Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38402339›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Detecting tail biters by monitoring pig screams in weaning pigs.

Philipp Heseker, Tjard Bergmann, Marina Scheumann, Imke Traulsen, Nicole Kemper, Jeanette Probst

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
7.0field-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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Feeding of Undocked Pigs: Effects of Feed Components and Feed Composition.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Philipp HesekerInstitute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behavior (ITTN), University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Hannover, Germany. philipp.heseker@tiho-hannover.de.
Tjard BergmannInstitute for Zoology, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Hannover, Germany.
Marina ScheumannInstitute for Zoology, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Hannover, Germany.
Imke TraulsenDepartment of Animal Sciences, Livestock Systems, Georg-August-University Goettingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Nicole KemperInstitute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behavior (ITTN), University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Hannover, Germany.
Jeanette ProbstInstitute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behavior (ITTN), University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Hannover, Germany.
University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation · DEKiel University · DE

Funding

Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) 28DE109E18Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) 28DE109F18
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Early identification of tail biting and intervention are necessary to reduce tail lesions and their impact on animal health and welfare. Removal of biters has become an effective intervention strategy, but finding them can be difficult and time-consuming. The aim of this study was to investigate whether tail biting and, in particular, individual biters could be identified by detecting pig screams in audio recordings. The study included 288 undocked weaner pigs housed in six pens in two batches. Once a tail biter (n = 7) was identified by visual inspection in the stable and removed by the farm staff, the previous days of video and audio recordings were analyzed for pig screams (sudden increase in loudness with frequencies above 1 kHz) and tail biting events until no biting before the removal was observed anymore. In total, 2893 screams were detected in four pens where tail biting occurred. Of these screams, 52.9% were caused by tail biting in the observed pen, 25.6% originated from other pens, 8.8% were not assignable, and 12.7% occurred due to other reasons. In case of a tail biting event, screams were assigned individually to biter and victim pigs. Based on the audio analysis, biters were identified between one and nine days prior to their removal from the pen after visual inspection. Screams were detected earlier than the increase in hanging tails and could therefore be favored as an early warning indicator. Analyzing animal vocalization has potential for monitoring and early detection of tail biting events. In combination with individual marks and automatic analysis algorithms, biters could be identified and tail biting efficiently reduced. In this way, biters can be removed earlier to increase animal health and welfare.

Indexed as

Behavior, AnimalBites and StingsAnimalsAnimal WelfareHumansSwineTailVocalization, AnimalWeaning

Identifiers

PMID38402339
PMCPMC10894255
OpenAlexW4392136959

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.