ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2025
Biosecurity practices on small-ruminant farms in five Turkish provinces: a cross-sectional survey with multiple correspondence analysis.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of Biosecurity Practices on Small Ruminant Farms in Kosovo After an Outbreak of Peste des Petits Ruminants: A Pilot Study.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Carbon Footprint of Sheep Production Using the IPCC Tier 2 Approach.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Mitigating antimicrobial resistance in the animal industry: reduction strategies and alternatives to antibiotics.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Review
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
Introduction: A cross-sectional biosecurity survey was conducted in Türkiye to assess practices in small ruminant farms across five provinces. Methods: A total of 364 breeders were interviewed on farm management, health practices, animal purchase and movement, and dead animal disposal. Breeders were selected based on small ruminant density, breed diversity, primary income source, presence of commercial enterprises, and branding potential. Among participants, 332 responses were eligible for analysis. Descriptive statistics and Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) were used. Results: The most commonly administered vaccines were for sheep pox (193/332, 58%), foot-and-mouth disease (175/332, 53%), and brucellosis (129/332, 39%). About 58% (195/332) reported direct contact with ruminants from other herds, 30% (101/332) shared vehicles or equipment, 59% (196/332) attended live animal markets, and 99% (328/332) purchased animals, yet 67% (222/332) did not quarantine and only 14% (46/332) considered health status before purchase. Dead animals were buried (129/332, 39%) or fed to dogs (30/332, 9%). MCA indicated biosecurity improvements were needed across provinces, education levels, herd sizes, and production types. Discussion: The high proportion of direct contacts highlights the need for community-based interventions, shared quarantine facilities, physical barriers, and targeted training on disease recognition, disinfection, and record-keeping to strengthen herd health.
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.