136 The impact of Swine Awake® on commercial nursery flows from a PRRSV positive source
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of Swine Awake® (SA; NutriQuest, Mason City, IA) on commercial nursery pigs from a single-source positive for Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Virus (PRRSV). This study included 16 nursery rooms located on 3 farms. Rooms were alternately assigned between Control and SA treatment for a total of 8 rooms per treatment, with both treatments equally represented at each farm. Control and SA treatment rooms averaged 1,144 and 1,125 pigs placed for 47.4 and 48.3 days on trial, respectively. Swine Awake was administered via water for 21 d post-placement. Serum samples were collected from 30 pigs in each room at placement before MLV PRRSV vaccination and pooled in groups of 5 within room. Pooled serum samples along with oral fluid samples pulled the last days of trial were sent for PRRSV quantification by PCR. Performance data were analyzed using the MIXED procedure of SAS. Farm, start BW, and days on trial were used as covariates in the model when significant (P < 0.05). Twenty-seven of 96 pooled serum samples and 29 of 30 oral fluid samples tested positive for PRRSV with CT values ranging from 26.2 to < 37, suggesting pigs were viremic at placement with virus present throughout the study. End BW, ADG, and G/F did not significantly differ between treatments (P > 0.10); however, a numerical improvement of 0.27 kg for end BW and a 1.9% improvement in G/F were observed for pigs given SA compared with Control. Reduced percentage of dead or euthanized pigs was observed for pigs given SA compared with Control (4.1 vs. 5.9%, P = 0.06). Overall, nursery growth performance in pigs coming from a PRRSV positive flow was not different between treatments, but total mortality was decreased by 31% in barns where SA was administered.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".