Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40941310›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2025

Beliefs, Behaviors, and Practices of Farm Biosecurity in the Midwestern U.S. Swine Operations.

Maurine C Chepkwony, Colin Yoder, Marie R Culhane, Maria Sol Perez Aguirreburualde, Andres M Perez, Cesar A Corzo, Dennis N Makau, Michael W Mahero

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Maurine C ChepkwonyCenter for Animal Health and Food Safety, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55108, USA.
Colin YoderCenter for Animal Health and Food Safety, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55108, USA.
Marie R CulhaneDepartment of Veterinary Population Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55108, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3547-7576
Maria Sol Perez AguirreburualdeCenter for Animal Health and Food Safety, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55108, USA.
Andres M PerezCenter for Animal Health and Food Safety, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55108, USA.
Cesar A CorzoDepartment of Veterinary Population Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55108, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2749-3496
Dennis N MakauCenter for Animal Health and Food Safety, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55108, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1802-2545
Michael W MaheroCenter for Animal Health and Food Safety, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55108, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8477-7794

Funding

USDA APHIS AP21VSSP0000C023
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Effective biosecurity is crucial for preventing swine diseases, but there can be a gap between what producers intend and what actually happens on the farm. We conducted a cross-sectional, self-administered online survey of Midwestern US swine operations (N = 54) to explore beliefs and practices related to the Secure Pork Supply (SPS) plan. Because some questions had item-level nonresponse, we report proportions for the full sample (denominator = 54) and, where helpful, for those who responded to specific items (sample size varies). Across the full sample, 27.8% (15/54) said they use biosecurity measures always or sometimes. For enhanced biosecurity, 24.1% (13/54) marked always and 3.7% (2/54) sometimes-with all item responders (N = 15) indicating some level of use. Among those who answered, the influence of veterinarians was clear: 81.8% (9/11) said their vet's opinion is always important when deciding on biosecurity (compared to 16.7% in the full sample). Confidence in controlling an outbreak was similarly high among those who responded: 92.9% (13/14) reported they could always or sometimes control spread (24.1% in the full sample). That said, uptake of several specific SPS components was low-for example, only 27.3% (3/11) reported always monitoring or recording crossings of the line of separation, while 63.6% (7/11) said never. No single biosecurity practice was universally adopted, and overall, fully SPS-aligned programs appeared uncommon in this Midwestern group. These descriptive findings point to clear targets for improvement-such as better monitoring of the line of separation-and highlight potential leverage points, especially the role of attending veterinarians, for outreach efforts. Because this was a convenience sample relying on self-report and had item nonresponse, the results are not statistically representative of the broader regional industry but do provide valuable insights into respondent practices.

Indexed as

foreign animal disease preparednessproducer behaviorrisk perceptionsecure pork supply (SPS)swine biosecurity

Identifiers

PMID40941310
PMCPMC12427511

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.