ArticlePloS one2020
Economic effects of policy options restricting antimicrobial use for high risk cattle placed in U.S. feedlots.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic mapping of threats to U.S. beef production.Translational animal science · 2026Review
- A Review of Producer Adoption in the U.S. Beef Industry with Application to Enteric Methane Emission Mitigation Strategies.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Review
- Economic costs of liver abscesses in U.S. beef feedlot cattle: a comprehensive economic analysis.Journal of animal science · 2025Article
- Economics of vaccination against diarrhoea and respiratory diseases in French cow calves' systems: A modelling approach.PloS one · 2025Article
- Antimicrobial Metaphylaxis and its Impact on Health, Performance, Antimicrobial Resistance, and Contextual Antimicrobial Use in High-Risk Beef Stocker Calves.Journal of animal science · 2024Article
- An economic assessment of alternative antimicrobial use scenarios on pig farms.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- Approaches for disease prioritization and decision-making in animal health, 2000-2021: a structured scoping review.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023Article
- Responsible antibiotic use labeling and consumers' willingness to buy and pay for fluid milk.Journal of dairy science · 2023Article
- Livestock health and disease economics: a scoping review of selected literature.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023Article
- Article
- Prevalence of Multidrug-Resistant CTX-M Extended Spectrum Beta-Lactamase-ProducingFrontiers in veterinary science · 2022Article
- Parameters of nonspecific resistance of calves with respiratory pathology before and after treatment.Journal of advanced veterinary and animal research · 2021Article
- Effect of welfare standards and biosecurity practices on antimicrobial use in beef cattle.Scientific reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.