Comparison of one-quarter Chinese Meishan and three-breed conventional cross females for sow productivity, and growth and carcass characteristics of the progeny
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reproductive performance over five parities of two one-quarter Meishan female genotypes were compared with a three-breed cross female genotype based on conventional breeds of pigs. Hampshire-sired progeny from these females were evaluated for growth performance and carcass measures. The female genotypes evaluated were Landrace × (Meishan × Yorkshire) (LMeY) (n = 45), Duroc × (Meishan × Yorkshire) (DMeY) (n = 41), and Landrace × (Duroc × Yorkshire) (LDY) (n = 50), respectively. LMeY had a greater number of pigs born alive (11.1, 10.6, and 10.2, SE = 0.24 for LMeY, DMeY, and LDY, respectively, P < 0.05) and a higher total litter birth weight (20.02, 18.16, and 17.29, SE = 0.383 kg for LMeY, DMeY, and LDY, respectively, P < 0.001) than the other lines. Gestation length was reduced for the two Meishan-cross genotypes (114.5, 114.3, and 114.9, SE = 0.18, for LMeY, DMeY and LDY, respectively; P < 0.001). A shorter farrowing interval was observed for the LMeY (147.1, 148.6 and 151.4, SE = 1.32 for LMeY, DMeY and LDY, respectively, P < 0.05). Number of pigs weaned per litter was highest for LMeY line (10.7, 10.0, and 9.4, SE = 0.22 for LMeY, DMeY and LDY, respectively; P < 0.05). No differences (P > 0.05) were observed between the Hampshire-sired progeny of the three dam genotypes for growth performance, backfat thickness and loin eye depth at 114 kg. These results indicate that the development of a female line with one-quarter Meishan may result in improved reproductive efficiency compared to female lines based on western breeds. Key words: Pigs, crossbred, Meishan, reproductive performance, growth performance
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".