Effect of stocking rate on pig performance in a wean-to-finish production system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crossbred pigs (n = 1,296) were used in a randomized complete block design to evaluate three stocking rate treatments (22, 27, or 32 pigs pen -1 ) on growth performance from weaning [5.0 ± 0.01 kg body weight (BW); 15 ± 1 d of age] to 24 wk post-weaning. Floor and feeder spaces per pig were 0.78 m 2 and 4.2 cm, 0.64 m 2 and 3.4 cm, and 0.54 m 2 and 2.9 cm for group sizes of 22, 27, and 32, respectively. During the first 8 wk postweaning there was a tendency for average daily gain (ADG) (511, 505, and 497 g d -1 , respectively; P = 0.07) and BW (35.1, 34.7, and 34.3 kg, respectively; P = 0.08) to decrease linearly as stocking rate increased. Moreover, from week 8 to 18, week 18 to 24, and for the overall period (weaning to week 24) both ADG (688, 660, and 635 g d -1 for the overall period, respectively) and BW (121.8, 117.1 and 113.1 kg at week 24, respectively) decreased linearly (P < 0.001) with increasing stocking rate. There were no treatment differences in the coefficient of variation in pig BW within a pen at any stage of the study. Morbidity and mortality rates increased linearly (8.5, 10.2, and 12.7%; P < 0.05) with increasing stocking rate. In conclusion, decreasing group size, thereby increasing floor and feeder space pig -1 , reduced morbidity and mortality and increased growth rate after 8 wk post-weaning resulting in heavier pigs at 24 wk post-weaning for the smaller groups. Key words: Pigs, stocking rate, weaning, finishing
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".