Dispersion and component analysis of the influence of genotype on the formation of performance traits in fattening pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relevance of the work was determined by the need to find effective genetic combinations to increase productivity and ensure the stability of growth processes in animals of modern “commercial genotypes”. The aim of the study was to determine the role of genotype as a determining factor in the growth and development of pigs using one-factor dispersion analysis and principal component analysis. The experiment involved 120 fattening pigs, and the test animals were divided into three groups. Group I: a combination of Large White and Landrace sows with Duroc boars of Canadian selection (Genesus) Group II: a combination of Large White and Landrace sows with Pietrain boars of French selection (Axiom) and Group III: a combination of Large White and Landrace sows with boars of the terminal line “Maxter” selected by the company “France Hybrides”. The assessment was based on the live weight of pigs of different genotypes at the age of 77-203 days, absolute and average daily gains in separate age periods, as well as the age at which they reached a pre-slaughter live weight of 80, 100, 120 and 140 kg. The results of the variance analysis showed a significant influence of genotype on all studied indicators. The greatest effect of the “genotype” factor was observed for live weight at 154 days of age (43.27%), absolute and average daily gains in the period from 182 to 203 days (44.97%), as well as the age at which live weight of 100 kg was reached (44.72%). It was confirmed that pigs in group I were inferior to their peers in other groups in the early stages of life, but in the later stages of fattening, they demonstrated a significant advantage in terms of gains and growth intensity. Animals in groups II and III were characterised by similar growth rates and did not differ statistically significantly from each other. Principal component analysis allowed to identify two stages in the process of live weight formation: the first (130-155 days) and the second (180-205 days), which are determined by different growth mechanisms and are practically independent of each other. The results confirm the key role of genotype in the formation of productive traits in pigs and can be used in the development of breeding programmes and the improvement of fattening systems
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".