Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29912353›Full record

ReviewJournal of animal science2018

Nutritional impact on mammary development in pigs: a review.

Chantal Farmer

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of animal science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Importance and Control of Colostrum Intake in the Neonate Pig, a Review.Reproduction in domestic animals = Zuchthygiene · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
  3. DietaryVeterinary sciences · 2025
    Article
  4. The Role of Nutrition Across Production Stages to Improve Sow Longevity.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Lactation in swine: review article.Animal frontiers : the review magazine of animal agriculture · 2023
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Feeding a whole-cell inactivatedTranslational animal science · 2023
    Article
  17. Achieving optimal sow performance, still an ongoing challenge in 2022.Animal frontiers : the review magazine of animal agriculture · 2022
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chantal FarmerAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Sherbrooke R & D Centre, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Milk yield is a crucial component of a sow operation because it is a limiting factor for piglet growth rate. Stimulating mammary development is one avenue that could be used to improve sow milk production. A number of studies have shown that nutrition of gilts or sows during the periods of rapid mammary accretion occurring during prepuberty, gestation, and lactation can affect mammary development. The present review provides an overview of all the information currently published on the subject. Various nutritional treatments can bring about increases in mammary tissue weight ranging from 27% to 52%. It was clearly established that feed restriction from 90 d of age (but not before 90 d) until puberty has detrimental effects on mammary development in pigs. Ad libitum feeding during that period increased mammary parenchymal weight by 36% to 52%. Body condition is also important because gilts that were obese (36-mm backfat) or too lean (12- to 15-mm backfat) in late gestation had less developed mammary tissue. Furthermore, overfeeding energy in late gestation seems to be detrimental. On the other hand, increasing energy and protein intakes of sows during lactation was beneficial for development of mammary tissue. Feeding certain plant extracts with estrogenic or hyperprolactinemic properties may also prove beneficial in stimulating mammary development at specific physiological periods. For example, feeding genistein to prepubertal gilts increased parenchymal DNA by 44%. Even though research was carried out on the nutritional control of mammogenesis in pigs, it is evident that much remains to be learned before the best nutritional strategy to enhance mammary development can be developed.

Indexed as

LactationSexual MaturationSwineAnimal FeedAnimal Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaAnimalsFemaleMilkPregnancySus scrofafeed restrictiongestationmammary developmentnutritionpigprepuberty

Identifiers

PMID29912353
PMCPMC6135228
OpenAlexW2808757897

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.