ArticlePloS one2024
Evaluation of a scheme to identify risks for tail biting in pigs.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Feeding of Undocked Pigs: Effects of Feed Components and Feed Composition.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a tail-biting risk assessment scheme. The scheme consisted of trained private veterinary practitioners (assessors) applying a risk assessment tool on commercial pig farms to six pens per farm. The assessment tool included animal and non-animal-based observations which were used to determine the perceived risk of tail biting for each pen. For this study 27 farms were assessed, and a subsequent batch of pigs from each farm underwent post-mortem tail lesion scoring at the abattoir. The assessments revealed that a high percentage of pens had fully slatted flooring (92%) and mixed-sex populations (84%), with a significant proportion of pens containing pigs which were all tail docked (92%). Most pens (86%) did not allow all pigs simultaneous access to feeders. Enrichment was present in 88% of the pens, but most (46%) were supplied with only one item, and only 15% offering multiple enrichment types. The study found no significant associations between the risk of tail biting and visible injuries, dirty flanks, or tucked tails, as assessed by the assessors (P > 0.05). Similarly, the risk of tail biting reported per pen was not associated with aggressive, damaging, or exploratory behaviours (P > 0.05). At the abattoir, 96% of pigs' tails exhibited minor skin damage, with only 4% showing moderate to severe damage. Furthermore, no links were found between the scores obtained during slaughter and the risk of tail biting, as reported by the assessors (P < 0.05). Although the tool was useful in identifying several improvements that could be made at farm level in areas such as stocking density, enrichment provision and reducing tail docking, overall the results underscored the need for improved training of assessors, and the challenge of associating management practices and animal based measures with tail-biting risk.
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.