Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36908525›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2023

Comparison of single- and double-spaced feeders with regard to damaging behavior in pigs.

Roberta Maria D'Alessio, Alison Hanlon, Keelin O'Driscoll

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Roberta Maria D'AlessioPig Development Department, Teagasc, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Ireland.
Alison HanlonUCD Veterinary Sciences Centre, University College Dublin Belfield, Dublin, Ireland.
Keelin O'DriscollPig Development Department, Teagasc, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Ireland.
University College Dublin · IETeagasc - The Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This work compared the behavior and performance of 24 groups of 12 pigs kept in pens with either a DOUBLE [one feed space aligned with the front wall of the pen (WALL), and one immediately adjacent (IN)] or SINGLE (WALL only) spaced feeder, from weaning until slaughter. Pens were equipped with a rack of fresh grass and a rubber toy (weaning phase) or a wooden board (finishing phase). Every 2 weeks, interaction with the enrichment, aggressive, harmful, and play behaviors were recorded for 5 min, four times a day. In addition, the pigs were individually assessed every 2 weeks for ear, tail, and flank injuries using a 4-point scale. The duration of feeder occupancy, feed space occupancy, number of and duration of feeding bouts, and aggressive behavior at the feeder were recorded continuously from video recordings (two times while in the weaner stage and two times while in the finisher stage, one camera/pen; 1 h per occasion). Individual body weight was recorded at weaning, transfer, and slaughter, and feed delivery was recorded daily at the pen level; from these measurements, average daily gain, feed intake, and feed conversion ratio were calculated. Data were analyzed using SAS v9.4. There was no effect of treatment on damaging behaviors. Pigs in DOUBLE had worse tail lesion scores on 6 of the 9 recording days (

Indexed as

enrichmentfeedergrassgrowing-finishing pigsharmful behaviorspig productiontail biting

Identifiers

PMID36908525
PMCPMC9992529
OpenAlexW4321497839

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.