Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33062293›Full record

ArticlePorcine health management2020

Quantification, description and international comparison of antimicrobial use on Irish pig farms.

Lorcan O'Neill, Maria Rodrigues da Costa, Finola C Leonard, James Gibbons, Julia Adriana Calderón Díaz, Gerard McCutcheon, Edgar García Manzanilla

Abstract 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 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. An Investigation into the Prevalence ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Antibiotic Use in European Pig Production: Less Is More.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Risk Factors for Antimicrobial Use on Irish Pig Farms.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Antimicrobial Use and Susceptibility of IndicatorFrontiers in microbiology · 2021
    Article
  18. 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

7 authors.

Lorcan O'NeillPig Development Department, Teagasc, The Irish Food and Agriculture Authority, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co Cork Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-8839-0872
Maria Rodrigues da CostaPig Development Department, Teagasc, The Irish Food and Agriculture Authority, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co Cork Ireland.
Finola C LeonardSchool of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.
James GibbonsIrish Equine Centre, Johnstown, Co Kildare Ireland.
Julia Adriana Calderón DíazPig Development Department, Teagasc, The Irish Food and Agriculture Authority, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co Cork Ireland.
Gerard McCutcheonPig Development Department, Teagasc, The Irish Food and Agriculture Authority, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co Cork Ireland.
Edgar García ManzanillaPig Development Department, Teagasc, The Irish Food and Agriculture Authority, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co Cork Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is concern that the use of antimicrobials in livestock production has a role in the emergence and dissemination of antimicrobial resistance in animals and humans. Consequently, there are increasing efforts to reduce antimicrobial use (AMU) in agriculture. As the largest consumer of veterinary antimicrobials in several countries, the pig sector is a particular focus of these efforts. Data on AMU in pig production in Ireland are lacking. This study aimed to quantify AMU on Irish pig farms, to identify the major patterns of use employed and to compare the results obtained to those from other published reports and studies.

resultsAntimicrobial use data for 2016 was collected from 67 Irish pig farms which represented c. 35% of national production. The combined sample population consumed 14.5 t of antimicrobial by weight of active ingredient suggesting that the pig sector accounted for approximately 40% of veterinary AMU in Ireland in 2016. At farm level, median AMU measured in milligram per population correction unit (mg/PCU) was 93.9 (range: 1.0-1196.0). When measured in terms of treatment incidence (TI200), median AMU was 15.4 (range: 0.2-169.2). Oral treatments accounted for 97.5% of all AMU by weight of active ingredient and were primarily administered via medicated feed to pigs in the post weaning stages of production. AMU in Irish pig production in 2016 was higher than results obtained from the national reports of Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and France but lower than the United Kingdom.

conclusionsPig production in Ireland is an important consumer of veterinary antimicrobials. The quantities and patterns of AMU on Irish pig farms are comparable to pig production in other European countries but higher than some countries with more advanced AMU reduction strategies. This AMU is characterised by a high proportion of prophylactic use and is primarily administered to pigs post weaning via medicated feed. Further studies to better understand the reasons for AMU on Irish pig farms and strategies to improve health among weaner pigs will be of benefit in the effort to reduce AMU.

Indexed as

Antimicrobial useIrelandPigs

Identifiers

PMID33062293
PMCPMC7549222

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.