Enrichment tools for undocked heavy pigs: effects on body and gastric lesions and carcase and meat quality parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two independent trials were carried out to assess the effect of two enrichment tools on the prevalence of skin and tail lesions recorded prior of slaughtering, lesions of the pars oesophagea (OGL) of the stomach, and on carcase and meat quality traits in Italian heavy pigs (body weight range: 25–160 kg). Eighty undocked barrows (Landrace × Large White) were used in two trials (20 pigs/experimental group, 5 pigs/pen). In Trial 1, the control group received a hanging metal chain (C1), while the other group received wood logs (WL) placed inside a metal rack. In Trial 2, the control group was provided with hanging chain (C2), while the pen of the other group was enriched with a vegetal edible block (EB) placed inside the metal rack. In both trials, no differences were observed in the prevalence and severity of skin, tail and gastric lesions (p > .05). In Trial 1, WL pigs presented lower backfat (p = .01), higher lean meat percentage (p = .03) and higher drip loss in the loin muscle (p = .02) than C1 pigs. Tail score and gastric lesions showed a moderate correlation (r = 0.42; p = .01) in Trial 1. Treatments had no effect on carcase or meat quality traits in Trial 2 (p > .05). In conclusion, the two enrichments provided did not affect body and gastric lesions, carcase and meat quality of Italian heavy pigs, if compared to the metal chains.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".