Impact of water flow rate on finishing pig performance.

Hannah E Miller, Katlyn McClellan, Jorge Y Perez-Palencia, Ryan S Samuel, Crystal L Levesque, Robert C Thaler

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Translational animal 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.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Hannah E MillerDepartment of Animal Science, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007, USA.

Katlyn McClellanDepartment of Animal Sciences and Agricultural Education, Jordan College of Agriculture Sciences and Technology, Fresno State University, Fresno, CA 93740, USA.

Jorge Y Perez-PalenciaDepartment of Animal Science, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007, USA.

Ryan S SamuelDepartment of Animal Science, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2257-8762

Crystal L LevesqueDepartment of Animal Science, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2978-5852

Robert C ThalerDepartment of Animal Science, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A survey of 23 South Dakota pork producers in 2019 reported that 68% of the waterers in finishing barns had water flow rates above the recommended rate of 500-1,000 mL/min. The objective of the two studies was to determine the impact of water flow rate on finishing pig performance in the summer months. Study 1 used a total of 396 pigs in two groups in a 77-day trial (35.0 to 104.3 kg BW) with 6 pigs/pen and 1 cup waterer/pen. Study 2, conducted in a commercial style barn, used a total of 1,227 pigs in an 84-day trial (60.9 to 117.4 kg BW) with 26 pigs/pen and 2 cup waters/pen. Pens were assigned to one of three water flow rates (high, medium, low) based on the 3-hole settings of the water nipples (2.0, 1.0, and 0.8 mm;

Indexed as

finishing pigssummerwater flow rate

Identifiers

PMID36172459

DOI10.1093/tas/txac125

PMCPMC9512102

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.