Husbandry practices and gut health outcomes in weaned piglets: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The immediate post-weaning period is one of the most stressful phases in a pig's life, and during this period, piglets are usually exposed to environmental, social and psychological stressors which have direct or indirect effects on gut health and overall growth performance. In this review, the impact of husbandry practices on gut health outcomes and performance of piglets is discussed. Husbandry practices in the swine barn generally include nutrition and management practices, maintenance of hygienic standards and disease prevention protocols, and animal welfare considerations. Poor husbandry practices could result in reduced feed intake, stress and disease conditions, and consequently affect gut health and performance in weaned piglets. Reduced feed intake is a major risk factor for impaired gut structure and function and therefore a key goal is to maximize feed intake in newly weaned piglets. In weaned piglets, crowding stress could reduce pig performance, favor the proliferation of pathogenic bacteria resulting in diarrhea, stimulate immune responses and interfere with beneficial microbial activities in the gut. Sanitation conditions in the swine barn plays an important role for optimal piglet performance, because unclean conditions reduced growth performance, shifted nutrient requirements to support the immune system and negatively affected the gut morphology in weaned piglets. Appropriate biosecurity measures need to be designed to prevent disease entry and spread within a swine operation, which in turn helps to keep all pigs and piglets healthy. Collectively, husbandry practices relating to feeding and nutrition, animal welfare, biosecurity and disease prevention are important determinants of gut health and piglet performance. Thus, it is suggested that adopting high husbandry practices is a critical piece in strategies aimed at raising pigs without the use of in-feed antibiotics.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".