Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33313717›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2021

Feed intake and feeding behavior traits for gestating sows recorded using electronic sow feeders.

Laura Vargovic, Susanne Hermesch, Rebecca Z Athorn, Kim L Bunter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The Role of Nutrition Across Production Stages to Improve Sow Longevity.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Traits Defining Sow Lifetime Maternal Performance.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Article
  12. 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

4 authors.

Laura VargovicAnimal Genetics and Breeding Unit, A Joint Venture of NSW Department of Primary Industries and the University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia.
Susanne HermeschAnimal Genetics and Breeding Unit, A Joint Venture of NSW Department of Primary Industries and the University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia.
Rebecca Z AthornAustralian Pork Limited, Barton Australian Capital Territory, Kingston Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Kim L BunterAnimal Genetics and Breeding Unit, A Joint Venture of NSW Department of Primary Industries and the University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electronic sow feeding (ESF) systems are used to control feed delivery to individual sows that are group-housed. Feeding levels for gestating sows are typically restricted to prevent excessive body weight gain. Any alteration of intake from the allocated feeding curve or unusual feeding behavior could indicate potential health issues. The objective of this study was to use data recorded by ESF to establish and characterize novel feed intake and feeding behavior traits and to estimate their heritabilities. Raw data were available from two farms with in-house manufactured (Farm A) or commercial (Farm B) ESF. The traits derived included feed intake, time spent eating, and rate of feed consumption, averaged across or within specific time periods of gestation. Additional phenotypes included average daily number of feeding events (AFE), along with the cumulative numbers of days where sows spent longer than 30 min in the ESF (ABOVE30), missed their daily intake (MISSF), or consumed below 1 kg of feed (BELOW1). The appetite of sows was represented by averages of score (APPETITE), a binary value for allocation eaten or not (DA_bin), or the standard deviation of the difference between feed intake and allocation (SDA-I). Gilts took longer to eat than sows (15.5 ± 0.13 vs. 14.1 ± 0.11 min/d) despite a lower feed allocation (2.13 ± 0.00 vs. 2.36 ± 0.01 kg/d). The lowest heritability estimates (below 0.10) occurred for feed intake traits, due to the restriction in feed allocation, although heritabilities were slightly higher for Farm B, with restriction in the eating time. The low heritability for AFE (0.05 ± 0.02) may have reflected the lack of recording of nonfeeding visits, but repeatability was moderate (0.26 ± 0.03, Farm A). Time-related traits were moderately to highly heritable and repeatable, demonstrating genetic variation between individuals in their feeding behaviors. Heritabilities for BELOW1 (Farm A: 0.16 ± 0.04 and Farm B: 0.15 ± 0.09) and SDA-I (Farm A: 0.17 ± 0.04 and Farm B: 0.10 ± 0.08) were similar across farms. In contrast, MISSF was moderately heritable in Farm A (0.19 ± 0.04) but lowly heritable in Farm B (0.05 ± 0.07). Heritabilities for DA_bin were dissimilar between farms (Farm A: 0.02 ± 0.02 and Farm B: 0.23 ± 0.10) despite similar incidence. Individual phenotypes constructed from ESF data could be useful for genetic evaluation purposes, but equivalent capabilities to generate phenotypes were not available for both ESF systems.

Indexed as

EatingFeeding BehaviorAnimal FeedAnimalsAppetiteElectronicsFemalePhenotypeSwineappetitegestationgroup-housingheritabilitysow health

Identifiers

PMID33313717
PMCPMC7799585

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.