The physical size of gestating sows1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two hundred ninety-six gestating sows were used to determine the physical dimensions of sows in commercial settings. Sows were examined from five farms within a single production model that included identical feed formulation, management practices, herd health, and similar, but not identical, genotypes. Sows were individually weighed, backfat thickness was determined by ultrasound, and body dimensions were determined. Sow body length, height, width (lateral length, left to right from mid-line), and depth (measured as distance from ventral to dorsal extremes) were also determined. Regression procedures were used to model the changes in sow body size in relation to parity, BW, and stage of gestation within and among genotypes. Farm-to-farm variation in sow dimensions for the same genotype was also determined. Least squares means, SD, and 95% upper confidence limits of this sample are presented. Sows increased (P < 0.001) in body dimensions by predicable levels with parity (r2 = 0.92) up to Parity 6, and with advancing pregnancy (r2 = 0.99). Sows of different but related genotypes differed (P < 0.01) in body length, width, height, and depth. Sows of the same genotype, fed the same feed formulation, differed in body dimensions when managed on different farms. Based on mean values and a 95% confidence interval, stall width would need to be at least 72.4 cm to accommodate all sows on the farm. These data and models can be used to design stall sizes and farm floor space needs to meet current animal welfare recommendations. To accommodate the body size of pregnant sows on commercial farms, stall sizes for the majority of sows would need to increase, as would the total floor space needed for a given number of gestating sows individually penned in conventional production systems to meet recently published guidelines.
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 | 0.000 | 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".