Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33153115›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2020

Soiling of Pig Pens: A Review of Eliminative Behaviour.

Eleonora Nannoni, André J A Aarnink, Herman M Vermeer, Inonge Reimert, Michaela Fels, Marc B M Bracke

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Welfare of pigs on farm.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Knowledge and Perspectives on the Welfare of Italian Heavy Pigs on Farms.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Review
  16. Article
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

6 authors.

Eleonora NannoniDepartment of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, 40064 Ozzano Emilia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5431-6807
André J A AarninkWageningen Livestock Research, Wageningen University & Research, 6708 WD Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Herman M VermeerWageningen Livestock Research, Wageningen University & Research, 6708 WD Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4095-9510
Inonge ReimertAdaptation Physiology Group, Department of Animal Sciences, Wageningen University & Research, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Michaela FelsInstitute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behaviour, University of Veterinary Medicine, 30173 Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9497-5121
Marc B M BrackeWageningen Livestock Research, Wageningen University & Research, 6708 WD Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This is a comprehensive review on the pigs' normal eliminatory behaviour (i.e., defaecation and urination) and pen soiling. This review is aimed primarily at solving issues with pen soiling in current systems, and ultimately at the future design of a well-functioning pig toilet, which we intend to elaborate on in a subsequent publication. In this paper, first, normal elimination is described in relation to what is known about its phylogeny, ontogeny, causation, and function, i.e., according to Tinbergen's four why questions concerning animal behaviour. Then, pen soiling is described as if it were a medical disorder, highlighting its importance, aetiology, symptoms, diagnosis, pathogenesis, treatment, and prevention. Due to its negative consequences in terms of animal welfare, health, workload, and environmental emissions, possible methods to address pen soiling in current systems are described. Probably, pigs do not choose a specific place to eliminate but rather choose the most comfortable place for resting, and avoid eliminating there. We identified four main strategies to reduce pen soiling: (1) reducing the suitability of the designated elimination area to be used for other functions, especially resting or thermoregulation; (2) improving the suitability of other functional areas in the pen to be used for their specific function, such as resting and activity; (3) reducing the suitability of other functional areas to be used for elimination; and (4) improving the suitability of the elimination area for elimination. These prevention strategies and the encompassing disease framework provide a structured approach to deal with pen soiling in existing systems and to support the future design, development, and implementation of a well-functioning pig toilet that can help to achieve some of the main goals of modern pig production, namely reducing environmental emissions as well as substantially improving pig welfare.

Indexed as

animal welfaredefecationeliminative behaviourhygienepen soilingpigs

Identifiers

PMID33153115
PMCPMC7693532

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.