Productivity and aggression at grouping of grower-finisher pigs in large groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of eight 11-wk trials were conducted to evaluate the productivity and aggression at grouping of grower-finisher pigs [initial body weight (BW) = 31.8 ± 5.4 kg (mean ± SD), n = 2304] in two group size treatments (18 and 108 pigs pen-1). Pigs were housed on fully-slatted floors, provided one wet/dry feeder space for every nine pigs, and a floor space allowance of 0.76 m2 pig-1 in both group sizes. The level of aggression at grouping was recorded for 2 h starting 0, 24 and 48 h following grouping into small and large groups. Pigs were weighed on weeks 0, 2, 5, 7 and 11, and average daily gain (ADG) was obtained. Average daily feed intake (ADFI) was recorded during two periods (weeks 2 to 5 and 7 to 11). There was no difference in percentage of time spent on aggression between two group sizes up to 48 h following grouping. ADG for the entire 11-wk trial was affected (2%) by large group size (0.971 and 0.955 kg d-1 for groups of 18 and 108, respectively; P < 0.05). However, the greatest effect on ADG was observed during the first 2 wk following grouping (0.919 and 0.833 kg d-1 for groups of 18 and 108, respectively; P < 0.001). There were no significant effects due to group size on ADFI, feed efficiency, variability in final BW within a pen, carcass traits or mortality and morbidity (P > 0.05). In summary, the overall productivity and aggression at grouping did not differ substantially between group sizes of 18 and 108 pigs pen-1. Key words: Large groups, grower-finisher, pigs, productivity, aggression
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".