lesions in lactating sows and to determine if an effective, economical, and practical treatment could be designed. The study was conducted at a 300-sow farrow-to-finish swine farm in Ontario between July and December 2004. Sow data were recorded on either the day of or 1 d after entering the farrowing crate and before farrowing had occurred. The right and left shoulders of the sows were assigned a score between 0 (normal) and 4 (lesion > 2.3 cm in diam.) on d 1 of the study and weekly thereafter throughout lactation. If a lesion developed, sows were randomly placed into 1 of 3 treatment groups. Groups consisted of a control group that received no treatment, a group that had a 0.2-cm thick, 60 x 60-cm, stainless steel plate attached to the bottom of the farrowing crate, and a group that had a 3.8-cm thick, 60 x 60-cm rubber mat attached to the bottom of the farrowing crate. Of the 310 sows involved in the study, 107 (34%) developed a lesion with a score of 3 or 4. Multivariate regression analysis identified body condition at weaning, flank-to-flank measurements at weaning, breed, parity, farrowing room section, and weaning weight of the litter as significantly associated with development of a shoulder lesion of score 3 or 4. The average number of days for the lesions to be completely resolved was 25 for sows receiving rubber mats, 32 for the controls, and 39 for the sows receiving stainless steel plates. Rubber mats attached to the bottom of the farrowing crates decreased the time required to heal the lesions when compared with controls. The low cost per mat (less than 0.90 dollars factoring in repeated use) makes it an economical and effective treatment.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".