Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33924224›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2021

Welfare Health and Productivity in Commercial Pig Herds.

Przemysław Racewicz, Agnieszka Ludwiczak, Ewa Skrzypczak, Joanna Składanowska-Baryza, Hanna Biesiada, Tomasz Nowak, Sebastian Nowaczewski, Maciej Zaborowicz, Marek Stanisz, Piotr Ślósarz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Sustainability and future outlook of the Philippine pig industry.Journal of advanced veterinary and animal research · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

10 authors.

Przemysław RacewiczLaboratory of Veterinary Public Health Protection, Department of Animal Breeding and Product Quality Assessment, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Słoneczna 1, 62-002 Suchy Las, Poland.
Agnieszka LudwiczakDepartment of Animal Breeding and Product Quality Assessment, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Słoneczna 1, 62-002 Suchy Las, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-3009-3346
Ewa SkrzypczakDepartment of Animal Breeding and Product Quality Assessment, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Słoneczna 1, 62-002 Suchy Las, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-3904-7925
Joanna Składanowska-BaryzaDepartment of Animal Breeding and Product Quality Assessment, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Słoneczna 1, 62-002 Suchy Las, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-2626-9329
Hanna BiesiadaLaboratory of Veterinary Public Health Protection, Department of Animal Breeding and Product Quality Assessment, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Słoneczna 1, 62-002 Suchy Las, Poland.
Tomasz NowakDepartment of Genetics and Animal Breeding, Animal Reproduction Laboratory, Poznan University of Life Sciences, 60-637 Poznan, Poland.
Sebastian NowaczewskiDepartment of Animal Breeding and Product Quality Assessment, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Słoneczna 1, 62-002 Suchy Las, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-9204-5534
Maciej ZaborowiczInstitute of Biosystems Engineering, Poznan University of Life Sciences, 60-637 Poznan, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-0000-6157
Marek StaniszDepartment of Animal Breeding and Product Quality Assessment, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Słoneczna 1, 62-002 Suchy Las, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-8943-0266
Piotr ŚlósarzDepartment of Animal Breeding and Product Quality Assessment, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Słoneczna 1, 62-002 Suchy Las, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-3179-503X

Funding

Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science University of Life Sciences 506.569.05.00
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, there have been very dynamic changes in both pork production and pig breeding technology around the world. The general trend of increasing the efficiency of pig production, with reduced employment, requires optimisation and a comprehensive approach to herd management. One of the most important elements on the way to achieving this goal is to maintain animal welfare and health. The health of the pigs on the farm is also a key aspect in production economics. The need to maintain a high health status of pig herds by eliminating the frequency of different disease units and reducing the need for antimicrobial substances is part of a broadly understood high potential herd management strategy. Thanks to the use of sensors (cameras, microphones, accelerometers, or radio-frequency identification transponders), the images, sounds, movements, and vital signs of animals are combined through algorithms and analysed for non-invasive monitoring of animals, which allows for early detection of diseases, improves their welfare, and increases the productivity of breeding. Automated, innovative early warning systems based on continuous monitoring of specific physiological (e.g., body temperature) and behavioural parameters can provide an alternative to direct diagnosis and visual assessment by the veterinarian or the herd keeper.

Indexed as

healthherd managementmonitoring technologiespigswelfare

Identifiers

PMID33924224
PMCPMC8074599

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.