The Prevalence of Integument Injuries and Associated Risk Factors Among Canadian Turkeys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Injurious pecking can cause a wide range of damage and is an important welfare and economic issue in turkey production. Aggressive pecking typically targets the head/neck (HN) area, and feather pecking typically targets the back/tail (BT) area; injuries in these separate areas could be used as a proxy for the level of aggressive and feather pecking in a flock. The objective of this study was to identify risk factors for integument injuries in Canadian turkey flocks. A survey containing a questionnaire about housing and management practices and a scoring guide was distributed to 500 turkey farmers across Canada. The farmer scored pecking injuries in two different body areas (HN and BT) on a 0–2 scale on a subset of birds within each flock. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to identify factors associated with the presence of HN and BT injuries. The prevalence of birds with integument injuries ranged widely between the flock subsets (HN = 0–40%, BT = 0–97%), however the mean prevalence was low (HN = 6%, BT = 10%). The presence of injuries for logistic regression was defined as flocks with an injury prevalence greater than the median level of injury prevalence in the dataset (3.3% HN and 6.6% BT). The final logistic regression model for HN injuries contained five variables: flock sex, flock age, number of daily inspections, number of different people during inspections, and picking up birds during inspections (N = 62, pR 2 = 0.23, α = 0.05). The final logistic regression model for BT injuries contained six variables: flock sex, flock age, litter depth, litter condition, inspection duration, and use of hospital pens for sick/injured birds (N = 59, pR 2 = 0.29, α = 0.05). Flock age, and to a lesser extent, sex was associated with both types of injuries. From a management perspective, aggressive pecking injuries appear to be influenced by variables related to human interaction, namely during inspections. On the other hand, the presence of feather pecking injuries, was associated with litter condition and other management factors like separating sick birds. Future research on injurious pecking in turkeys should focus on these aspects of housing and management to better describe the relationship between the identified variables and the prevalence and severity of these conditions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".