Effect of environmental enrichment at two stages of development on belly nosing in piglets weaned at fourteen days1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The incidence of belly nosing-related behaviors was studied in 480 piglets weaned at 14 d and provided with environmental enrichment during preweaning, postweaning, or both. Pen enrichment was achieved by providing a foam rubber mat on the pen wall (nose), rubber nipples (suck), a Bite-Rite Tail Chew (bite), a soil-filled tray (root), or no enrichment (control). Instantaneous scan sampling observations, at 5-min intervals, were conducted for 8 h (i.e., 96 scans/observation day) at 3, 10, 19, 26, and 33 d. Observations during the preweaning phase were made to determine the number of piglets lying, standing, nursing, and interacting with environmental enrichment. During the postweaning phase, observations were made to determine the number of piglets belly nosing, belly sucking, other nosing and sucking (other), biting, eating, drinking, and interacting with enrichment. The time-course for belly nosing was confirmed, with the behavior rising by 19 d, peaking by 26 d, and decreasing by 33 d (P < 0.001). Only nosing enrichment was found to reduce the incidence of belly-nosing behavior (3.8%) compared with controls (6.6%; P < 0.001). Pigs provided root enrichment spent more time manipulating their enrichment devices (30.2%) compared with all other enrichment groups (P < 0.001). Providing enrichment relevant to a particular behavioral vice as it commences, or shortly afterward, may have the greatest effect on reducing the incidence of that vice during the nursery period.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".