ArticleTranslational animal science2025
Effects of the proportion of the litter cross-fostered and number of source litters used to create a cross-fostered litter on piglet pre-weaning performance.
Article in Translational animal science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The objective of this study was to determine the effects of the proportion of a litter that was cross-fostered and the number of source litters used to form a cross-fostered litter on piglet pre-weaning performance. The study was carried out at 2 commercial farrowing facilities using a RCBD with 53 blocks (265 litters, 3675 piglets). Sows within a block were of similar parity, body condition score, and functional teat number that farrowed at the same facility on the same day. Litters within a block were the same size after cross-fostering (13 or 14 piglets), with similar average and CV of piglet birth weight. Treatments involved the percentage of piglets in the litter that were cross-fostered (0% = none; 50% = half from birth sow, half from other litters; 100% = all from other litters) and number of source litters (sows to which piglets were born) contributing piglets to the cross-fostered litter. The 5 cross-fostering treatments (% of litter cross-fostered/number of source litters) were: 1) 0%/1 (all piglets from birth sow); 2) 100%/1 (all piglets from one other sow); 3) 100%/multiple (all piglets from 6 to 11 other sows; mean 6.8); 4) 50%/multiple (half piglets from birth sow; half piglets from 4 to 8 other sows; mean 5.5); 5) 50%/2 (half piglets from birth sow; half piglets from one other sow). Piglets were weighed and allotted to treatment 24 hour after birth and weighed at weaning (WW; 19.2 ± 0.97 d); pre-weaning mortality (PWM) was recorded. Data were analyzed using SAS; models accounted for the fixed effect of cross-fostering treatment and random effects of farrowing facility and block within farrowing facility. There were no interactions (
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.