Effect of drinker type and sound stimuli on early-weaned pig performance and behavior12
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early-weaned pigs appear to be highly motivated to engage in motor patterns associated with nursing, which is thought to lead to the development of abnormal ingestive behaviors. If performance of these behaviors is related to sucking motivation, then the normal stimuli associated with nursing should stimulate pigs to perform these abnormal behaviors, specifically belly nosing. The goal of this study was to determine whether belly nosing could be affected by sow nursing vocalizations and whether the style of the drinker device influenced early-weaned pig behavior. Over six trials, 352 Yorkshire pigs were weaned at 15 d and assigned to pens (n = 44) of eight pigs based on litter, weight, and sex. Four pens in each of two rooms were outfitted with either a water nipple drinker or a drinker bowl. Rooms either had recorded sow vocalizations broadcast at hourly intervals or no sound (control). Pig behaviors were videotaped in a sample of pens (n = 32) on d 0, 1, 2, 5, 9, 11, 13, 16, and 18 after weaning. On d 0 to 2, pigs were observed continuously for feeding and drinking behaviors. On d 5 to 18, pigs were observed by scan sampling every 5 min for time budgets. Pigs with drinker bowls had higher apparent feed intakes during the first 2 d after weaning (P = 0.024), whereas they spent less time engaged in drinking behavior (P = 0.001). This coincided with an overall lower water use (P = 0.001) than that of pigs with nipple drinkers. Pigs with bowl drinkers also spent less time belly nosing than those with access to a nipple drinker (P = 0.012). Pigs in the sow vocalization treatment tended to have a higher ADG (P = 0.075), whereas they spent less time performing feeding behavior (P = 0.064). However, there was no effect of sow nursing grunts on belly nosing. These results suggest that there is a complex relationship between feeding, drinking and sucking, and belly nosing is not controlled by the same external stimuli as sucking. Because drinker type and the motor patterns that it accommodates affect belly nosing, it may be that the internal stimuli associated with nursing, such as the actual act of sucking, play a large role in the development of abnormal oral-nasal behaviors.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".