ArticlePorcine health management2025
A comparison of two systems for group housing of gestating sows - effects on productivity, removal, and treatments.
Article in Porcine health management, 2025. 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.
- Varied residential options for gestating sows ensured welfare and productivity.Porcine health management · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGroup housing of sows has been extensively studied since the EU banned gestation crating. Well-managed group-housing promotes sow welfare, but the impact varies based on factors such as feeding, group characteristics, and environmental features. Adequate floor space, particularly directly post-mixing, is crucial for social interactions, natural behaviours, and to reduce injuries caused by aggression. The aim of this study was to compare two group-housing systems for gestating sows with respect to productivity, treatment frequency, and removal of sows. Both systems were static but differed in space allowance, quantity of enrichment material and feeding management. System I comprised of large sized pens with deep litter straw bedding, housing in total 40 sows, and System II of smaller sized pens with permanent access to straw, housing 8 to 10 sows.
resultsThe mean parity number was 3.1 ± 1.3 in both groups. Sows housed in System I with large groups (n = 40) in large pens with deep litter straw gave birth to 16.8 ± 0.33 (Least Squares Means, LSM) piglets, compared to 15.4 ± 0.31 (LSM) for sows in System II kept in smaller groups (n = 8-10) in smaller pens (p = 0.0005). Medical treatments of sows were more frequent (p < 0.001) in System II. The incidence of replacement of sows was comparable in both systems, and there was a high occurrence of sows becoming pregnant during the subsequent insemination in both groups.
conclusionsThis study indicated that sows kept in larger groups provided with a larger floor space (a total area of 156 m
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.