ArticleBMC veterinary research2019
A survey of antimicrobial use practices of Tennessee beef producers.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beef Cattle Farmers' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Toward On-Farm Biosecurity, Antimicrobial Use, and Antimicrobial Resistance in Illinois, United States of America.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Survey of antimicrobial and probiotic use practices in wildlife rehabilitation in the United States.PloS one · 2024Article
- Producer attitudes regarding antimicrobial use and resistance in Canadian cow-calf herds.The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne · 2023Article
- A Scoping Review of Antimicrobial Usage and Antimicrobial Resistance in Beef Cow-Calf Herds in the United States and Canada.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Effect of Protracted Free-Choice Chlortetracycline-Medicated Mineral for Anaplasmosis Control onMicroorganisms · 2021Article
- Antimicrobial use in agriculture: critical review of the factors influencing behaviour.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2021Review
- 2019 Survey of Antimicrobial Drug Use and Stewardship Practices in Adult Cows on California Dairies: Post Senate Bill 27.Microorganisms · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInappropriate antimicrobial use (AMU) is a key modifiable factor that leads to the development of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The objectives of this study were to determine the following among Tennessee beef cattle producers: (1) the opinions on factors driving AMU (2) opinions on alternatives to antimicrobials, (3) the knowledge and perceptions regarding AMU and AMR, and (4) the preferred avenues for receiving information on prudent AMU. A survey questionnaire was made available to participants both in print and online from January 26, 2018 through May 11, 2018. The questions targeted the producers' demographics and their AMU practices; factors driving producer's choice of antimicrobials; perceptions, opinions and concerns about AMU and AMR in cattle production. Ordinal logistic regression was used to test for associations between the captured demographic information and producers' degree of concern about AMR.
resultsOverall, 231 beef producers responded to all or some of the survey questions. More than 60% of the participants mentioned that they kept up-to-date written records on antimicrobial purchases and AMU. Regarding extra-label use, 169 (84.1%) of the 201 respondents did not practice extra-label AMU. Profitability of the beef operation was a key factor influencing the decisions of many producers to use antimicrobials for disease management and prevention on their farms. Of the 228 producers who completed the question on the rating of their degree of concern about AMR, 50 (21.9%) reported that they were very concerned about AMR, 133 (58.3%) were moderately concerned, and 36 (15.8%) reported that they were not concerned about AMR. Nine producers (4%) did not rate their degree of concern about AMR because they were not familiar with what antimicrobial resistance meant. The inferential analyses suggested that younger beef producers were significantly less concerned about AMR when compared to the older ones (P = 0.019). Regarding avenues for receiving information on prudent AMU, no single medium was most preferred by all the respondents.
conclusionsThere is a need to promote the use of written antimicrobial treatment protocols among beef producers in Tennessee. Continued training for beef producers on infection prevention and control and prudent AMU is needed.
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.