ArticlePorcine health management2021
Management practices related to the control of gastrointestinal parasites on Swedish pig farms.
Article in Porcine health management, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current strategies for controlling gastrointestinal nematodes of pigs in Europe.Parasites & vectors · 2026Review
- Serological survey on Sarcoptes scabiei var. suis in fattening pigs and sows from intensive farms in Italy.Parasitology research · 2026Article
- First molecular detection and genotyping of Enterocytozoon bieneusi (Microsporidia) in fattening pigs from Italy.BMC veterinary research · 2026Article
- Effects of season, age and parasite management practices on gastro - intestinal parasites in pigs kept outdoors in Ireland.Irish veterinary journal · 2025Article
- Prevalence and molecular characterisation of Balantioides coli in pigs raised in Italy.Parasitology research · 2025Article
- Epidemiology and distribution of gastrointestinal parasites in fattening pig farms in northern Italy.Parasitology research · 2024Article
- In vivo assessment of the antiparasitic effects of Allium sativum L. and Artemisia absinthium L. against gastrointestinal parasites in swine from low-input farms.BMC veterinary research · 2024Article
- Understanding the interface between European wild boar (Sus scrofa) and domestic pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus) in Sweden through a questionnaire study.Acta veterinaria Scandinavica · 2023Article
- Survey of intestinal parasites in swine farms raised in Western Nepal.Veterinary medicine and science · 2023Article
- The Effects ofMicroorganisms · 2023Article
- Family-Run Pig Farms: Research and Extension Activities for Parasite Control in a Municipality in the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Comparison of different detection methods for Ascaris suum infection on Austrian swine farms.Porcine health management · 2021Article
- Screening of Lactic Acid Bacteria with Inhibitory Activity against ETEC K88 as Feed Additive and the Effects on Sows and Piglets.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInternal parasites are common in pigs worldwide and may induce clinical disease or subclinical infections with negative effects such as poor weight gain and reduced welfare, which in turn affect productivity. Effective parasite control to reduce the negative impact of parasitic infections demands a combination of antiparasitic drugs as well as various hygiene and biosecurity practices. The aim of this study was to obtain information on current management practices and parasite control routines used on Swedish pig farms using an online questionnaire.
resultsAntiparasitic drugs were used on 69% of the farms routinely and were mainly administered to sows just prior to farrowing. Less than 5% of the herds conducted faecal analysis for parasites. Batchwise, age segregated rearing was common and overall, it was practiced for piglets, growers, and fatteners on 88, 80 and 75% of the farms, respectively. Large and medium sized farms appeared to apply stricter hygiene and biosecurity measures to the growing pigs compared to small farms. Dry sows were mainly housed in groups on deep litter straw beds and cleaning, as well as disinfection, between each group was less common compared to what was practiced for growing pigs. Outdoor access was rare and only occurred on organic and small farms. Most of the farms, 54, 74 and 82% of small, medium, and large sized herds respectively, reported to have less than 5% white spot lesions, caused by migrating A. suum larvae, registered at slaughter.
conclusionSeveral risk factors for parasite infections, such as bedding material, group housing and solid floors, are mandatory requirements by national law. However, it was evident from this study that although strategic hygiene and biosecurity practices appeared common, they were not practiced in all herds and less so for dry sows. Antiparasitic drugs were used frequently and mainly through routine prophylactic treatments without prior testing for parasites. A holistic approach is necessary when designing efficient parasite control programs, and it is essential that management factors and routine monitoring of parasites are given attention. This to achieve efficient parasite control and reduce the risk of unnecessary use of antiparasitic drugs.
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.