Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29566103›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

The farm cost of decreasing antimicrobial use in dairy production.

Guillaume Lhermie, Loren William Tauer, Yrjo Tapio Gröhn

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Effective Treatment ofViruses · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Dissemination of ResistantFrontiers in microbiology · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Guillaume LhermieDepartment of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-2538-1586
Loren William TauerDyson School of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell SC Johnson College of Business, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States of America.
Yrjo Tapio GröhnDepartment of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States of America.
Cornell University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antimicrobials are used in animal agriculture to cure bacterial infectious diseases. However, antimicrobial use (AMU) inevitably leads to the selection of resistant bacteria, potentially infecting humans. As a global public threat, antimicrobial resistance has led policy makers to implement regulations supervising AMU. The objective of our research was to investigate the farm impact of several potential policies aimed at decreasing AMU. We modeled a dairy herd of 1000 cows with an average level of disease prevalence for the nine most frequent bacterial dairy diseases found in western countries. We calculated the farm net costs of AMU prohibition, as well as cost increases in antimicrobial treatments prices, and an increase in the milk withdrawal period after AMU. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of output and input prices, and disease prevalence. At a mean disease prevalence, the average net costs of not using antimicrobials were $61 per cow per year greater compared to a scenario modeling current farm AMU. The model predicted that the minimum and maximum increased costs associated with AMU prohibition were $46 and $73 per cow per year compared to current AMU. In each scenario, the cost difference increased with disease prevalence. Sensitivity analysis showed that the three stochastic variables which most significantly influenced the cost difference were respectively, cow replacement prices, cow slaughter price, and the milk price. Antimicrobial price increases of a factor of five, or extending the milk withdrawal period by 15 days, resulted in increasing the costs of diseases to a level where the farmer was better off not using antimicrobials. Our results suggest that the farm level costs of AMU prohibition in many cases might be minor, although the consequences of any policy instrument should be carefully evaluated to reach the ultimate goal of decreasing AMU without threatening the sustainability of milk production.

Indexed as

AgricultureAnimalsAnti-Infective AgentsCattleCattle DiseasesCosts and Cost AnalysisDairyingDrug Resistance, Multiple, BacterialEndometritisFarmsFemaleFood ContaminationInfection ControlMastitis, BovineMilkModels, EconometricAnti-Infective Agents

Identifiers

PMID29566103
PMCPMC5864045
OpenAlexW2790545798

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.