The effect of management strategies and parity on the behaviour and physiology of gestating sows housed in an electronic sow feeding system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How group housed sows are managed can have an impact on their welfare during gestation. The present study examined the effects of housing management (static vs. dynamic), stage of gestation at introduction, familiarity within the group, and age of sow on some aspects of the behaviour and physiology of sows in an electronic sow feeding system. Eight groups were introduced into either a static or dynamic management system. Within an introduction group, 21 to 23 focal sows were selected based upon their stage of gestation (pre vs. post-implantation), familiarity with groupmates (familiar vs. unfamiliar) and parity [young (1st parity) vs. intermediate (2nd and 3rd parity) vs. old (4th parity and higher)]. The aggression at mixing, aggression at the feeder, injuries, feeder entry order, lying patterns, and salivary cortisol concentrations were recorded. There were no differences in the behaviour or physiology of sows housed in either housing management system, or based upon familiarity. Sows mixed post-implantation were less aggressive (P = 0.01), entered the feeding station later (P = 0.03) and were observed lying in the least preferred areas of the pen (P = 0.001), than sows grouped within a few days of breeding. Older sows were involved in more aggressive encounters (P = 0.04), spent more time fighting at mixing (P = 0.02), and lay against the wall more (P < 0.001) than did young sows, which tended to sustain more scratches (P = 0.07), and ate later in the feed cycle (P < 0.001). A dynamic management system is just as effective as a static management system when certain management criteria are met. Familiarity does not have an impact on the sows during gestation. Stage of gestation and parity should be considered along with the group dynamic as it can impact aggression and access to resources. Key words: Sows, gestation, electronic sow feeding system, behaviour
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".