ArticleThe Journal of veterinary medical science2022
Interspecific variation in wildlife responses to cattle, swine and chicken feed in the forests surrounding poultry farms.
Article in The Journal of veterinary medical science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To strengthen farm biosecurity, wildlife behaviors around livestock environments require significant attention. Livestock feed is considered one of essential factors that attract wildlife to the livestock environment. We experimentally studied wildlife response to cattle, swine, and chicken concentrated feeds in the forests surrounding poultry farms. In 14 feeding sites, four feed conditions were established: without feed (control); cattle feed; chicken feed; and swine feed. Wildlife behaviors at each feed point were monitored using infrared cameras. In 3,175 videos, 10 mammals were photographed on 10 or more occasions. Wildlife more frequently appeared at the points with feed than without feed. In addition, the number of videos that captured foraging or interest behaviors was largest for swine feed, followed by chicken feed, then cattle feed. There was a large difference among wildlife in their response to livestock feeds, although each species did not have a strong preference for a specific feed. Livestock feeds invite frequent visits by high and moderate response groups, especially omnivores and carnivores with omnivorous tendencies. Therefore, to protect against such wildlife intrusion, leftover feed and feed storage must be properly managed. This study also suggests that livestock feeds may not cause intrusions by rare response group species; hence, if their intrusions occur, they may be due to factors other than livestock feed. The study situation can partly reflect actual feed-stealing situations. The results will contribute to consider the properly management to protect livestock environments from wildlife intrusions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.