MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604012260 · doi:10.4148/2378-5977.7459

Validation of Individual Computerized Sow Feeding Systems in Lactation

2017· article· en· W2604012260 on OpenAlexaffabout
G. E. Nichols, K. M. Gourley, Joel M DeRouchey, Jason C Woodworth, M. D. Tokach, Steven S Dritz, R. D. Goodband, H. L. Frobose

Bibliographic record

VenueKansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsFISO Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLactationAnimal scienceWeaningBody weightBiologyPregnancyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two experiments evaluated the accuracy of individual computerized feed delivery systems for lactating sows (GESTAL Solo, JYGA Technologies Inc., St-Lambert-de-Lauzon, Quebec, Canada). The feeders volumetrically dispense feed based on rotations of a screw auger. In Experiment 1, 29 prototype feeders were used across 3 farrowing groups. On d 0, 1 feeder was selected to calibrate the computer system to the bulk density of the lactation diet. Feeders were programmed for 5 feeding periods per day with feeding period allowing up to 4 feed drops triggered by the sow. Sows activate a trigger within the feed bowl to receive a targeted amount of feed (1.5 lb) and the computerized feeder records the delivery amount based on calibration values. In addition, total lactation feed intake was recorded by weighing the quantity of feed provided to the feeding system for each sow throughout lactation. Feed delivered by a single trigger activation on d 0, d 10, and d of weaning was collected and weighed with a scale and compared to the computer record. Additionally, total feed delivered over the lactation period was compared between the recorded computer measurement and scale weight. Average percentage difference between the two measurements ranged from 0.01 to 36.6% for a single trigger event. Computer-recorded total lactation feed intake was marginally less (P < 0.089) than the actual weight of feed delivered (230.3 vs. 239.9 lb; SEM 5.43). Individual feeders had recorded total feed delivery ranging from 77 to 122% of actual weight delivered. Based on these results, a new feeder design, identical to the commercially marketed GESTAL Solo (plastic hopper manufactured with injection mold instead of rotational mold), was tested in Experiment 2. In Experiment 2, 29 feeders were used in a single farrowing group to evaluate the new sow feeders. Feeders were calibrated and data were collected using the same procedures as Experiment 1, except individual feed drops were collected 8 times per feeder throughout lactation. Average percentage difference across all feeders ranged from 3.8 to 13.4%. There was no evidence (P < 0.542) of difference between the computer-recorded total lactation feed and actual weight of feed delivered (279.6 vs. 272.8 lb; SEM 4.03). Individual feeders had recorded total feed delivery ranging from 90.4 to 106.4% of actual weight delivered. Overall, this study shows the new feeder model was less variable in feed drops and total feed delivery than the old prototype.

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 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 score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.212
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research ReportsSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207