MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4223530753 · doi:10.1093/jas/skac064.197

251 Effects of Cross-Fostering and Number of Litters Used to Create Cross-Fostered Litters on Piglet Pre-Weaning Mortality and Weaning Weight

2022· article· en· W4223530753 on OpenAlexaff
Katherine D Vande Pol, Alicia Olivio, Heath Harper, Caleb M Shull, Katie Brown, M. Ellis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLitterWeaningAnimal scienceBiologyBody weightEndocrinologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The objective was to determine effects of cross-fostering and number of litters used to create cross-fostered litters on piglet pre-weaning mortality (PWM) and weight. The study was conducted on 2 commercial farrowing facilities using a RCBD (53 blocks; total of 265 litters/3675 piglets). Blocking factors were farrowing day, sow parity, body condition score, functional teat number, and average and CV of piglet birth weight. Treatments involved cross-fostering different percentages of the litter (0% = no cross-fostering; 50% = half cross-fostered, half from the birth sow; 100% = all piglets cross-fostered) and differing number of litters used in cross-fostering. The 5 Treatments were (% fostered/number of litters used): 1) 0%/1 litter; 2) 100%/1 litter; 3) 100%/6+ litters; 4) 50%/4+ litters; 5) 50%/2 litters. Litter sizes at cross-fostering (13 or 14 piglets) were equalized across Treatments within block. Piglets were weighed 24 h after birth (when cross-fostering was carried out) and at weaning (19.2 ± 0.97 d); all PWM was recorded. Data were analyzed using SAS, models accounted for the fixed effect of Treatment and random effects of sow, block, and farm. The 0%/1 litter and 100%/1 litter Treatments were similar (P > 0.05; Table 1) for all measurements, indicating no effect of cross-fostering per se. Litter sizes at 7 and 14 d, and weaning were lower (P ≤ 0.05) for the two 1-litter Treatments compared with the 50%/2 litters Treatment; other Treatments were intermediate. There was no effect (P > 0.05) of Treatment on piglet weight. Pre-weaning mortality was greater (P ≤ 0.05) for the two 1-litter treatments compared with the other 3 Treatments, which were similar (P > 0.05). In conclusion, cross-fostering had no effect on piglet performance, however, PWM was greater for treatments comprised of piglets from a single litter compared with those from several litters.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.281 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207