Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33262402›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Effect of welfare standards and biosecurity practices on antimicrobial use in beef cattle.

Alessia Diana, Valentina Lorenzi, Mauro Penasa, Edoardo Magni, Giovanni L Alborali, Luigi Bertocchi, Massimo De Marchi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. ClassyFarm and welfare indicators in dairy cattle farming.Journal of advanced veterinary and animal research · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

7 authors.

Alessia DianaDepartment of Agronomy, Food, Natural resources, Animals and Environment (DAFNAE), University of Padova, Viale dell'Università 16, 35020, Legnaro (PD), Italy. alessiadiana84@gmail.com.
Valentina LorenziItalian National Reference Centre for Animal Welfare, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell'Emilia Romagna 'Bruno Ubertini' (IZSLER), Via Bianchi 9, 25124, Brescia, Italy.
Mauro PenasaDepartment of Agronomy, Food, Natural resources, Animals and Environment (DAFNAE), University of Padova, Viale dell'Università 16, 35020, Legnaro (PD), Italy.
Edoardo MagniItalian National Reference Centre for Animal Welfare, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell'Emilia Romagna 'Bruno Ubertini' (IZSLER), Via Bianchi 9, 25124, Brescia, Italy.
Giovanni L AlboraliItalian National Reference Centre for Animal Welfare, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell'Emilia Romagna 'Bruno Ubertini' (IZSLER), Via Bianchi 9, 25124, Brescia, Italy.
Luigi BertocchiItalian National Reference Centre for Animal Welfare, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell'Emilia Romagna 'Bruno Ubertini' (IZSLER), Via Bianchi 9, 25124, Brescia, Italy.
Massimo De MarchiDepartment of Agronomy, Food, Natural resources, Animals and Environment (DAFNAE), University of Padova, Viale dell'Università 16, 35020, Legnaro (PD), Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antimicrobial use (AMU) in livestock species and the associated antimicrobial resistance are a global concern, thus strategies for their reduction and a more judicious use are needed. Previous research has revealed a link between improved animal welfare, biosecurity and AMU reduction in pig and dairy sectors, however, little is known about the beef sector. This study aimed to investigate the impact of welfare standards and biosecurity on AMU in beef cattle. Data on performance traits and AMU were collected over a 3.5 year time from 27 specialised beef farms and a treatment incidence was calculated using the defined daily dose for animals. An on-farm assessment was carried out by assigning a score from 0 (very poor) to 100% (very good) to 3 sections: welfare, biosecurity and emergency management. The highest average score was obtained for the welfare section (76%) followed by emergency management (39%) and biosecurity (24%). This suggests that major focus on strategies for the implementation of biosecurity measures and emergency management is needed, due to the low scores reported. A statistically significant lower AMU was observed with improved level of welfare. These results may be helpful for farm benchmarking and highlight the importance of improved animal welfare for an efficient antimicrobial stewardship.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnimal WelfareAnti-Infective AgentsCattleDrug Resistance, BacterialEmergenciesLeast-Squares AnalysisQuantitative Trait, HeritableRed MeatAnti-Infective Agents

Identifiers

PMID33262402
PMCPMC7708642

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.