Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34557537›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2021

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Seven Measures to Reduce Tail Biting Lesions in Fattening Pigs.

Jarkko K Niemi, Sandra A Edwards, Dimitris K Papanastasiou, Deborah Piette, Anna H Stygar, Anna Wallenbeck, Anna Valros

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Feeding of Undocked Pigs: Effects of Feed Components and Feed Composition.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Jarkko K NiemiBioeconomy and Environment Unit, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Seinäjoki, Finland.
Sandra A EdwardsSchool of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Dimitris K PapanastasiouDepartment of Environmental Sciences, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece.
Deborah PietteDepartment of Biosystems, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Anna H StygarBioeconomy and Environment Unit, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Helsinki, Finland.
Anna WallenbeckDepartment of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
Anna ValrosResearch Centre for Animal Welfare, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Natural Resources Institute Finland · FIKU Leuven · BENewcastle University · GBSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences · SEUniversity of Helsinki · FIUniversity of Thessaly · GR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tail biting is an important animal welfare issue in the pig sector. Studies have identified various risk factors which can lead to biting incidents and proposed mitigation measures. This study focused on the following seven key measures which have been identified to affect the risk of tail biting lesions: improvements in straw provision, housing ventilation, genetics, stocking density, herd health, provision of point-source enrichment objects, and adoption of early warning systems. The aim of this study was to examine whether these selected measures to reduce the risk of tail biting lesions in pig fattening are cost-effective. The problem was analyzed by first summarizing the most prospective interventions, their costs and expected impacts on the prevalence of tail biting lesions, second, by using a stochastic bio-economic model to simulate the financial return per pig space unit and per pig at different levels of prevalence of tail biting lesions, and third by looking at how large a reduction in tail biting lesions would be needed at different levels of initial prevalence of lesions to cover the costs of interventions. Tail biting lesions of a severity which would require an action (medication, hospitalization of the pig or other care, or taking preventive measures) by the pig producer were considered in the model. The results provide guidance on the expected benefits and costs of the studied interventions. According to the results, if the average prevalence of tail biting lesions is at a level of 10%, the costs of this damaging behavior can be as high as €2.3 per slaughtered pig (~1.6% of carcass value). Measures which were considered the least expensive to apply, such as provision of point-source enrichment objects, or provided wider production benefits, such as improvements in ventilation and herd health, became profitable at a lower level of efficacy than measures which were considered the most expensive to apply (e.g., straw provision, increased space allowance, automated early warning systems). Measures which were considered most efficient in reducing the risk of tail biting lesions, such as straw provision, can be cost-effective in preventing tail biting, especially when the risk of tail biting is high. At lower risk levels, the provision of point-source objects and other less costly but relatively effective measures can play an important role. However, selection of measures appropriate to the individual farm problem is essential. For instance, if poor health or barren pens are causing the elevated risk of tail biting lesions, then improving health management or enriching the pens may resolve the tail biting problem cost-effectively.

Indexed as

benefitscostseconomic lossespreventionsimulationswinetail biting

Identifiers

PMID34557537
PMCPMC8452948
OpenAlexW3197789631

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.