MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280540684 · doi:10.1186/s40813-022-00263-0

Implementation of piglet castration under inhalation anaesthesia on farrowing farms

2022· article· en· W4280540684 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePorcine Health Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBundesministerium für Ernährung und LandwirtschaftLudwig-Maximilians-Universität München
KeywordsIsofluraneCastrationMedicineAnesthesiaAnimal welfareGeneral anaesthesiaAnimal scienceBiologyInternal medicineHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Since 01.01.2021, suckling piglets may no longer be castrated without anaesthesia in Germany. Previous studies showed castration using isoflurane anaesthesia in combination with a suitable analgesic, meet the requirements of the German Animal Welfare Act. It can be carried out independently by farmers and other qualified persons with an automated and certified isoflurane device. Therefore, the aim of the present field study was to implement the use of three different anaesthetic devices for surgical castration of male piglets under automated isoflurane anaesthesia on 15 conventional pig farms in southern Germany. In addition, the depth of anaesthesia based on defensive movements, the labour time required in contrast to anaesthetic-free castration, castration-related anaesthetic incidents and the piglet mortality rate as well as occupational safety were investigated. For this purpose, farrowing batches of 11,574 piglets castrated under isoflurane anaesthesia (IA) were compared with the results of the 1568 piglets of anaesthetic-free farrowing batches (AF). Results In total, 80.1% of the castrated piglets showed sufficient depth of anaesthesia, although this varied significantly between devices. 1.7% of the piglets suffered an anaesthetic incident, of which 0.1% died during or within 24 h after anaesthesia. The required time for the complete working process differed significantly between AF (1.7 ± 0.8 min/piglet) and IA batches (2.2 ± 0.8 min/piglet) but not for castration itself. The mean isoflurane consumption was 0.57 ± 0.27 ml/piglet and differed significantly between the devices ( p < 0.001). The isoflurane concentration in the ambient air of the person-related workplace safety measurements was below the internationally lowest value of 15 mg/m 3 from Ontario and Israel. Conclusion In conclusion, 2 of the 3 types of devices used, a sufficient depth of anaesthesia during castration under isoflurane was achieved in 85% of castrated piglets. Anaesthetic incidents occurred in 1.7% of the animals, of which 0.1% died. Castration under isoflurane is more time-consuming than anaesthetic-free castration, but the castration time itself did not differ significantly. The occupational exposure limits were below the internationally lowest limit value of 15 mg/m 3 for the persons involved. Even though castration under isoflurane is more time consuming than anaesthetic-free castration, it is a well-establishable method for practice and a dear improvement for animal welfare.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.320 · 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