Effects of repeated cross-fosterings on preweaning behavior and growth performance of piglets and on maternal behavior of sows.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extensive cross-fostering is widely used in early-weaning units in order to standardize and improve body weight at weaning. However, young suckling piglets develop teat fidelity and repeated cross-fosterings could go against this behavior. This experiment was therefore conducted to compare the behavior and growth of 13 control and 14 fostered litters. Once every 3 d (from d 1 to 16 of lactation), all piglets were weighed and three piglets were switched between two fostered litters. Their unfostered littermates were called residents. Behavior was recorded for 2 h after weighing and(or) adoption and during one nursing period 24 h later. Fights were more frequent (P < 0.05) in treated than in control litters during and between nursings at all ages of adoption except d 1. Most fights occurred between resident and fostered piglets (P < 0.001), except at d 1. Fights during nursing were still more frequent in treated than in control litters 24 h after adoption (P < 0.02), except at d 1 and 16. More piglets had skin lacerations in treated than in control litters except at d 1 (P < 0.05), and scratches were more frequent in fostered than in resident piglets at d 1 (P = 0.07), 7, 13, and 16 (P < 0.01). At all ages except d 1, failed nursings and snaps at piglets were more frequent in fostered than in control litters (P < 0.05), most snaps being directed at adopted piglets (P < 0.001). In fostered litters, sows spent 15 to 30% less time lying on their sides at d 4, 7, 13, and 16 (P < 0.05). Finally, adopted piglets were 13% lighter than controls at weaning (P < 0.001), whereas residents were heavier than adopted piglets (P < 0.05) but lighter than controls (P = 0.1). These data demonstrate that cross-fostering done repeatedly during lactation is stressful for piglets and sows and does not improve body weight at weaning.
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".