319 Effects of repeated exposure to either energized or non-energized prods on the behavioral responses of beef cattle to handling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The cattle industry has adopted the use of low stress handling aids however, the continuous-pulse electric prod is still used on hard-to-move cattle. This study aimed to assess behavioral responses of beef cattle after five consecutive exposures to either energized or non-energized prods for 1 s while enclosed in a squeeze chute. A total of 208 7–8 mo old crossbred Angus steers (487.6 ± 41.68 kg BW) were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatments: non-energized prod (CT), continuous-pulse electric prod (CP), broken-pulse electric prod (BP) and a vibration prod (VP) that did not produce a shock. Prior to (d -3, -2 and -1; baseline), during (d 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4) and after (d 5, 6 and 7) the application of treatments, behavior of each steer was assessed including: using voice and touch (VAT; score), race transit time (RTT; s), squeeze chute score (SC; score) and flight speed (FS; m/s). Data was analyzed using GLIMMIX procedure of SAS including treatment, day and interaction as fixed effects. No treatment effect (P > 0.05) was found for VAT. The VP steers had greater (P < 0.05) RTT on d 4 and 5 compared to CT and CP, respectively. The CP steers had greater (P < 0.05) SC than CT, BP and VP. The CP had greater (P < 0.05) FS from d 0 to 7 compared to all other treatments with the exception that no differences (P > 0.05) were observed on d 1 between CP and BP. Based on SC and FS, the CP prod was more aversive to cattle than all other prods. However, due to the lack of differences in VAT and RTT measures between control and electric prods, further studies are required to determine the aversiveness of prods balanced with their ability to move hard-to-move cattle.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".