MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2250621044

Clean, green and ethical pig production in Australia

2008· book-chapter· en· W2250621044 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J.R. Pluske, Barb Frey

Bibliographic record

VenueMurdoch Research Repository (Murdoch University) · 2008
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPig farmingProduction (economics)BusinessAnimal welfarePig ironAnimal productionAgricultural sciencePolitical scienceEngineeringEnvironmental planningBiotechnologyBiologyGeographyEconomicsEcologyAnimal science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of ‘clean, green and ethical’ pig production is attracting growing attention around the world as producers, international traders of pig, and consumers are becoming increasingly aware of sustainable and socially acceptable animal production systems. While the terminology 'clean, green and ethical' does not lend itself readily to an all-encompassing definition, in pig production it broadly refers to a rearing system with scientifically sound and ethical practices that underpins the production of safe and wholesome pork. Both the physical environment and management of the environment, for example controlling nitrogen and phosphorus emissions, are relevant to ‘clean, green and ethical’ pig production. Outdoor housing systems used in Australia based on litter (straw, rice hulls) portray a more natural image of pig production than conventional indoor housing systems based on steel and concrete, even though many of the same practices (e.g. antibiotic injections) and problems (e.g. enteric diseases) occur in both systems. Animal welfare is also an important and often contentious issue for pig production; evidence of this includes the recent spate of announcements by large vertical integrators in the USA and Canada of plans to phase out sow stalls following intense pressure from animal rights lobbyists. Other factors to be considered in ‘clean, green and ethical’ pig production include Quality Assurance (QA), the ability to trace individual pigs to their property of origin, aspects of pig genetics, the use of feedstuffs free of genetic modification, no hormonal or antibiotic residues in pig meat, and specific-pathogen free herds. Issues associated with antibiotic use are integral to the basic premises of ‘clean, green and ethical’ pig production. Restrictions or outright bans on the use of antibiotic feed additives, as occurred in the European Union from January 1st 2006, reinforce the notion that antibiotics denigrate the notion of ‘clean, green and ethical’ production even though pig welfare is likely improved by their use. This paper reviews the practical approach that Australia has taken to the production of pigs and pig meat that will meet the discerning needs and demands of our current and future domestic and international markets. We have also used some international data and commentary to highlight certain aspects of our discussions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.005
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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.159 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMurdoch Research Repository (Murdoch University)Same topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207