PERFORMANCE AND CARCASS QUALITY OF GROWINGFINISHING PIGS SUBMITTED TO REDUCED NOCTURNAL TEMPERATURE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During summer months, elevated barn temperature reduces pig growth rate by decreasing feed intake. Two trialswere conducted over two summers to evaluate the effect of reduced nocturnal temperature on the performance and carcassquality of growingfinishing pigs. Control rooms had a typical temperature setpoint while the temperature setpoint fortreatment rooms was 6C lower. In Saskatchewan, a reduced temperature setpoint resulted in a lower nocturnal roomtemperature (1.6 o C cooler over eight weeks), while it had no influence on room daytime temperature. The average dailytemperature fluctuation in treatment rooms was increased by 2.1 o C. The lower nocturnal temperature also resulted in a higherrelative humidity (+3%) and lower CO2 and NH3 concentrations. During trial 1, pig average daily gain (ADG) in thetreatment room was increased by 5.2%. For trial 2, feed intake was 3.2% higher in treatment rooms, which increased ADGby 2.1% on average over eight weeks. The ADG increase averaged 3.6% during the last four weeks of trial 2. However, nostatistical differences were found for pig performance, feed conversion, and backfat thickness (P > 0.05). The results suggestthat healthy pigs are not negatively affected by a large daily temperature fluctuation (up to 14.8C) as long as this fluctuationis progressively achieved.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".