Effects of allometric space allowance and weight group composition on grower-finisher pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The average daily gain (ADG; kg d -1 ), pen efficiency (PE; kg ADG m -2 floor space) and welfare indicators (injury levels, salivary cortisol concentrations and behaviour) of grower-finisher pigs were evaluated in groups of 19 barrows, at four levels of floor space allowances calculated mathematically (area = k × BW 0.667 ) using a constant k, (with values 0.027, 0.031, 0.034, and 0.037) for a mean final market weight of 116 kg and in two levels of group weight composition (uniform and varying weights – based on uniformity and variation of body weights of pigs within a pen at the beginning of the experiment). The corresponding space allowances (m 2 pig -1 ) at the market weight of 116 kg were 0.64 (SA0.64), 0.74 (SA0.74), 0.81 (SA0.81), and 0.88 (SA0.88). The data were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVAs and independent sample T tests. The pigs in SA0.64 had a lower ADG (0.859 ± 0.017), spent a lower proportion of time lying in preferred areas (55.22 ± 1.644) and had higher total injury scores (4.581 ± 0.139) and higher number of aggressions (1.94 ± 0.286) (P < 0.05 for all) than those in SA0.88 (0.936 ± 0.020; 61.02 ± 1.203; 3.858 ± 0.208; 1.08 ± 0.212, respectively) and SA0.81 (0.916 ± 0.019; 59.77 ± 1.417; 3.855 ± 0.112; 1.24 ± 0.238, respectively). Pigs in SA0.64 had higher (P < 0.05) overall PE (1.344 kg ADG m -2 floor space) than those in SA0.88 (1.063 ± 0.023) SA0.81 (1.131 ± 0.024) and SA0.74 (1.224 ± 0.029) allowance treatments. Pigs in the varying weight group spent a higher (P < 0.05) proportion of time lying in preferred areas (59.73 ± 0.942) than the uniform weight group (57.08 ± 1.078). Pigs in SA0.74 and SA0.64 spent lower proportion of time (P < 0.05) lying isolated (2.76 ± 0.441 and 2.18 ± 0.372, respectively) than pigs in SA0.81 (4.52 ± 0.467). The uniform weight group exhibited more (P < 0.05) exploratory behaviour (8.83 ± 0.448) than the varying weight group (7.25 ± 0.356). On fully slatted floors, space allotted considering the final market weight of barrows corresponding to k values of 0.037 and 0.034 were better (P < 0.05) than 0.027 in terms of growth rate and welfare indicators. Key words: Space allowances, welfare, daily gain, grower-finisher, pig
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".