Effect of previous ramp exposure and regular handling on heart rate, ease of handling and behaviour of near market-weight pigs during a simulated loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Goumon, S., Bergeron, R., Faucitano, L., Crowe, T., Connor, M. L. and Gonyou, H. W. 2013. Effect of previous ramp exposure and regular handling on heart rate, ease of handling and behaviour of near market-weight pigs during a simulated loading. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 93: 461–470. The objective of this study was to assess whether stress response during simulated loading could be reduced by providing pigs with experience prior to the event. Two weeks before simulated loading, 160 Large White × Landrace near market-weight pigs were allocated to one of four treatments: physical training (EXERCISE), psychological training (RAMP), EXERCISE and RAMP trainings (BOTH) or no training (CON). Once training was completed, pigs were loaded into a simulated trailer compartment, and the metrics of behaviour, pig and handler's heart rates, loading time and handling difficulty were measured. During loading, heart rate was lower (P<0.05) for EXERCISE and BOTH pigs compared with RAMP and CON pigs. The numbers of touch/slap and push were lower (P<0.05 and P<0.05, respectively) for EXERCISE pigs compared with CON, RAMP and BOTH pigs, which did not differ (P>0.05). The number of balks was the lowest (P<0.05) for EXERCISE pigs, whereas there were no differences (P>0.05) between BOTH and CON or RAMP pigs. This study demonstrates that daily exercise, by itself, improves the ease of handling and reduces cardiovascular response, while it appears that previous exposure to a ramp had no beneficial effects.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".