Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37862378›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Swine industry stakeholders' perception on the use of water-based foam as an emergency mass depopulation method.

Ting-Yu Cheng, Magnus R Campler, Josie M Rudolphi, Taylor J Williams, Justin D Kieffer, Steven J Moeller, Andrew S Bowman, Andréia G Arruda

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

8 authors.

Ting-Yu ChengDepartment of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-3732-9147
Magnus R CamplerDepartment of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.
Josie M RudolphiDepartment of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, United States of America.
Taylor J WilliamsDepartment of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.
Justin D KiefferDepartment of Animal Sciences, College of Food, Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.
Steven J MoellerDepartment of Animal Sciences, College of Food, Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.
Andrew S BowmanDepartment of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0738-8453
Andréia G ArrudaDepartment of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-7040-9686

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The U.S. pork supply chain is vulnerable to various internal and external threats and in need of prompt, comprehensive response plans. Under urgent circumstances, for example in the case of foreign disease incursions, swine farms will have to perform on-farm animal depopulation to prevent disease spread. Several animal depopulation methods including water-based foam (WBF) have been proposed and are under evaluation for feasibility in the field. However, the psychological/emotional impacts of applying depopulation methods for personnel managing and carrying on the tasks are not currently well understood. Thus, this study aimed to investigate WBF as an alternative for depopulation compared to existing methods approved by the American Veterinary Medical Association. Swine industry stakeholders were invited to voluntarily observe a WBF depopulation trial and to provide their self-reported perspectives before and after the observation. A survey was designed to explore key areas on expected and perceived method effectiveness, efficiency, and animal welfare considerations, as well as to evaluate short-term post-observation psychological impacts. Among 42 recruited stakeholders, 31.0% (13/42) were educators/researchers followed by animal health officials (26.2%, 11/42) and veterinarians (23.8%, 10/42), with an average of 11.7 ± 12.6 (n = 39) years of work experience. After the trial, respondents' positive perception of WBF depopulation increased specifically regarding the animal loading process being less stressful than restrained in-barn depopulation options (P = 0.003) and by the observation of fewer swine escape attempts and vocalizations than expected (P < 0.001). Respondents' positive perception of WBF also increased regarding to the time required to fill the trailer with foam, to stop hearing animal vocalization, and stop hearing animal movement, as the observed trial times were faster than their pre-observation estimates (P < 0.001). Additionally, 79.5% (31/39) of respondents agreed that the rapid destruction of animal populations had priority over animal welfare under urgent scenarios. Minor post-traumatic stress disorder-like (PTSD-like) symptoms from the observed trials were reported (26.7%, 4/15 respondents) one month after the observation. This study showed that the WBF depopulation process was perceived positively by swine stakeholders and may have limited short-term psychological impacts on personnel involved in animal depopulation.

Indexed as

Euthanasia, AnimalWaterAnimal HusbandryAnimalsAnimals, DomesticHumansPerceptionSwineWater

Identifiers

PMID37862378
PMCPMC10588842

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.