Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40799627›Full record

ReviewTranslational animal science2025

Commercial boar development and management: a review of strategies.

Ashley R Hartman, Jason C Woodworth, Kara R Stewart, Karol E Fike

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Ashley R HartmanDepartment of Animal Science and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA.
Jason C WoodworthDepartment of Animal Science and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7268-4278
Kara R StewartDepartment of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6223-8159
Karol E FikeDepartment of Animal Science and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While boars constitute a relatively small portion (less than 0.005%) of the total swine herd, they have significant genetic influence on the swine population. An individual boar has the potential to sire thousands of offspring every year, yet when it comes to science-based recommendations for boar development from weaning to puberty, there is little in the way of recommendations. Similarly, the management and nutritional recommendations of today's boar population are based on studies that may not be relevant to current genetics or based on recommendations for gilts and sows. Historically with rapid genetic turnover in boar studs there has been little pressure to produce research in this area. However, with boar studs reporting increasing incidence of lameness and health related removals, rising developmental costs, and a need to maintain herd fertility it has created opportunities to increase the scientific understanding of boar development and management. In this literature review, we aim to overview development and management of commercial boars in the United States and highlight what is understood in the way of science-based research.

Indexed as

fertilitysemen collectionswine

Identifiers

PMID40799627
PMCPMC12342469

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.