ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2017
The effect of anaerobic digestion and storage on indicator microorganisms in swine and dairy manure.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Targeting Microorganisms in Lignocellulosic Biomass to Produce Biogas and Ensure Sanitation and Hygiene.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- Sanitization of Biomass in Agricultural Biogas Plants Depends on the Type of Substrates.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Challenges of pathogen inactivation in animal manure through anaerobic digestion: a short review.Bioengineered · 2022Review
- Assessing Environmental Factors within the One Health Approach.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Review
- The removal of moisture and antibiotic resistance genes in dairy manure by microwave treatment.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021Article
- Detection and occurrence of indicator organisms and pathogens.Water environment research : a research publication of the Water Environment Federation · 2019Review
- Microbial load in bio-slurry from different biogas plants in Bangladesh.Journal of advanced veterinary and animal research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this experimental study was to evaluate the influence of anaerobic digestion and storage on indicator microorganisms in swine and dairy excreta. Samples were collected every 90 days for 15 months at eight farms, four pig, and four dairy farms, four of them having a biogas plant. Moreover, to evaluate storage effects on samples, 20 l of manure and slurry taken at each farm (digested manure only in farms with a biogas plant) were stored in a controlled climatic chamber at 18 °C, for 6 months. The bacterial load and the chemical-physical characteristics of excreta were evaluated at each sampling time, stored slurry, and manure were sampled and analyzed every 2 months. A high variability of the concentration of bacteria in the different excreta types was observed during the experiment, mainly depending on the type and time of treatment. No sample revealed either the presence of Escherichia coli O157:H7 or of Salmonella, usually linked to the temporary rearing of infected animals in facilities. Anaerobic digestion and storage affected in a significant way the reduction of indicator bacteria like lactobacilli, coliforms, and streptococci. Anaerobic digestion lowered coliforms in pig slurry (- 2.80 log, P < 0.05), streptococci in dairy manure (- 2.44 log, P < 0.001) and in pig slurry (- 1.43 log, P < 0.05), and lactobacilli in pig slurry (- 3.03 log, P < 0.05). Storage lowered coliforms and the other indicators counts, in particular in fresh wastes, while clostridia did not show a reduction in concentration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28884271What 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.