Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31373628›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2019

Estimation of indirect social genetic effects for skin lesion count in group-housed pigs by quantifying behavioral interactions1.

Belcy K Angarita, Rodolfo J C Cantet, Kaitlin E Wurtz, Carly I O O’Malley, Janice M Siegford, Catherine W Ernst, Simon P Turner, Juan P Steibel

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Towards assessing indirect genetic effects in dairy cattle.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Feeding behavior in pigs.Journal of animal science · 2021
    Article
  11. How to Improve Meat Quality and Welfare in Entire Male Pigs by Genetics.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Review
  12. Phenomes: the current frontier in animal breeding.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2021
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Belcy K AngaritaDepartment of Animal Science, College of Agriculture, University of Buenos Aires INPA-CONICET, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Rodolfo J C CantetDepartment of Animal Science, College of Agriculture, University of Buenos Aires INPA-CONICET, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Kaitlin E WurtzDepartment of Animal Science Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Carly I O O’MalleyDepartment of Animal Science Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Janice M SiegfordDepartment of Animal Science Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Catherine W ErnstDepartment of Animal Science Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Simon P TurnerAnimal Behaviour & Welfare, Animal and Veterinary Sciences Research Group, Scotland's Rural College (SRUC), Edinburgh, UK.
Juan P SteibelDepartment of Animal Science Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Michigan State University · USUniversity of Buenos Aires · ARScotland's Rural College · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mixing of pigs into new social groups commonly induces aggressive interactions that result in skin lesions on the body of the animals. The relationship between skin lesions and aggressive behavioral interactions in group-housed pigs can be analyzed within the framework of social genetic effects (SGE). This study incorporates the quantification of aggressive interactions between pairs of animals in the modeling of SGE for skin lesions in different regions of the body in growing pigs. The dataset included 792 pigs housed in 59 pens. Skin lesions in the anterior, central, and caudal regions of the body were counted 24 h after pig mixing. Animals were video-recorded for 9 h postmixing and trained observers recorded the type and duration of aggressive interactions between pairs of animals. The number of seconds that pairs of pigs spent engaged in reciprocal fights and unilateral attack behaviors were used to parametrize the intensity of social interactions (ISI). Three types of models were fitted: direct genetic additive model (DGE), traditional social genetic effect model (TSGE) assuming uniform interactions between dyads, and an intensity-based social genetic effect model (ISGE) that used ISI to parameterize SGE. All models included fixed effects of sex, replicate, lesion scorer, weight at mixing, premixing lesion count, and the total time that the animal spent engaged in aggressive interactions (reciprocal fights and unilateral attack behaviors) as a covariate; a random effect of pen; and a random direct genetic effect. The ISGE models recovered more direct genetic variance than DGE and TSGE, and the estimated heritabilities (h^D2) were highest for all traits (P < 0.01) for the ISGE with ISI parametrized with unilateral attack behavior. The TSGE produced estimates that did not differ significantly from DGE (P > 0.5). Incorporating the ISI into ISGE, even in a small dataset, allowed separate estimation of the genetic parameters for direct and SGE, as well as the genetic correlation between direct and SGE (r^ds), which was positive for all lesion traits. The estimates from ISGE suggest that if behavioral observations are available, selection incorporating SGE may reduce the consequences of aggressive behaviors after mixing pigs.

Indexed as

Animal WelfareBehavior, AnimalAggressionAnimalsFemaleMaleModels, GeneticPhenotypeSkinSwinebehaviordamaging aggressionpigsskin lesionssocial genetic effects

Identifiers

PMID31373628
PMCPMC6735787
OpenAlexW2964550404

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.