MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2965011620 · doi:10.1093/jas/skz122.016

22 Poor management of breeding herd replacements is a key factor in poor sow lifetime productivity: Gilty as charged

2019· article· en· W2965011620 on OpenAlexaff
G. R. Foxcroft, J.L. Patterson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBOARHerdAnimal scienceLitterBiologyEstrous cycleFertilityVeterinary medicineMedicineSpermEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recently published research on gilt development using contemporary commercial dam-lines has confirmed: 1) That the growth performance of gilts is rarely below the lifetime growth rate of 0.55 kg.d that would limit the onset of sexual maturity; 2) The majority of gilts provided direct daily contact with mature boars from 160 days of age reach puberty by 200 days of age and represent a normal distribution of “early responders”; 3) Gilts that respond later to boar stimulation have poorer lifetime fertility and tend to be over weight at breeding; 4) Pubertal responses to direct boar contact are significantly higher than responses to fenceline contact with boars; 5) Even if pubertal responses to direct boar contact are delayed in particular cohorts of gilts, good pubertal responses to exogenous, low-dose eCG/hCG treatments (PG600) allow efficient replacement gilt flows to be maintained in most commercial situations; 6) Delaying breeding until second observed estrus, and providing at least 10 days of acclimation to individual stall accommodation, maximizes first litter performance. When gilts were managed in purpose designed facilities that allowed daily records of vulval and behavioral responses to effective boar stimuli to be recorded, the lifetime reproductive performance of know pubertal gilts entering the breeding herd exceeded industry benchmarks. Of 2,374 naturally cyclic and 741 PG600-induced gilts delivered to the breeding herd, 97.6 and 95.7%, respectively, were bred, 94.7 and 92.0%, respectively, farrowed a first litter and 70.6 and 65.3%, respectively, farrowed a fourth litter. In terms of key factors other than reproductive performance that affect retention rate, another recent large-scale study of commercial replacement gilts derived from multiplication sows with a known litter birth weight phenotype confirmed data based on individual gilt birth weight, in that high growth rates linked to heavy weights at breeding were a major risk factor for early removal from the breeding herd. Therefore, poor gilt management must still be viewed as a major factor limiting breeding herd performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Science→Same topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies→French-language works237,207→