Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31436143›Full record

ReviewAnimal : an international journal of animal bioscience2020

Review: Early life predisposing factors for biting in pigs.

A Prunier, X Averos, I Dimitrov, S A Edwards, E Hillmann, M Holinger, V Ilieski, R Leming, C Tallet, S P Turner and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animal : an international journal of animal bioscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Welfare of pigs on farm.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Linking Animal Welfare and Antibiotic Use in Pig Farming-A Review.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    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

12 authors.

A PrunierINRA, PEGASE, Agrocampus-Ouest, Saint Gilles 35590, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3070-6613
X AverosDepartment of Animal Production, Neiker-Tecnalia Basque Institute for Agricultural Research and Development, Vitoria-Gasteiz 01080, Spain.
I DimitrovAgricultural Institute, Stara Zagora 6000, Bulgaria.
S A EdwardsSchool of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK.
E HillmannHumboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Albrecht Daniel Thaer-Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences, Berlin 10115, Germany.
M HolingerETH Zurich, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Zürich 8092, Switzerland.
V IlieskiUniversity Ss. Cyril and Methodius in Skopje, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Skopje 1000, Republic of North Macedonia.
R LemingEstonian University of Life Sciences, Institute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Tartu 51014, Estonia.
C TalletINRA, PEGASE, Agrocampus-Ouest, Saint Gilles 35590, France.
S P TurnerSRUC, Kings Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK.
M ZupanUniversity of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Domžale 1230, Slovenia.
I CamerlinkUniversity of Veterinary Medicine (Vetmeduni) Vienna, Institute of Animal Welfare Science, Veterinärplatz 1, Vienna 1210, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The pig industry faces many animal welfare issues. Among these, biting behaviour has a high incidence. It is indicative of an existing problem in biters and is a source of physical damage and psychological stress for the victims. We categorize this behaviour into aggressive and non-aggressive biting, the latter often being directed towards the tail. This review focusses specifically on predisposing factors in early life, comprising the prenatal and postnatal periods up to weaning, for the expression of aggressive and non-aggressive biting later in life. The influence of personality and coping style has been examined in a few studies. It varies according to these studies and, thus, further evaluation is needed. Regarding the effect of environmental factors, the number of scientific papers is low (less than five papers for most factors). No clear influence of prenatal factors has been identified to date. Aggressive biting is reduced by undernutrition, cross-fostering and socialization before weaning. Non-aggressive biting is increased by undernutrition, social stress due to competition and cross-fostering. These latter three factors are highly dependent on litter size at birth. The use of familiar odours may contribute to reducing biting when pigs are moved from one environment to another by alleviating the level of stress associated with novelty. Even though the current environment in which pigs are expressing biting behaviours is of major importance, the pre-weaning environment should be optimized to reduce the likelihood of this problem.

Indexed as

Bites and StingsSwine DiseasesAnimalsAnimal WelfareBehavior, AnimalCausalityFemalePregnancySwineTailaggressionoral manipulationpre-weaningswinetail biting

Identifiers

PMID31436143
PMCPMC7026718

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.