ArticlePorcine health management2024
Biosecurity measures for the prevention of African swine fever on German pig farms: comparison of farmers' own appraisals and external veterinary experts' evaluations.
Article in Porcine health management, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biosecurity governance and on-farm implementation in the European livestock sector: regulatory heterogeneity, assessment tools and evidence gaps - A scoping review.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026Review
- Current Insights into the Epidemiology and Transmission Dynamics of African Swine Fever Virus and Future Control Perspectives.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Farmers' knowledge of African swine fever disease prevention practice: A case of biosecurity in small-scale pig farms in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam.Open veterinary journal · 2026Article
- Surveillance and Management Strategies for African Swine Fever (ASF) in Central Luzon, Philippines.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Biosecurity Versus African Swine Fever-Making, Acceptance, and Results of a German Online Assessment Tool.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The impact of epidemic experiences on biosecurity behavior of pig farmers: an analysis based on protection motivation theory.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2024Article
- Evaluating the Global Distribution and Characteristics of Research Studies Focusing on Swine Farm Biosecurity: A Scoping Review.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince its first introduction into the German wild boar population in 2020, African swine fever (ASF) has been spreading slowly from the eastern border westwards and has been introduced into eight domestic pig farms thus far. The European Food Safety Authority has named deficits in farm biosecurity and increased human activity as major risk factors for the introduction of the ASF virus into pig farms. Studies have shown that pig farms in Germany generally have a high level of biosecurity. However, veterinary practitioners and policy-makers have expressed concerns that not all pig farmers are appropriately prepared to deal with the threat of ASF. This study aimed to evaluate the level of biosecurity on pig farms in Lower Saxony and explore the reasons for deficits in the implementation of biosecurity measures. For this purpose, pig farmers were interviewed in open structured face-to-face interviews about their perception of ASF and biosecurity, and the implemented measures on their farms were assessed with a checklist. In the data analysis, the farmers' answers and the results of the biosecurity check were compared to gain further insights into the factors influencing the implementation of biosecurity measures on the farms.
resultsThe biosecurity check showed that on most farms, a high level of biosecurity had been implemented. Nevertheless, deficits were found concerning the fences and the delimitation of clean and dirty areas on farm grounds and in the anteroom. Overall, the farmers were well informed about ASF and had a realistic perception of their own biosecurity. They considered the farm layout, financial means and practicality of hygiene measures to be the main barriers to implementing biosecurity measures against ASF. However, the results also suggested that farmers' attitudes and legal regulations were major influencing factors.
conclusionThe results indicated a high level of biosecurity against ASF on most pig farms and a realistic perception of their own biosecurity by the farmers. Current knowledge transfer and information should focus on building upon the farmers' own motivation and expertise and supporting them to put existing knowledge into practice.
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.