The performance of early-weaned piglets following transport: Effect of season and weaning weight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two groups of 48 Cotswold piglets weaned at 17 ± 1 d of age were assigned to road or simulated transport during summer or winter. Following transport [Control (<20 min), 6 h, 12 h or 24 h], piglets were grouped by weaning weight (light, medium and heavy) in pens of four. Body weights were recorded on days 1–8, 10, 12 and 14. From an average weaning weight of 6.28 ± 0.09 kg, piglets lost on average 0.4 ± 0.1 kg. The minimum weight of 5.88 ± 0.1 kg was reached 2.24 ± 0.13 d post weaning and weaning weight was recovered at 3.55 ± 0.16 d post weaning. As transport duration increased from 6 to 24 h, total weight loss increased from 0.33 to 0.45 ± 0.022 kg (P < 0.01). Piglets transported by road in winter had a longer growth check (4.08 vs. 3.18 ± 0.18 d, P < 0.05) showed reduced percent ADG (5.37 vs. 6.61 ± 0.26%, P < 0.05) and lower feed conversion efficiency (FCE) (0.87 vs. 0.96 ± 0.01 kg, P < 0.01) than piglets transported by road in summer. Heavy piglets continued to lose weight longer than light piglets (2.26 vs.1.7 ± 0.16 d, P < 0.02), although relative weight loss was not affected. During winter piglets exposed to road transport required more time to recover their weaning weight than piglets exposed to simulated transport (4.08 vs. 3.04 ± 0.18 d, P < 0.05). While weaning is a confounding effect, these results suggest that longer transport (>12 h) and transport in winter may cause additional stress to early-weaned piglets. Some factors of road transport in winter, possibly driving differences or fluctuating temperatures also negatively affected piglet recovery from weaning. Key words: Early weaning, transport, pigs, season
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".