ArticlePreventive veterinary medicine2019
Biosecurity practices in Belgian veal calf farming: Level of implementation, attitudes, strengths, weaknesses and constraints.
Article in Preventive veterinary medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biosecurity governance and on-farm implementation in the European livestock sector: regulatory heterogeneity, assessment tools and evidence gaps - A scoping review.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026Review
- Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Semi-Quantitative Biosecurity Assessment Framework Targeting Prevention of the Introduction and Establishment ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- A Survey of Calf Housing Facilities Pre-Weaning, Management Practices and Farmer Perceptions of Calf Welfare on Irish Dairy Farms.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Effect of source and journey on physiological variables in calves transported by road and ferry between Ireland and the Netherlands.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023Article
- Factors affecting the use of biosecurity measures for the protection of ruminant livestock and farm workers against infectious diseases in central South Africa.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2022Article
- Risk factors for the abundance of antimicrobial resistance genes aph(3')-III, erm(B), sul2 and tet(W) in pig and broiler faeces in nine European countries.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2022Article
- Changes in Fecal Carriage of Extended-SpectrumFrontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Biosecurity at Cattle Farms: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- The Dispensable Surplus Dairy Calf: Is This Issue a "Wicked Problem" and Where Do We Go From Here?Frontiers in veterinary science · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The shift from cure toward prevention in veterinary medicine involves the implementation of biosecurity. In cattle farming, the application of biosecurity measures has been described to a limited degree, yet no data on biosecurity on veal farms is available. A high degree of commingling of veal calves from multiple farms causes frequent disease outbreaks, and thereby high antimicrobial usage and increased risk of antimicrobial resistance. Therefore, this study aimed to describe the current implementation of biosecurity on veal farms in Belgium. To this extent, a list of the most important calf diseases (n = 34) was created, and risk factors and related biosecurity measures for these diseases were determined and included in a questionnaire. Herd visits and face-to-face interviews were conducted on 20 randomly selected veal farms, comprising 8.3% of the target population. A categorical principal component and clustering analysis were performed to determine the influence of the veal companies on the farms' biosecurity level. Awareness of biosecurity was very low among the farmers. All farms used an "all-in, all-out" production system with calves originating from multiple farms without quarantine. On average, farms were filled in 11.4 days (range 2-52). The degree of commingling for these farms was 1.24, meaning that, on average, 124 calves originated from 100 farms. Veterinarians wore farm-specific boots on eight farms (40%) and farm-specific clothes on six farms (30%), while technical advisors wore farm-specific boots on six farms (30%) and farm-specific clothes on four farms (20%). Disinfection footbaths were only used in five farms (25%) despite being present in all farms in the sample. Concerning internal biosecurity, none of the farmers isolated sick animals; only one farmer (5%) had a physically separated hospital pen, and only 11 farmers (55%) both cleaned and disinfected the stables after each production cycle. In most farms, animals were of comparable age. Healthy calves generally remained in the same compartment during the entire production cycle, limiting the risks associated with the movement of animals. No influence of the integrations on the biosecurity level could be determined. It can be concluded that a few biosecurity measures, such as "'all-in, all-out" and compartmentation, are implemented relatively well, while other measures, such as good cleaning and disinfection and proper entrance measures for visitors and personnel can easily be improved. The improvement of measures regarding the introduction of animals of different origins will require more fundamental changes in the veal industry.
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.