Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36092763›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2022

Welfare of pigs during transport.

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Søren Saxmose Nielsen, Julio Alvarez, Dominique Joseph Bicout, Paolo Calistri, Elisabetta Canali, Julian Ashley Drewe, Bruno Garin-Bastuji, Jose Luis Gonzales Rojas, Christian Gortázar Schmidt and 21 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Minimum Space When Transporting Pigs: Where Is the "Good" Law?Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Research progress on anti-stress nutrition strategies in swine.Animal nutrition (Zhongguo xu mu shou yi xue hui) · 2023
    Review
  16. Road Transport: A Review of Its Effects on the Welfare of Piglets.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Transmission of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) during animal transport.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2022
    Article
  20. Welfare of pigs during transport.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2022
    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

31 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW)
Søren Saxmose Nielsen
Julio Alvarez
Dominique Joseph Bicout
Paolo Calistri
Elisabetta Canali
Julian Ashley Drewe
Bruno Garin-Bastuji
Jose Luis Gonzales Rojas
Christian Gortázar Schmidt
Virginie Michel
Miguel Ángel Miranda Chueca
Barbara Padalino
Paolo Pasquali
Helen Clare Roberts
Hans Spoolder
Karl Stahl
Antonio Velarde
Arvo Viltrop
Christoph Winckler
Bernadette Earley
Sandra Edwards
Luigi Faucitano
Sonia Marti
Genaro C Miranda de La Lama
Leonardo Nanni Costa
Peter T Thomsen
Sean Ashe
Lina Mur
Yves Van der Stede
Mette Herskin
Aarhus University · DKAnimal Welfare Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the framework of its Farm to Fork Strategy, the Commission is undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of the animal welfare legislation. The present Opinion deals with protection of pigs during transport. The welfare of pigs during transport by road is the main focus, but other means of transport are also covered. Current practices related to transport of pigs during the different stages (preparation, loading/unloading, transit and journey breaks) are described. Overall, 10 welfare consequences were identified as highly relevant for the welfare of pigs during transport based on the severity, duration and frequency of occurrence: group stress, handling stress, heat stress, injuries, motion stress, prolonged hunger, prolonged thirst, restriction of movement, resting problems and sensory overstimulation. These welfare consequences and their animal-based measures are described. A variety of hazards were identified, mainly relating to factors such as mixing of unfamiliar pigs, inappropriate handling methods and devices, the use of pick-up pens, inexperienced/untrained handlers, structural deficiencies of vehicles and facilities, poor driving conditions, unfavourable microclimatic and environmental conditions and poor husbandry practices leading to these welfare consequences. The Opinion contains general and specific conclusions relating to the different stages of transport of pigs. Recommendations to prevent hazards and to correct or mitigate welfare consequences are made. Recommendations were also developed to define quantitative thresholds for microclimatic conditions and minimum space allowance within means of transport. The development of the welfare consequences over time was assessed in relation to maximum journey duration. The Opinion covers specific animal transport scenarios identified by the European Commission relating to transport of cull sows and 'special health status animals', and lists welfare concerns associated with these.

Indexed as

animal‐based measuresanimal welfare assessmentFarm to Fork Strategyhazardspigquantitative thresholdssowwelfare consequences

Identifiers

PMID36092763
PMCPMC9449989
OpenAlexW4295022844

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
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.