Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25600418›Full record

ArticleThe Science of the total environment2015

Source tracking swine fecal waste in surface water proximal to swine concentrated animal feeding operations.

Christopher D Heaney, Kevin Myers, Steve Wing, Devon Hall, Dothula Baron, Jill R Stewart

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Science of the total environment, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. "Ag-Gag" Laws: Evolution, Resurgence, and Public Health Implications.New solutions : a journal of environmental and occupational health policy : NS · 2019
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Microbial Source Tracking in Adjacent Karst Springs.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2015
    Article
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

6 authors.

Christopher D HeaneyDepartment of Environmental Health Sciences, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Epidemiology, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. Electronic address: cheaney1@jhu.edu.
Kevin MyersDepartment of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Steve WingDepartment of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Devon HallRural Empowerment Association for Community Help (REACH), Warsaw, NC, USA.
Dothula BaronRural Empowerment Association for Community Help (REACH), Warsaw, NC, USA.
Jill R StewartDepartment of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Funding

UNC-CH CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH &SUSCEPTIBILITYP30ES010126 · NIEHS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Melissa A. Troester · 2001 to 2026
$36.3M
Non-Invasive Zoonotic Pathogen Exposure & Outcome BiomarkersK01OH010193 · OH · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI HEANEY, CHRISTOPHER D · 2012 to 2014
$324k
NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES010126NIOSH CDC HHS K01 OH010193
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Swine farming has gone through many changes in the last few decades, resulting in operations with a high animal density known as confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs). These operations produce a large quantity of fecal waste whose environmental impacts are not well understood. The purpose of this study was to investigate microbial water quality in surface waters proximal to swine CAFOs including microbial source tracking of fecal microbes specific to swine. For one year, surface water samples at up- and downstream sites proximal to swine CAFO lagoon waste land application sites were tested for fecal indicator bacteria (fecal coliforms, Escherichia coli and Enterococcus) and candidate swine-specific microbial source-tracking (MST) markers (Bacteroidales Pig-1-Bac, Pig-2-Bac, and Pig-Bac-2, and methanogen P23-2). Testing of 187 samples showed high fecal indicator bacteria concentrations at both up- and downstream sites. Overall, 40%, 23%, and 61% of samples exceeded state and federal recreational water quality guidelines for fecal coliforms, E. coli, and Enterococcus, respectively. Pig-1-Bac and Pig-2-Bac showed the highest specificity to swine fecal wastes and were 2.47 (95% confidence interval [CI]=1.03, 5.94) and 2.30 times (95% CI=0.90, 5.88) as prevalent proximal down- than proximal upstream of swine CAFOs, respectively. Pig-1-Bac and Pig-2-Bac were also 2.87 (95% CI=1.21, 6.80) and 3.36 (95% CI=1.34, 8.41) times as prevalent when 48 hour antecedent rainfall was greater than versus less than the mean, respectively. Results suggest diffuse and overall poor sanitary quality of surface waters where swine CAFO density is high. Pig-1-Bac and Pig-2-Bac are useful for tracking off-site conveyance of swine fecal wastes into surface waters proximal to and downstream of swine CAFOs and during rain events.

Indexed as

Animal HusbandryFecesWater MicrobiologyAnimalsBacteroidetesEnterococcusEnvironmental MonitoringEscherichia coliSewageSwineWater PollutionSewageConcentrated animal feeding operationE. coliEnterococcusFecal pollutionMicrobial source trackingRun-offSwineWater quality

Identifiers

PMID25600418
PMCPMC4514616

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.