MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3160398009 · doi:10.1093/jas/skab054.014

286 Where Is On-farm Animal Welfare in the United States Headed? A Canadian Perspective

2021· article· en· W3160398009 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jennifer Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsGenome PrairieUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWelfareLegislationAnimal welfareBusinessGovernment (linguistics)Production (economics)Political scienceEconomicsLawEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Both the United States and Canada are major exporters of pork, with market forces and consumer demand playing a more important role than legislation in defining production standards. Canadian welfare standards can be seen as intermediate between those in America and Europe, with the province of Quebec leading the way in Canada’s production of “high welfare” pork. In many other respects- such as farm size, diets, genetics and management, pig farms in Canada and the United States are very similar. What can U.S. producers learn from Canada’s experience in implementation of new welfare standards? This talk discusses Canada’s 2014 implementation of the Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Pigs. The Code included multiple new requirements, including the transition to group housing for gestating sows, use of analgesics at castration and tail docking, space allowances and the provision of enrichment. Code development is overseen by the National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC) in cooperation with the Canadian Pork Council (CPC) and with participation of government, industry and public partners. In 2020, the Pig Code underwent a 5-year review, which resulted in eight major recommendations. Five of those recommendations will require amendments to the code and are yet to be approved. Each change illustrates a balance between economics and welfare in a highly competitive and changing industry. For example, the 2014 Code promoted adoption of group housing for sows by July 1, 2024. While integrated production systems committed to, and invested heavily in, implementation of group gestation, the cost of barn conversion and poor pork returns have been major deterrents on many farms. The CPC estimates that in 2021, 44% of Canada’s sow herd will be managed in groups. The Code review recognized that not all producers will be able to transition by 2024, and that forcing producers to convert on a strict timeline would result in a worsening of the animal’s welfare. The review recommended changing the date for implementation of group housing from 2024 to 2029. This more gradual transition will allow renovations to be part of a scheduled rebuild of an existing facility or new construction, with better long-term outcomes for producers and sow wellbeing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.897

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0220.013
Scholarly communication0.0200.005
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0140.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.002

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.355
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Science→Same topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies→French-language works237,207→