MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154004081 · doi:10.2527/jas.2010-2833

Effects of different moving devices at loading on stress response and meat quality in pigs1

2010· article· en· W2154004081 on OpenAlexaff
J. A. Correa, Stephanie Torrey, Nicolas Devillers, Jean-Paul Laforest, H. W. Gonyou, L. Faucitano

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaF. Ménard (Canada)Université Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTruckAnimal scienceLoinOn boardMedicineMathematicsBiologyAutomotive engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although there is increasing evidence regarding the negative welfare and meat quality implications of electric prod use for slaughter-weight pigs, this handling tool continues to be used. Therefore, the behavioral and physiological response and carcass and meat quality of 360 pigs being loaded onto a truck for transportation to slaughter according to 3 handling procedures were studied. The 3 handling procedures were 1) moving with an electric prod and board from the finishing pen to the truck (EP); 2) moving with a board and a paddle from the finishing pen to the truck (PAD); 3) moving with a board and a paddle from the finishing pen and using a compressed air prod in the ramp before going into the truck (CAP). A subpopulation of 144 pigs (48 pigs/treatment) was equipped with heart rate monitors. Blood samples were collected from the same animals at exsanguination for the analysis of creatine phosphokinase and lactate. Data were analyzed using an ANOVA for factorial design, with the animal as the experimental unit. Behavior was analyzed with MIXED model procedure with treatment as a fixed effect. During loading, EP pigs slipped and fell (P < 0.001) and overlapped (P = 0.03) more often, but stopped (P < 0.001) and attempted turns (P = 0.01) less often than CAP or PAD. With CAP, pigs made more 180° turns (P = 0.01) than with PAD or EP. Loading with EP led to more and longer vocalizations (P = 0.02 and P = 0.001, respectively) than loading with CAP or PAD. Loading took longest with CAP and was quickest with EP (P = 0.01). Pigs handled with EP had a greater heart rate than those moved with PAD and CAP at loading (P < 0.001), wait at loading (P < 0.001), at unloading (P = 0.05), and in lairage (P = 0.02). Pigs loaded with EP had greater (P = 0.05) lactate concentrations in blood at exsanguination compared with pigs handled with CAP, with pigs loaded with PAD being intermediate. Furthermore, ultimate pH values in the semimembranosus and adductor muscles of EP pigs were greater (P = 0.002 and P = 0.004, respectively) compared with those from PAD and CAP pigs. Greater (P = 0.04) incidence of blood-splashed hams was found in EP pigs compared with PAD and CAP pigs. Therefore, considering animal welfare, carcass bruising, and blood splashes standpoints, EP should be replaced with PAD or CAP. However, additional research is necessary to identify methods that improve the loading efficiencies of PAD and CAP without adversely affecting animal welfare parameters.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.469
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.264 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations100
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207