Impact of a Novel Boar Pheromone on Weaned Sow Behavior and Reproduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BackgroundReproductive performance on commercial farms depends on the ability to identify sexual behavior and breed females during estrus. The presence of a boar is essential in determining sow sexual behaviors and is greatly mediated by the adult boar odor. This study sought to examine the effects of a novel boar salivary pheromone on weaned sow sexual receptivity and subsequent reproductive performance. MethodsOne hundred weaned sows were randomly assigned to either a control treatment where sows were exposed during heat detection to a live mature boar (BG) or to BOARBETTER® (Vétoquinol, Lure, France), given as a single spray while a boar grunting audio file was played (PG). Sexual behaviors were assessed twice daily during a Back-Pressure Test (BPT). Sows expressing behavioral estrus were mated. Ultrasound was used to assess ovarian activity from weaning until the end of ovulation. Reproductive and prolificacy data were collected until farrowing.ResultsTwelve sows were eliminated from the study because of early ovulation, no ovulation, or infectious disease. Breeding rate did not differ between the two treatments (BG: 100% vs PG: 91%). Sows in the BG had a shorter wean-to-estrus interval (97 vs 108 h) and longer estrus duration than PG sows (57 vs 39 h; p < 0.05). Wean-to-ovulation interval did not differ but onset of estrus to ovulation interval was longer in PG compared with BG sows (40 vs 30 h, p < 0.01). Follicle size at the onset of estrus was larger among PG than BG sows (5.76 vs 5.43 mm, p = 0.04). Timing of ovulation relative to insemination did not differ between the two treatment groups. Pregnancy rates were identical or similar for sows in the two treatment groups (93%) as was number of pigs born per litter.ConclusionsExposing weaning sows to the novel pheromone and the boar grunting sound achieved high estrus detection rate. Estrus was delayed and shortened but sows were successfully bred and were farrowed. Despite the absence of teaser boar, the procedure incorporating the novel pheromone and the boar grunting sound was shown to be efficient for sow breeding.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".