Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28886754›Full record

ArticleActa veterinaria Scandinavica2017

On-farm biosecurity practices and causes of preweaning mortality in Canadian commercial mink kits.

Nicole Compo, David L Pearl, Brian Tapscott, Amanda Storer, Jutta Hammermueller, Marina Brash, Patricia V Turner

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta veterinaria Scandinavica, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Humans are not unique: difficult birth is common in placental mammals.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nicole CompoDepartment of Pathobiology, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada.
David L PearlDepartment of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada.
Brian TapscottOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs, 6484 Wellington Road 7, Unit 10, Elora, ON, N0B 1S0, Canada.
Amanda StorerDepartment of Pathobiology, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada.
Jutta HammermuellerDepartment of Pathobiology, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada.
Marina BrashAnimal Health Laboratory, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada.
Patricia V TurnerDepartment of Pathobiology, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada. pvturner@uoguelph.ca.
University of Guelph · CAMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMink are an important animal commodity group in Canada and excessive kit mortality represents a significant loss to production. National biosecurity standards have been developed for Canadian mink farms, but it is unclear how well these standards have been implemented as there are no studies correlating management practices of mink producers with causes of death in mink kits. To that end, we surveyed Ontario mink producers on their biosecurity and management practices and conducted almost 5660 post mortem examinations on found-dead, preweaned kits to characterize mink farm biosecurity practices and causes of death in preweaned kits.

resultsWe found that very few biosecurity and management practices were uniformly used by producers, despite good awareness of appropriate practices. Use of personal protective equipment was implemented by fewer than 50% of respondents, while control of mink shed access, disinfection of feed containers after use, and use of a rodent control program were the only practices implemented by greater than 70% of respondents. Only 18% of producers reported regular use of antimicrobials in feed or water, although 91% stated they used antimicrobials for treatment of bacterial diseases on a regular basis. On post mortem examination, no gross abnormalities were noted in 71% of the kits, 45% were thought to be stillborn or aborted, 27% had some form of abnormal fluid distribution in the body, and 2% had a congenital malformation. A subset of 69 gastrointestinal tract samples was submitted for bacterial culture, of which 45 samples yielded sufficient growth. Most interesting was the identification of Salmonella enterica serovar Heidelberg in 11% of samples.

conclusionsThe results of this study will provide a benchmark for Canadian mink producers and their veterinarians, defining the areas to which greater attention should be given to ensure more rigorous biosecurity practices are in place. Ultimately, these improvements in practices may contribute to increased mink production and animal well-being.

Indexed as

Cause of DeathMinkAnimal DiseasesAnimal HusbandryAnimalsOntarioMink diseaseMink productionSalmonellosisZoonoses

Identifiers

PMID28886754
PMCPMC5591539
OpenAlexW2753798175

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.