Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32140242›Full record

ArticlePorcine health management2020

Effectiveness of alternative measures to reduce antimicrobial usage in pig production in four European countries.

Svenja Raasch, Lucie Collineau, Merel Postma, Annette Backhans, Marie Sjölund, Catherine Belloc, Ulf Emanuelson, Elisabeth Grosse Beilage, Katharina Stärk, Jeroen Dewulf and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Porcine health management, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Linking Animal Welfare and Antibiotic Use in Pig Farming-A Review.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Review
  20. Article
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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Svenja RaaschUniversity of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Field Station for Epidemiology, Bakum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5753-9427
Lucie Collineau2SAFOSO, Waldeggstrasse 1, 3097 Liebefeld, Switzerland.
Merel Postma4Veterinary Epidemiology Unit, Department of Reproduction, Obstetrics and Herd Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Annette BackhansDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agriculture, Uppsala, Sweden.
Marie SjölundDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agriculture, Uppsala, Sweden.
Catherine BellocBIOEPAR, INRA, Oniris, BP40706, F-44307 Nantes Cedex 3, France.
Ulf EmanuelsonDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agriculture, Uppsala, Sweden.
Elisabeth Grosse BeilageUniversity of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Field Station for Epidemiology, Bakum, Germany.
Katharina Stärk2SAFOSO, Waldeggstrasse 1, 3097 Liebefeld, Switzerland.
Jeroen Dewulf4Veterinary Epidemiology Unit, Department of Reproduction, Obstetrics and Herd Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
on the behalf of the MINAPIG Consortium
Federal Office for Agriculture · CHGhent University Hospital · BEUniversity of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation · DEUppsala University · SELaboratoire de Génie des Procédés – Environnement – Agro-alimentaire · FRSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe reduction of antimicrobial usage (AMU) is in the focus in modern pig production. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of alternatives to reduce AMU at herd level. In a prospective study, 68 farrow-to-finish pig herds located in Belgium, France, Germany and Sweden were recruited on a voluntary basis to implement tailor-made intervention plans to reduce their AMU. Alternative measures included improvement of biosecurity (

resultsCompliance with the intervention plans was high (median 93%). AMU was significantly reduced following the implementation of alternative measures: in the median herd of the four countries, pigs were treated before intervention 25% of their expected lifespan (200 days from birth to slaughter) and after intervention 16%. AMU of suckling and weaned pigs were significantly reduced by 37 and 54%, respectively. The usage of polymyxins and tetracyclines was significantly reduced by 69 and 49%, respectively. AMU via feed and water, as well as parenteral AMU were significantly reduced by 46 and 36%, respectively. Herds with a higher AMU level before intervention achieved a bigger reduction. The majority of disease incidence were similar before and after intervention, with a few exceptions of disorders related to the gastro-intestinal tract in suckling pigs (decreased) and in breeding pigs (increased).

conclusionFollowing tailor-made implementation of alternative measures, a substantial reduction of AMU in pig production was achievable without jeopardizing animal health. The AMU reduction in the youngest age categories (suckling and weaned pigs) and the reduction of group treatments via feed and water was in line with the recent European Guidelines on the prudent use of antimicrobials in veterinary medicine.

Indexed as

Alternative measuresAntimicrobial consumptionDisease incidenceIntervention studyPigTreatment incidence

Identifiers

PMID32140242
PMCPMC7050127
OpenAlexW3010125873

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.