MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pig survival, average daily gain, and individual antimicrobial treatments from birth to slaughter in Finland

2025· article· en· W4407640691 on OpenAlexaff
Emilia König, Minna Kujala‐Wirth, Shea Beasley, Niina Immonen, Virpi Piirainen, Henrik Stryhn, Anna Valros, Mari Heinonen

Bibliographic record

VenuePreventive Veterinary Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersVetcareMaa- ja MetsätalousministeriÖ
KeywordsBiologyAntimicrobialDemographyAnimal scienceMicrobiologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Birth weight appears to be a key indicator for survival and average daily gain (ADG) in piglets. However, parameters associated with piglet antimicrobial treatment are less explored. We assessed the factors influencing piglet survival, ADG, and first individual antimicrobial treatment. Data were collected on sex, weight, litter details, and medication throughout the lifespan of 3991 ear tagged pigs in Finland. Discrete-time survival models were performed for piglet survival and individual antimicrobial treatment as well as a linear regression model for piglet ADG from birth to slaughter. Medium (1 - 1.49 kg) and lightweight (< 1.0 kg) piglets at day 4 had 2.26 and 4.04 times higher odds of dying (in terms of odds for discrete hazards), respectively, than heavyweight (≥ 1.5 kg) piglets. Barrows and antimicrobial-treated suckling piglets had 1.81 and 1.67 times, respectively, higher odds of dying than females and unmedicated piglets. The mean average daily gain from birth to slaughter was 714 g (SD 70.2 g). Pigs born to sows grew 29.2 g/day more than pigs born to gilts, and barrows grew 13.3 g/day better than females, but these results should be interpreted with caution because a considerable number of ear tags lost during the study could have led to selection bias of the pigs with a measured ADG. Altogether 756 piglets received at least one individual parenteral antimicrobial treatment. Antimicrobial-treated pigs were to a considerable extent medicated before weaning mainly for diarrhea and leg problems during two treatment peaks: before day 8 and around weaning. Lightweight piglets at day 4 had 2.35 and piglets born to gilts 1.56 times higher odds of becoming medicated with antimicrobials than heavyweight piglets and piglets born to sows, respectively. Half of the study piglets receiving antimicrobials were treated again later. In summary, our results show that lightweight piglets at day 4 had poorer survival, and they received more antimicrobial treatments than their heavier littermates. Further, gilt offspring were medicated more frequently. This emphasizes the need to direct extra attention to litters born to gilts.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreventive Veterinary MedicineSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207