The responses of growing pigs exposed to cold with varying amounts of straw bedding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Confinement housing of pigs allows optimal thermal conditions to be maintained thus reducing the thermal demand placed on the pig. Alternatives tend to cost less to construct, use less energy to operate and possibly have higher welfare standards than conventional housing; however, the thermal demand on the pig could be greater. An experiment consisting of two trials was conducted to examine the effect of varying amounts of straw bedding on the performance and behaviour of growing pigs while exposed to cold conditions. Four straw bedding treatments were studied and referred to as Least (20 kg), Medium-low (80 kg), Medium-high (137 kg) and Most (196 kg) straw usage. Results from the analysis of the two trials indicated that pigs with the three greatest amounts of straw gained more weight than pigs with the Least straw (P < 0.05). Pigs with the Least straw huddled with a sternal posture and piled more than pigs in the other three treatments (P < 0.05). Pigs with the two highest amounts of straw adopted a lateral posture while huddling more than pigs with the two lowest amounts of straw (P < 0.05). Pigs with the Most straw were also lying alone with a lateral posture more than pigs with the two lowest amounts of straw, and burrowed more than pigs in the other three treatments (P < 0.05). This study provides information on the adaptability of growing pigs exposed to different environmental conditions. Straw bedding was shown to be an important resource used by pigs to aid in thermoregulation in cold environments. Behavioural responses were also shown to be an effective means of adaptation. Key words: Straw bedding, cold conditions, thermoregulation, pigs, behaviour, 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".