Impressions and perceived barriers of implementing water-based foam and nitrogen foam swine depopulation methods at the farm level

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLoS ONE
Published
2026-08-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0354430
Primary Topic
Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Impressions and perceived barriers of implementing water-based foam and nitrogen foam swine depopulation methods at the farm level

Andrew S. Bowman, Janice Y. Park, Marie Culhane, Andréia G. Arruda et al.
PLoS ONE
Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
article

Impressions and perceived barriers of implementing water-based foam and nitrogen foam swine depopulation methods at the farm level

Andrew S. Bowman, Janice Y. Park, Marie Culhane, Andréia G. Arruda, Magnus R. Campler
article en

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.

PLoS ONEVol. 21(8)
University of Minnesota (US), The Ohio State University (US)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Industry, innovation and infrastructure
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.