ArticlePorcine health management2018
Examination of the hygienic status of selected organic enrichment materials used in pig farming with special emphasis on pathogenic bacteria.
Article in Porcine health management, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of organic material provided by an automatic enrichment device by weaner pigs and its influence on tail lesions.PloS one · 2024Article
- Nontuberculous Mycobacteria as Sapronoses: A Review.Microorganisms · 2022Review
- Pilot Study on Alteration of LA-MRSA Status of Pigs during Fattening Period on Straw Bedding by Two Types of Cleaning.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Rearing Pigs with Intact Tails-Experiences and Practical Solutions in Sweden.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEnrichment materials for pigs, particularly organic materials, are becoming increasingly important in order to reduce abnormal behaviour such as tail biting. However, potential health risks posed by these materials (such as the introduction of pathogens into the herd) have not been sufficiently studied to date. Therefore, 21 different organic materials used as enrichment materials in pig farming were tested for total viable count of mesophilic bacteria, moulds, coliforms,
resultsThe materials differed considerably in their hygienic status. In three materials, no microorganisms were detected. However, the bacterial count in the other materials ranged up to 7.89 log
conclusionsMost of the tested organic materials are probably not likely to pose a hygienic risk to pigs and are suitable as enrichment material. Nonetheless the detected mycobacteria rule out peat as being a safe and hygienic enrichment material.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.