MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410535629 · doi:10.1093/jas/skaf102.297

PSII-3 The effects of periodic environmental enrichment on the welfare and production of growing pigs

2025· article· en· W4410535629 on OpenAlexaff
Abigail Tillotson, Bertrand Medina, Yolande M. Seddon, K. Schwean-Lardner, Jennifer Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsGenome PrairieUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduction (economics)WelfareBiologyAnimal welfareEnvironmental enrichmentAnimal scienceEcologyEconomicsEndocrinologyMarket economyMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Environmental enrichment is known to decrease damaging behaviours and to improve pigs’ ability to cope with new and stressful conditions. However, challenges such as biosecurity, cost, and labor inputs impede adoption of effective enrichments on-farm. This study investigated the effects of a simple periodic enrichment provided in early (0-9 weeks) and/or late (9-21 weeks) life stages. Twenty-four litters were randomly assigned to two early treatments, Control (C, n=119) and Enriched (E, n=118). One week after birth, E pens were given six pieces of newsprint three days/week that were sprayed with a citrus-scented liquid (Phytozen®), previously shown to reduce aggression. At 9 weeks half of E and C pigs were switched to the opposite treatment producing four treatments in late life: EE, EC, CC, and CE. Growth was recorded throughout the 21 weeks, and movement of groups from farrowing to nursery, and nursery to grow finish (GF), was timed. Lesions were assessed pre- and post-weaning, when moving to GF, and 13, 17, and 19 weeks. Tail bites were scored weekly from 9 to 21 weeks. An economic analysis that considered carcass characteristics and enrichment cost was performed. Data were analyzed using SAS®9.4 with mixed linear models, and Tukeys test was used to separate means. Pigs receiving enrichment during late life had greater average daily gain from 18-21 weeks than all other treatments (EE: 2.00±0.04, CE: 2.07±0.04, CC: 1.96±0.05, EC: 1.98±0.04 kg/day, p=0.019). At 9 weeks, E pigs were easier to handle than C pigs, with faster movement from nursery to GF (E: 212±11, C: 250±11 s, p=0.001). At weaning, E pigs had less severe lesions than C pigs (mean scores, E: 0.51±1.91, C: 1.38±1.86, p=0.004). In late life, EE and CE showed lower lesion scores than CC and EC (mean scores, EE: 2.17 ±1.09, CE: 2.43 ±1.09, CC: 3.50 ±1.08, EC: 3.89 ±1.08, p< 0.001). Throughout GF, EE and CE pigs had lower tail bite scores than CC and EC (mean scores, EE: 1.00 ±1.07, CE: 1.28 ±1.07, CC: 1.51 ±1.07, EC: 1.61 ±1.07, p< 0.001). Pigs provided enrichment during early life had greater lean measurements resulting in $0.89 more per pig. Cost savings due to reduced tail bite damage was predicted but could not be estimated due to low severe tail bite numbers. Access to periodic enrichment improved growth, and reduced aggression, with fewer lesions and less severe tail bite damage during the growing period. Combining periodic enrichment provision with pen checks is recommended to reduce the cost of implementation. Future research on periodic enrichment should focus on timing effects, enrichment type(s) and amount provided. The results support the use of periodic enrichment as a practical way to improve pig welfare and production.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207