Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31875908›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2020

Individual training for farmers based on results from protein and ATP rapid tests and microbiological conventional cultural methods improves hygiene in pig fattening pens.

Céline Heinemann, Isabell Meyer, Franziska T Bögel, Simone M Schmid, Jason J Hayer, Julia Steinhoff-Wagner

Open access · greenAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Céline HeinemannInstitute of Animal Science, Preventive Health Management, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Isabell MeyerInstitute of Animal Science, Physiology and Hygiene Unit, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Franziska T BögelInstitute of Animal Science, Preventive Health Management, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Simone M SchmidInstitute of Animal Science, Preventive Health Management, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Jason J HayerInstitute of Animal Science, Preventive Health Management, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Julia Steinhoff-WagnerInstitute of Animal Science, Preventive Health Management, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
University of Bonn · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Optimal hygiene management is an essential part of maintaining a high standard of health in conventional pig production systems and for the successful interruption of infection chains. Currently, efficiency assessments on cleaning and disinfection are only performed by visual inspection or are neglected completely. The aim of this study was to evaluate the available methods for on farm monitoring of hygiene, identify critical points in pig pens and use the data obtained for training purposes. In addition to visual inspection by assessing the cleanliness, microbiological swab samples, i.e., aerobic total viable count (TVC), total coliform count, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and extended-spectrum β-lactamases-producing bacteria (ESBL), swab samples for ATP as well as protein residues and agar contact plates combined with 3 different culture media, were applied and ranked according to their suitability for livestock farming. Samples were collected on at least 15 critical points from one representative pen on 6 pig fattening farms with various hygiene management practices after cleaning and disinfection. After the first sampling, farmers were trained with their individual results, and sampling was repeated 6 mo after training. Nipple drinkers, feeding tubes (external and inner surface), and troughs (external and inner surface) showed the greatest bacterial loads (TVC: 4.5-6.7 log10 cfu cm-2) and values for ATP and protein residues; therefore, these surfaces could be identified as the most important critical points. Spearman rank correlations (P < 0.01) were found between the different assessment methods, especially for the TVC and ATP (r = 0.82, P < 0.001). For rapid assessment on farms, ATP tests represented an accurate and cost-efficient alternative to microbiological techniques. Training improved cleaning performance as indicated by a lower rating for visual inspection, TVC, ATP, MRSA, and ESBL in the second assessment. The monitoring of cleaning efficiency in pig pens followed by training of the staff constitutes a valuable strategy to limit the spread of infectious diseases and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Special attention should be paid to the sufficient hygiene of drinkers and feeders.

Indexed as

Adenosine TriphosphateAnimal HusbandryAnimalsDisinfectionDrug Resistance, BacterialFarmersFarmsHygieneMicrobiological TechniquesPrimary PreventionSwineAdenosine Triphosphateanimal healthcleaningdisease preventiondisinfectionmethod evaluationpork production

Identifiers

PMID31875908
PMCPMC6978896
OpenAlexW2997064386

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.