Route optimization as an instrument to improve animal welfare and economics in pre-slaughter logistics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Each year, more than three million animals are transported from farms to abattoirs in Sweden. Animal transport is related to economic and environmental costs and a negative impact on animal welfare. Time and the number of pick-up stops between farms and abattoirs are two key parameters for animal welfare. Both are highly dependent on efficient and qualitative transportation planning, which may be difficult if done manually. We have examined the benefits of using route optimization in cattle transportation planning. To simulate the effects of various planning time windows and transportation time regulations and number of pick-up stops along each route, we have used data that represent one year of cattle transport. Our optimization model is a development of a model used in forestry transport that solves a general pick-up and delivery vehicle routing problem. The objective is to minimize transportation costs. We have shown that the length of the planning time window has a significant impact on the animal transport time, the total driving time and the total distance driven; these parameters that will not only affect animal welfare but also affect the economy and environment in the pre-slaughter logistic chain. In addition, we have shown that changes in animal transportation regulations, such as minimizing the number of allowed pick-up stops on each route or minimizing animal transportation time, will have positive effects on animal welfare measured in transportation hours and number of pick-up stops. However, this leads to an increase in working time and driven distances, leading to higher transportation costs for the transport and negative environmental impact.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".