Effects of stall width and sow size on behaviour of gestating sows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The adequacy of gestation stalls to accommodate the postural behaviour of sows is an important welfare concern. The behaviour of 184 sows from parity 0 to 9 was studied in stalls of four widths (55, 60, 65, and 70 cm). Postures, frequency of posture changes, contact with the stall and udder extension beyond the stall were observed for 24 h at 4 and 14 wk of gestation. Injuries were assessed based on number and severity at four 5-wk intervals. Sows spent less time standing and more time sitting in the narrower compared with wider stalls (P < 0.05). The proportion of lying time spent in lateral recumbancy was greater for larger than for smaller sows (P < 0.05) and larger sows made fewer postural changes (P < 0.05). The proportion of sows touching both sides of the stall, or with their udder extending into the adjacent stall, was affected by the interaction of stall width and sow size. Sows rarely touched both sides of the stall, nor did their udders extend into the adjacent stall, when the ratio of stall width (cm) to BW 0.33 (kg) exceeded 10.7. Neither stall width nor sow size affected injury scores during the gestation cycle. Key words: Pigs, behaviour, gestating sow, gestation stall, width, body size
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".