Assessment of welfare in pigs with docked and undocked tails during the weaner stage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tail integrity is a key welfare target in European pig farming. This study evaluated the welfare condition of weaner (28–84 days old) pigs with docked (D) and undocked (UD) tails on a commercial farm, following National Reference Center for Animal Welfare and WelfareQuality® standards. Animal-Based Measures and the hormonal quantification of cortisol (CORT) and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEA(S)) in bristle samples were assessed in 295 pigs distributed in 16 pens. Pigs were born from 24 homogenous sows, distributed across four consecutive weekly batches, and were balanced by sex. Compared with D pigs, UD pigs presented more injuries in the tail ( P = 0.02) and on the body ( P < 0.01), with tail biting occurrences peaking halfway through the post-weaning phase. Body injuries increased over time, particularly in UD pigs, correlating with rising stocking density. D pigs displayed a straight tail posture more frequently ( P < 0.01), suggesting a more positive emotional state. Regardless of tail condition, the use of environmental enrichments declined over time ( P = 0.03) as novelty diminished. Hormonal analysis revealed sex-related differences in resilience, with females showing higher CORT and CORT/DHEA(S) ratio and lower DHEA(S) levels than castrated males ( P < 0.01). There was a tendency toward higher CORT/DHEA(S) ratio in UD pigs than D ones ( P = 0.06), indicating a greater activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis to restore homeostatic conditions. Multivariate analysis linked body lesions, stress markers, and negative interactions, highlighting welfare’s multifactorial nature. Tail integrity alone may be misleading as a welfare indicator. A holistic assessment, integrating physical, emotional, and physiological factors, is crucial for improving management strategies for UD pigs on commercial farms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".