ArticleBMC microbiology2026
Hidden threats: exploring biofilm communities in broiler houses and pig nursery units drinking water lines.
Article in BMC microbiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Laboratory and pilot-farm evaluation of cleaning and disinfection protocols for biofilms in livestock drinking water systems.Biofilm · 2026Article
- Phenotypic Antimicrobial Resistance inAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDrinking water systems (DWS) are often an overlooked source of microbial contamination of drinking water in broiler and piglet production. Persistent biofilms within water lines can act as reservoirs of contamination, reintroducing microorganisms into the flowing water and potentially compromising animal health. This study investigates the microbial composition of biofilms in the DWS of broiler houses and pig nursery units, their impact on drinking water quality, and the influence of the source water on both water quality and biofilm communities.
resultsThe bacterial load of DWS biofilm swabs, collected at the end of production cycles before cleaning and disinfection was evaluated, and the dominant bacterial taxa were identified. Furthermore, 16S gene metabarcoding was applied to the biofilm samples. No significant differences in microbial load were observed between the two sectors, with a median total aerobic count of 3.6 log CFU/cm2. Enterococci, a faecal indicator, were detected in 80% of all samples. Moreover, Escherichia coli was found more frequently in broiler houses (47%) than in pig nursery units (27%). The two dominant identified genera were Staphylococcus and Pseudomonas. The Staphylococcus saprophyticus species was the most frequently identified isolate, accounting for 10.6% of all isolates across both broiler houses and pig nursery units. In broiler houses, the next most frequently identified species were Pseudomonas aeruginosa (5.6%) and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (5.3%). In contrast, in pig nursery units, Pseudomonas fluorescens (6.3%) and Psychrobacter faecalis/pulmonis (5.5%) were most frequently identified. Research showed that the drinking water microbial community not only depended on the source water but was also influenced by biofilms in DWS, as similar bacterial taxa were found in both the drinking water at the drinking nipples and in biofilms on water-contact surfaces.
conclusionsThe presence of faecal indicator bacteria and potential animal pathogens underscores the risks associated with the biofilms. These biofilms can contaminate drinking water to animals, underscoring the need for targeted strategies to monitor and mitigate biofilm formation.
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.