MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2409673552 · doi:10.2527/2006.8451227x

Effects of boar presence on agonistic behavior, shoulder scratches, and stress response of bred sows at mixing1

2006· article· en· W2409673552 on OpenAlexaff
Monica J. Seguin, Robert Friendship, Roy N. Kirkwood, Adroaldo José Zanella, Tina M. Widowski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBOARAgonistic behaviourAnimal scienceMorningBiologyAggressionMedicineAnatomyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to determine the effects of boar presence on aggression, shoulder scratches, and salivary cortisol in group-housed sows during the period after mixing, which is when dominance hierarchies are formed. A total of 225 York-shire sows were used. Five groups of 15 sows were each exposed to 1 of 3 levels of boar presence (n = 15): physical (boar in pen with sows; 2.15 m2 per sow), fenceline (boar housed adjacent to sows; 2.3 m2 per sow), or control (no boar in the room; 2.3 m2 per sow). The experiment was divided into 2 phases. In phase 1, behavioral measurements were taken for 48 h after mixing and boar introduction. In phase 2, behavioral measurements were taken beginning on d 6 after mixing and included 24 h before and 48 h after boar removal. In phases 1 and 2, shoulder scratches were scored 24 h before and 24 h after mixing and boar removal, respectively. Saliva samples were collected each morning (0600 to 0700) and afternoon (1600 to 1700) during both phases. Frequencies of intersow aggressive contact (bite, body knock, and head knock) and threats as well as frequencies and durations of fighting bouts were determined from video recordings during daily feeding (49.6 +/- 1.4 min) and nonfeeding (21 +/- 0.2 h) periods. During phase 1, boar presence did not affect the frequency of threats during either the feeding or nonfeeding periods. Control groups had fewer aggressive contacts at feeding during the 25- to 48-h period compared with the fenceline groups (P = 0.01). Total duration of fighting and average fighting bout duration were unaffected by treatment. However, the number of fights occurring during feeding 25 to 48 h postmixing was lower in the physical groups than in the fenceline groups (P = 0.023); measures for the control groups were intermediate. Physical sows also received fewer shoulder scratches postmixing than did control sows (P = 0.048). After mixing, physical sows showed greater morning (P = 0.08) and afternoon (6 h postmixing, P = 0.01; 32 h postmixing, P = 0.08) salivary cortisol concentrations compared with fenceline sows, although they were only numerically greater than those for control sows. During phase 2, removing the boar did not increase fighting among sows or affect shoulder scratches or salivary cortisol concentrations. The presence of a boar was minimally effective at reducing fighting and scratches during the postmixing period, and sows showed a greater stress response in the presence of a boar.

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 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 score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations32
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207