Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32931522›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Economic effects of policy options restricting antimicrobial use for high risk cattle placed in U.S. feedlots.

Guillaume Lhermie, Pierre Sauvage, Loren William Tauer, Leslie Verteramo Chiu, Karun Kanyiamattam, Ahmed Ferchiou, Didier Raboisson, Harvey Morgan Scott, David R Smith, Yrjo Tapio Grohn

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Systematic mapping of threats to U.S. beef production.Translational animal science · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Guillaume LhermieDepartment of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-2538-1586
Pierre SauvageIHAP, Université de Toulouse, INRA, ENVT, Toulouse, France.
Loren William TauerDyson School of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell SC Johnson College of Business, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States of America.
Leslie Verteramo ChiuDepartment of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8271-4741
Karun KanyiamattamDepartment of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States of America.
Ahmed FerchiouIHAP, Université de Toulouse, INRA, ENVT, Toulouse, France.
Didier RaboissonIHAP, Université de Toulouse, INRA, ENVT, Toulouse, France.
Harvey Morgan ScottDepartment of Veterinary Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0538-5961
David R SmithDepartment of Pathobiology and Population Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS, United States of America.
Yrjo Tapio GrohnDepartment of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States of America.
Cornell University · USÉcole Nationale Vétérinaire de Toulouse · FRMississippi State University · USTexas A&M University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rising public health threat of antimicrobial resistance, the influence of food service companies, as well as the overall lack of positive image of using medical products in intensive farming are major drivers curbing antimicrobial use. In the future, government policies may affect practices of antimicrobial use in beef production in feedlots, a prominent current user of antimicrobials in animal agriculture, but also the agricultural industry generating the highest cash receipt in the U.S. Our objective was to estimate the cost effect from the following policies in feedlots: 1) using antimicrobials for disease prevention, control, and treatment; 2) using antimicrobials only for treatment of disease; and 3) not using antimicrobials for any reason. We modelled a typical U.S. feedlot, where high risk cattle may be afflicted by diseases requiring antimicrobial therapy, namely respiratory diseases, liver abscesses and lameness. We calculated the net revenue loss under each policy of antimicrobial use restriction. With moderate disease incidence, the median net revenue loss was $66 and $96 per animal entering the feedlot, for not using antimicrobials for disease prevention and control, or not using any antimicrobials, respectively, compared to using antimicrobials for disease prevention, control, and treatment. Losses arose mainly from an increase of fatality and morbidity rates, almost doubling for respiratory diseases in the case of antimicrobial use restrictions. In the case of antimicrobial use prohibition, decreasing the feeder cattle price by 9%, or alternatively, increasing the slaughter cattle price by 6.3%, would offset the net revenue losses for the feedlot operator. If no alternatives to antimicrobial therapy for prevention, control and treatment of current infectious diseases are implemented, policies that economically incentivize adoption of non-antimicrobial prevention and control strategies for infectious diseases would be necessary to maintain animal welfare and the profitability of beef production while simultaneously curbing antimicrobial use.

Indexed as

PolicyAnimal HusbandryAnimalsAnimal WelfareAnti-Bacterial AgentsCattleCattle DiseasesComputer SimulationCost-Benefit AnalysisCost of IllnessDrug Resistance, BacterialFarmsIncidenceModels, EconomicRed MeatAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID32931522
PMCPMC7491722
OpenAlexW3087205846

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.