MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137611898 · doi:10.2527/jas.2007-0449

Effects of housing finishing pigs in two group sizes and at two floor space allocations on production, health, behavior, and physiological variables1

2007· article· en· W2137611898 on OpenAlex
B. R. Street, H. W. Gonyou

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanGenome Prairie
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduction (economics)Group (periodic table)Space (punctuation)Animal scienceBiologyBusinessChemistryComputer scienceEconomicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the current shift in the industry toward housing pigs in groups of 100 to 1,000 per pen have come questions as to whether pigs can perform as well in large groups as they do in small and whether large groups of pigs can use the space provided more efficiently. This study examined effects of small (18 pigs) vs. large (108 pigs) group sizes provided 0.52 m(2)/ pig (crowded) or 0.78 m(2)/pig (uncrowded) of space on production, health, behavior, and physiological variables. Eight 7-to 8-wk-long blocks, each involving 288 pigs, were completed. The average BW at the beginning of the study was 37.4 +/- 0.26 kg. Overall, ADG was 1.032 kg/d and 1.077 (+/-0.015) kg/d for crowded and uncrowded pigs, respectively (P = 0.018). Differences between the space allowance treatments were most evident during the final week of study. Overall G:F was also reduced (P = 0.002) in the crowded treatment. Pigs in the crowded groups spent less (P = 0.003) time eating over the 8-wk study than did pigs in noncrowded groups, but ADFI did not differ (P = 0.34) between treatments. Overall, ADG of large-group pigs was 1.035 kg/d, whereas small group pigs gained 1.073 kg/d (+/-0.015; P = 0.039). Average daily gain differences between the group sizes were most evident during the first 2 wk of the study. Over the entire study, G:F also differed, with large groups being less efficient (P = 0.005) than small groups. Although large-group pigs had poorer scores for lameness (P = 0.012) and leg scores (P = 0.02) throughout the 8-wk period, morbidity levels did not differ (P = 0.32) between the group sizes. Minimal changes in postural behavior and feeding patterns were noted in large groups. An interaction (P = 0.04) of group size and space allowance for lameness indicated that pigs housed in large groups at restricted space allowances were more susceptible to lameness. Although some behavioral variables, such as lying postures, suggest that pigs in large groups were able to use space more efficiently, overall productivity and health variables indicate that pigs in large and small groups were similarly affected by the crowding imposed in this study. Broken-line analysis of ADG indicated no difference in the response to crowding by pigs in large and small groups. Little support was found for reducing space allowances for pigs in large groups.

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.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.325 · 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