ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024
Assessment of Cleaning and Disinfection Practices on Pig Farms across Ten European Countries.
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Farm-Level Biosecurity and Antimicrobial Use in Pig Production: An Integrated Inferential and Explainable Machine Learning Analysis.Veterinary sciences · 2026Article
- Epidemiology of Influenza A virus in Swiss pig herds: subclinical circulation and associated risk factors.Porcine health management · 2026Article
- Serological Detection of O-Type and A-Type Antibodies Against Foot-and-Mouth Disease in Tongliao City, 2021-2022.Veterinary medicine international · 2026Article
- Hygiene procedures of trucks transporting live pigs: multi-assessment validation of a standardized C&D protocol.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Relation Between Farm Biosecurity Measures and Poultry Production Performances: A Scoping Review.Veterinary medicine and science · 2025Article
- Enterobacterales and Antimicrobial Resistance in Feed, Water, and Slurry in Pig Production Farms in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana, 2024.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2025Article
- Antimicrobials in Livestock Farming and Resistance: Public Health Implications.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Use of Subtherapeutic Tylvalosin AgainstTransboundary and emerging diseases · 2025Article
- Methods for assessing efficacy of cleaning and disinfection in livestock farms: a narrative review.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Review
- Animal Health Protection - Assessing Antimicrobial Activity of Veterinary Disinfectants and Antiseptics and Their Compliance with European Standards: A Narrative Review.Polish journal of microbiology · 2024Review
- Effect of implementing an effective farrowing accommodation hygiene routine on clinical cases of disease, medication usage, and growth in suckling and weaned pigs.Translational animal science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study delves into the assessment of cleaning and disinfection (C&D) measures within the context of European pig farming, employing the Biocheck.UGent™ tool as an effective instrument for evaluation. A comprehensive set of relevant parameters was examined to enable meaningful comparisons across farms from 10 European countries during four years (2019-2022). Findings indicate a notable increase in C&D measure implementation in select countries (Belgium, Finland, Italy, and Spain), reflecting heightened awareness and responsibility among farmers. Additionally, the overall score for the C&D subcategory highlights variation across countries, with Italy (75), Poland (74), and Belgium (72) displaying the highest scores, while Ireland (56), Slovenia (55), and Serbia (50) reported the lowest scores. However, the considerable variation in the number of participating farms necessitates cautious comparisons. The study identifies well-implemented C&D measures in the frame of external biosecurity but underscores gaps in the application of C&D measures for the material introduction practices across farms (22% of farms), which are attributed to awareness gaps and resource limitations. In the areas of internal biosecurity, strong points include C&D procedures after each production cycle (79%), implementing different stages in the C&D process (65%) and sufficient sanitary break (82%), while gaps are evident in the presence and using of hand hygiene stations (19% of farms) and boots disinfection equipment (40% of farms) between compartments/units. Notably, the study reveals a lack of evaluation of hygiene after C&D procedures (only 1% of farms), signaling critical knowledge gaps among farmers regarding proper assessment tools and methods. In conclusion, this comprehensive analysis sheds light on the implementation status of C&D measures in European pig farming, offering insights into both areas of progress and those requiring improvement. The findings emphasize the need for targeted awareness campaigns and training initiatives to bolster biosecurity practices within the industry.
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.