Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33089233›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science and technology2020

Evaluation of adenosine triphosphate testing for on-farm cleanliness monitoring compared to microbiological testing in an empty pig farrowing unit.

Seung-Won Yi, Ara Cho, Eunju Kim, Sang-Ik Oh, Jae Hee Roh, Young-Hun Jung, Changyong Choe, Jae Gyu Yoo, Yoon Jung Do

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science and technology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Seung-Won YiDivision of Animal Diseases & Health, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Wanju 55365, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5545-2969
Ara ChoDivision of Animal Diseases & Health, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Wanju 55365, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5309-7721
Eunju KimDivision of Animal Diseases & Health, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Wanju 55365, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4040-0474
Sang-Ik OhDivision of Animal Diseases & Health, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Wanju 55365, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0877-9170
Jae Hee RohDivision of Animal Diseases & Health, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Wanju 55365, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4223-1096
Young-Hun JungDivision of Animal Diseases & Health, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Wanju 55365, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8094-0304
Changyong ChoeDivision of Animal Diseases & Health, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Wanju 55365, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4222-3360
Jae Gyu YooDivision of Animal Diseases & Health, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Wanju 55365, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8542-9193
Yoon Jung DoDivision of Animal Diseases & Health, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Wanju 55365, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3207-3514
Rural Development Administration · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Careful cleaning and disinfection of pigpens is essential to prevent disease spread and avoid the resultant economic losses. Hygiene in pigpens is generally evaluated by visual monitoring supplemented with bacteriological monitoring, which includes counting the total aerobic bacteria (TAB) and/or fecal indicator bacteria (FIB). However, these methods present drawbacks such as time and labor requirements. As adenosine triphosphate (ATP) is ubiquitous in all living organisms including microorganisms, this study aimed to directly compare the results of microbial assessment and ATP quantification, and to suggest possible detailed application methods of the ATP test for hygiene evaluation in pigpens of a farrowing unit. Before and after standard cleaning procedures, samples were collected from the floor corner, floor center, and feeding trough of four pigpens at different time points. No FIB were detected and both the TAB and ATP levels were significantly decreased in the floor center area after cleaning. FIB were continuously detected after cleaning and disinfection of the floor corners, and there was no significant ATP level reduction. The feeding trough did not show any significant difference in these values before and after cleaning, indicating insufficient cleaning of this area. The levels of TAB and ATP after cleaning were significantly correlated and the average ATP value was significantly lower in the absence of FIB than in their presence. In the absence of standard references, a more thorough hygiene management could be achieved evenly by supplementing cleaning or disinfection based on the lowest ATP results obtained at the cleanest test site, which in the present study was the floor center. Overall, these results indicate that the on-farm ATP test can be used to determine the cleanliness status, in addition to visual inspection, as an alternative to laboratory culture-based testing for the presence of microorganisms.

Indexed as

Adenosine triphosphateFecal indicator bacteriaHygiene evaluationPig farmTotal aerobic bacteria

Identifiers

PMID33089233
PMCPMC7553838
OpenAlexW3093264616

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.