ArticleTropical animal health and production2026
Comparative study of reproductive and preweaning performance in meat guinea pigs located in two housing systems.
Article in Tropical animal health and production, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Guinea pig production contributes to food security and income in Latin America. Traditional floor pens are increasingly being replaced by wire cages. However, the choice between housing systems is often based on subjective preferences rather than performance data. This study is based on a comparison of two housing systems to evaluate the effects of pens versus cages on the reproductive and preweaning performance of guinea pigs. A total of 220 pregnant females were randomly assigned in groups of 10 in different cages and pens, remaining in the same location throughout the study to minimize stress. Differences between housing systems were obtained by Generalized Linear ModelDuring gestation, no significant differences were found in body weight, average daily gain, solid feed intake, forage dry matter intake, feed conversion ratio, litter size, or litter weight. After parturition, the same parameters were measured in both dams and offspring during the preweaning phase, again showing no significant differences between housing systems. Additional welfare indicators such as mortality, skin lesions, leg fractures, and ear injuries were also evaluated by Fisher's exact test. A higher incidence of ear lesions was recorded in cages due to ear tags becoming caught in the bars-a problem not observed under commercial conditions where ear tagging is uncommon. No significant differences were observed for the remaining welfare traits. Overall, both systems proved suitable during gestation and lactation. However, cages offered advantages in ease of cleaning and animal handling, as they eliminated the need for workers to bend to ground level.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42704552What 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.