Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34758888›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science and biotechnology2021

Assessing the microbiota of recycled bedding sand on a Wisconsin dairy farm.

Hannah E Pilch, Andrew J Steinberger, Donald C Sockett, Nicole Aulik, Garret Suen, Charles J Czuprynski

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science and biotechnology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Hannah E Pilch *Department of Pathobiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, 53706, USA.
Andrew J Steinberger *Department of Bacteriology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, 53706, USA.
Donald C SockettWisconsin Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, 53706, USA.
Nicole AulikDepartment of Pathobiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, 53706, USA.
Garret SuenDepartment of Bacteriology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, 53706, USA.
Charles J CzuprynskiDepartment of Pathobiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, 53706, USA. charles.czuprynski@wisc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8265-7978
University of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences 20017-68003-26500Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences 2020-67015-31576
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSand is often considered the preferred bedding material for dairy cows as it is thought to have lower bacterial counts than organic bedding materials and cows bedded on sand experience fewer cases of lameness and disease. Sand can also be efficiently recycled and reused, making it cost-effective. However, some studies have suggested that the residual organic material present in recycled sand can serve as a reservoir for commensal and pathogenic bacteria, although no studies have yet characterized the total bacterial community composition. Here we sought to characterize the bacterial community composition of a Wisconsin dairy farm bedding sand recycling system and its dynamics across several stages of the recycling process during both summer and winter using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing.

resultsBacterial community compositions of the sand recycling system differed by both seasons and stage. Summer samples had higher richness and distinct community compositions, relative to winter samples. In both summer and winter samples, the diversity of recycled sand decreased with time drying in the recycling room. Compositionally, summer sand 14 d post-recycling was enriched in operational taxonomic units (OTUs) belonging to the genera Acinetobacter and Pseudomonas, relative to freshly washed sand and sand from cow pens. In contrast, no OTUs were found to be enriched in winter sand. The sand recycling system contained an overall core microbiota of 141 OTUs representing 68.45% ± 10.33% SD of the total bacterial relative abundance at each sampled stage. The 4 most abundant genera in this core microbiota included Acinetobacter, Psychrobacter, Corynebacterium, and Pseudomonas. Acinetobacter was present in greater abundance in summer samples, whereas Psychrobacter and Corynebacterium had higher relative abundances in winter samples. Pseudomonas had consistent relative abundances across both seasons.

conclusionsThese findings highlight the potential of recycled bedding sand as a bacterial reservoir that warrants further study.

Indexed as

16S rRNA sequencingBovineDairy farmMicrobiotaRecycled bedding sand

Identifiers

PMID34758888
PMCPMC8582206
OpenAlexW3213045790

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.