MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046019055 · doi:10.4141/a01-021

Lactational performance, nursing and maternal behavior of Upton-Meishan and Large White sows

2001· article· en· W2046019055 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
C. Farmer, Marie‐France Palin, M.T. Sørensen, Suzanne Robert

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLactationAnimal scienceLitterWeaningBreedLarge whiteLactoseBiologyPregnancyFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The growth of litters from 19 Upton-Meishan (UM) and 16 Large White (LW) sows was recorded from birth to weaning (25 d of age). Water and feed intake of sows were recorded. Suckling behavior was studied on days 5 and 20 of lactation. Milk yield was measured on day 22 and a milk sample was obtained the next day. Water intakes were similar (P = 0.947) for both breeds, yet UM sows consumed less feed throughout lactation (P = 0.0002). Average piglet (P < 0.05) and total litter (P < 0.001) weights were greater as of day 7 in UM compared to LW sows. Mean piglet weight on day 24 was 6.13 ± 0.16 kg for UM litters and 5.33 ± 0.33 kg for LW litters. Suckling interval was similar for UM and LW litters on day 5 (P = 0.533), but was shorter for UM litters on day 20 (41.4 ± 1.2 vs. 48.3 ± 2.8 min; P= 0.060). On day 22, daily milk yield corrected for actual suckling interval was greater (10.59 ± 0.47 vs. 8.03 ± 0.65 kg; P = 0.003) in UM sows. Milk from UM sows contained more fat (P= 0.042) and lactose (P = 0.005). In conclusion, the greater growth rate of piglets from UM sows is mainly due to a higher frequency of nursings and to greater energy content of milk. Key words: Sows, lactation, breed, Meishan, behavior, nursing

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207