ArticlePloS one2026
Impressions and perceived barriers of implementing water-based foam and nitrogen foam swine depopulation methods at the farm level.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
Animal depopulation is a critical component of emergency planning across U.S. livestock industries. Class A water-based foam (WBF) and high-expansion nitrogen foam (N2F) have been researched to help provide the swine industry with alternative tools to perform depopulation at larger scales. At this time, there is little data on perceived advantages or barriers identified by individuals, such as operation owners and employees, who would be closely involved in the initial phase of depopulation. Our aim was to survey farm personnel to gather logistics-focused insight upon viewing WBF and N2F demonstrations. Survey questions reflected method-specific difficulties scored using a 4-point Likert scale, along with respondent demographics and free response comments. Select survey sections were analyzed using multivariable linear regression models. Other sections, demographic data, and free response comments are presented descriptively. Data from 51 WBF and 76 N2F surveys were available, with 121 responses disclosing career position. Average (± SD) respondent age was 49.9 (± 13.2) years, with 22.3 (± 16.0) years for average experience in the swine industry. Respondents consisted of 42.2% (51/121) veterinarians, 32.2% (39/121) other farm staff, 13.2% (16/121) owners of their organization, 9.1% (11/121) animal handlers, and 3.3% (4/121) classified as "other". Depopulation method was the only variable of interest associated with differences in scores for performing tasks and method implementation, with N2F perceived as more difficult than WBF (P < 0.05). Largest proportions of comments for both methods pertained to ease of use and cost. At least one respondent suggested pre-assembled kits or services for either method. The input from a wide range of respondents emphasizes the perceived importance of method practicality for emergency planning. Our findings suggest that method demonstrations alone are insufficient; future work must focus on efforts to meet the need for developing avenues for user education for both WBF and N2F.
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.