Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42688173›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2026

Motivational factors and financial incentives to mitigate tail biting in pig production in Finland.

Minna Väre, Hilkka Koskikallio, Mari Heinonen, Miina Tuominen-Brinkas, Camilla Munsterhjelm, Anna Valros, Jarkko K Niemi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2026. 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

7 authors.

Minna VäreNatural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Bioeconomy and Environment, Business Economics, Helsinki, Finland.
Hilkka KoskikallioDepartment of Production Animal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Mari HeinonenDepartment of Production Animal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Miina Tuominen-BrinkasDepartment of Production Animal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Camilla MunsterhjelmDepartment of Production Animal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Anna ValrosDepartment of Production Animal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Jarkko K NiemiNatural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Bioeconomy and Environment, Business Economics, Seinäjoki, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tail biting affects the health and welfare of pigs, the quality of pig carcasses, and the profitability of production in both weaner and finishing pig production. There are specific quality criteria for weaned pigs, and tail damage can lead to a reductions in the purchase price of weaner pigs as well as to carcass rejections at the slaughterhouse. Although this issue is important, research has paid little attention to tail biting in weaner pig production. The present study aimed to investigate the impact of various motivational factors and economic incentives on the management of tail biting on Finnish pig farms and to assess the costs of tail biting in weaner pig production. The data were collected by interviewing representatives of 15 farms producing finishing pigs and 10 farms producing weaner pigs during 2021-2022. The interviews covered risk factors for tail biting and the factors that most motivated producers to reduce the occurrence of tail biting. Additionally, using a calculation model, the economic significance of tail biting in nurseries was assessed. The interviewed farmers were very or fairly motivated to address tail biting when they observed it on their own farms. Half of the representatives from farms producing weaner pigs found that the management measures were laborious to implement. The economic incentives that most motivated farmers producing weaner pigs to address tail biting were obtaining a better price for intact-tailed (undocked tails with no tail lesions) pigs and financial support for measures to manage tail biting. Representatives of finishing farms were most motivated by the decrease in carcass condemnations and increase in meat prices. The results suggest that the desire to produce healthy pig with high welfare also motivated Finnish farmers. According to the calculation model and a hypothetical scenario, tail biting in weaner pig production can cause a loss of up to approximately €32 per bitten pig in Finland, taking into account possible effects during the finishing phase, reduced growth, treatment of the tail-damaged pig, and various income losses and additional costs. As the consequences of tail biting can be substantial, it is important that farmers are informed about the potential financial losses and impairment of animal welfare in the event of tail biting occurrence as well as possible means to mitigate and prevent tail biting.

Indexed as

economyfinishing pigincentivemotivationtail bitingweaner pig

Identifiers

PMID42688173
PMCPMC13533822

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.