ArticlePorcine health management2024
Development and evaluation of a standardised sampling protocol to determine the effect of cleaning in the pig sty.
Article in Porcine health management, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundAll-in, all-out with strict hygienic routines is necessary in modern pig production. Furthermore, a standardised, validated method is needed to quantitatively control the effect of these hygiene protocols. This study aimed to establish a reproducible and reliable sampling method to assess cleaning of the pig pen.
methodsSterilised pig faeces were mixed with indicator bacteria (i.e. Enterococcus hirae, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus) and spread out in a controlled environment. The retrieval rate of three different sampling methods were evaluated; swabbing by (i) a cloth and (ii) a sponge, analysed by standardised bacterial culture and counting of colony-forming units, and (iii) a cotton swab analysed by adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence. Two time-points were evaluated during the study; after drying overnight and after manual scraping of the surfaces. To determine sample-to-sample variability, sampling by the cloth and the cotton swab was carried out after manual scraping and further, after high-pressure washing with cold water.
resultsSampling by the cloth and the sponge showed few differences in in the number of CFU obtained before and after the manual scraping (retrieval rate), whereas the swabs, measuring ATP bioluminescence, showed a very high retrieval rate. Sample-to-sample variability was low for all three methods.
conclusionsIn conclusion, to sample pens for the presence of bacteria, the cloth was assessed as the preferable material, being cheap, easy, specific, and approachable, and with a low sample-to-sample variability. The ATP measurement could have potential for use when evaluating the cleaning of stables, however, threshold values for evaluating the cleaning of a pig sty needs to be developed.
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.