The effects of handling and group size on welfare of pigs in lairage and their influence on stomach weight, carcass microbial contamination and meat quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At unloading and on the way to stunning, 800 barrows were exposed to either gentle handling (GH: slowly with a plastic board or whip) or rough handling (RH: quickly with an electric prod). Pigs were kept in large or small groups (30 or 10 pigs) during lairage. Compared with GH, RH increased climbing (P < 0.05), slipping (P < 0.01) and turning around (P < 0.001) behaviours during unloading, and climbing (P < 0.05) on the way to stunning. RH also reduced drinking behaviour during lairage (P < 0.01). Pigs kept in large groups were observed more often standing (P < 0.05) and fighting (P < 0.001) than pigs kept in small groups, but, in contrast, had a slightly lower level of urinary cortisol at slaughter. Stomach weight and microbial contamination at slaughter were not affected by treatments. RH tended to increase skin bruise score on the carcass (P < 0.06) and produced more exudative meat (P < 0.05). In conclusion, the response of pigs to the two specific stressors applied prior to slaughter in this study did not seem to contribute to stomach weight variation at slaughter, but it did influence pork quality. Key words: Pigs, pre-slaughter handling, group size, stress, stomach weight, microbial contamination, behaviour, meat quality
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".