PSV-18 Time Since Last Meal Until the Onset of Farrowing Affects Survivability of Newborn Piglets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The present study aimed to investigate whether time since last meal until the onset of farrowing affects sow reproductive performance. The results are based on data records compiled from 8 batches for a total of 660 mixed parity (µ = 3.7) sows from the same commercial farm. All sows were fed standard lactation diets twice a day (7:30 AM and 4:30 PM) 1 week before expected farrowing. Time since last meal until the onset of farrowing and farrowing duration were calculated accordingly. Based on the time from the start of last meal to the onset of farrowing, sows were divided into three groups: 0-3 hours, 3-6 hours and 6-16 hours (212, 220 and 228 sows respectively). Probability of born alive, stillborn and mummified piglets were statistically analyzed by a binomial model in R. Farrowing duration of sow was not affected by time since last meal until the onset of farrowing. However, sows farrowed 3-6 hours after feeding had lowest probability of stillborn piglet compared with sows farrowed 0-3 hour and 6-16 hour after feeding (6% vs 8% and 10%; P < 0.01), greater probability of born alive was also found in sows in 3-6 hour group than the other 2 groups (92% vs 89% and 88%; P < 0.01). The probability of mummified piglet was not affected when comparing the three groups. Time since last meal until the onset of farrowing also showed no effect on litter size or litter birth weight. In conclusion, feeding sows the last meal 3-6 hours before farrowing may help improve live born and decrease stillborn piglets.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".