Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25227986›Full record

ArticleBehavior genetics2015

Indirect genetic effects for growth rate in domestic pigs alter aggressive and manipulative biting behaviour.

Irene Camerlink, Winanda W Ursinus, Piter Bijma, Bas Kemp, J Elizabeth Bolhuis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Towards assessing indirect genetic effects in dairy cattle.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Evolutionary feedbacks forProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Tail-Biting in Pigs: A Scoping Review.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. A Review of the Effects of Non-Straw Enrichment on Tail Biting in Pigs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2019
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Irene CamerlinkDepartment of Animal Sciences, Adaptation Physiology Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands, irene.camerlink@sruc.ac.uk.
Winanda W Ursinus
Piter Bijma
Bas Kemp
J Elizabeth Bolhuis

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Indirect genetic effects (IGEs) are heritable effects of an individual on phenotypic values of others, and may result from social interactions. We determined the behavioural consequences of selection for IGEs for growth (IGEg) in pigs in a G × E treatment design. Pigs (n = 480) were selected for high versus low IGEg with a contrast of 14 g average daily gain and were housed in either barren or straw-enriched pens (n = 80). High IGEg pigs showed from 8 to 23 weeks age 40% less aggressive biting (P = 0.006), 27% less ear biting (P = 0.03), and 40% less biting on enrichment material (P = 0.005). High IGEg pigs had a lower tail damage score (high 2.0; low 2.2; P = 0.004), and consumed 30 % less jute sacks (P = 0.002). Selection on high IGEg reduced biting behaviours additive to the, generally much larger, effects of straw-bedding (P < 0.01), with no G × E interactions. These results show opportunities to reduce harmful biting behaviours in pigs.

Indexed as

AggressionBehavior, AnimalBites and StingsAnimalsAnimal WelfareBody WeightFeeding BehaviorFemaleGene-Environment InteractionMalePhenotypeSus scrofaSwine

Identifiers

PMID25227986
PMCPMC4289009

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.