The effect of toe trimming on behavior, mobility, toe length and other indicators of welfare in tom turkeys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Society is increasingly concerned about the welfare of animals kept for food production, for this reason, invasive procedures such as toe trimming in turkeys must be studied to assess the corresponding welfare implications and to ensure such procedures are acceptable for continued use. To this end, research was conducted to evaluate the welfare effects of toe trimming on toms raised to 140 d. The study used 306 Hybrid Converter toms, half of which were toe trimmed using a Microwave Claw Processor (MCP) which group are denoted T, and half of which were sham treated but not trimmed, which group are denoted NT. Turkey behavior was observed on d 1, 3, 5, and 133. Toe cross sections were taken every second day for 14 d after treatment and were used to histologically examine the healing process. Toe length, gait score, and bird stance were assessed on d 55, 84, 119, and 139. For the first 5 d after treatment, T birds demonstrated less active behaviors such as feeding, standing, walking and running (P ≤ 0.05), indicative of pain with the effect diminishing with age. At d 133, T turkeys stood more and walked less than NT birds (P ≤ 0.05). Gait score and bird stance were not affected by treatment. Trimmed toes were on average 91.9% of the length of NT toes and toe length was more variable (P ≤ 0.05) as a result of the trimming process. Histological examination indicated T toes had complete epithelium closure over the healthy tissue by d 8 and were fully healed by d 14. Although bird mobility and stance were unaffected by treatment, turkey behavior both early and late in the production cycle were suggestive of pain and balance effects; both indicators of reduced welfare as a result of toe trimming.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".