Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33201932›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Effect of different cleaning procedures on water use and bacterial levels in weaner pig pens.

Shilpi Misra, Corina E van Middelaar, Kieran Jordan, John Upton, Amy J Quinn, Imke J M de Boer, Keelin O'Driscoll

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Article
  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.

Shilpi MisraPig Development Department, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-4190-6867
Corina E van MiddelaarAnimal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Kieran JordanTeagasc Food Research Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Ireland.
John UptonLivestock Systems Department, Animal and Grassland Research Innovation Centre, Teagasc Moorepark, Fermoy, Ireland.
Amy J QuinnPig Development Department, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Ireland.
Imke J M de BoerAnimal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Keelin O'DriscollPig Development Department, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pork is one of the most globally eaten meats and the pig production chain contributes significantly to the water footprint of livestock production. However, very little knowledge is available about the on-farm factors that influence freshwater use in the pig production chain. An experiment was conducted to quantify the effect of three different washing treatments on freshwater use, bacterial levels [(total bacterial counts; TBC), Enterobacteriaceae and Staphylococcus] and cleaning time in washing of pens for weaning pigs. Three weaner rooms were selected with each room having 10 pens and a capacity to hold up to 14 pigs each. Pigs were weaned and kept in the pens for 7 weeks. Finally, the pens were cleaned before the next batch of pigs moved in. The washing treatments used were power washing and disinfection (WASH); presoaking followed by power washing and disinfection (SOAK), and presoaking followed by detergent, power washing and disinfection (SOAK + DETER). A water meter was used to collect water use data and swab samples were taken to determine the bacterial levels. The results showed that there was no overall effect of washing treatments on water use. However, there was an effect of treatment on the washing time (p<0.01) with SOAK and SOAK+DETER reducing the washing time per pen by 2.3 minutes (14%) and 4.2 minutes (27%) compared to WASH. Nonetheless, there was an effect of sampling time (before or after washing) (p<0.001) on the levels of TBC and Staphylococcus, but no effect was seen on Enterobacteriaceae levels. Thus, the washing treatments used in this study had no effect on the water use of the pork production chain. Although there was no difference in both water use and bacterial load, from a producer perspective, presoaking and detergent use can save time and labour costs, so this would be the preferred option.

Indexed as

Animal HusbandryAnimalsBacteriaBacterial LoadDisinfectionEnterobacteriaceaeFarmsHousing, AnimalHygieneMeatSwineWaterWater MicrobiologyWeaningWater

Identifiers

PMID33201932
PMCPMC7671538

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.