ArticlePest management science2023
Framework for defining pesticide maximum residue levels in feed: applications to cattle and sheep.
Article in Pest management science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application, ecotoxicology and regulation of insecticides with special reference to neonicotinoids.Fly · 2026Review
- Ecological and reproductive consequences of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in agricultural systems.Reproduction & fertility · 2026Review
- Dual-emission ratiometric fluorescent sensor based on tannic acid carbon dots and eosin for selective detection of paraquat in water and food samples.RSC advances · 2025Article
- Organic Edible Insects-What Would It Take?Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Review
- Considering degradation kinetics of pesticides in plant uptake models: proof of concept for potato.Pest management science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPesticide residues in animal feed can endanger animal health and compromise the safety of livestock products for human consumption. Even though policymakers such as the European Union and the World Health Organization have established maximum residue levels (MRLs) for pesticides in both human food and animal feed, there is no systematic management of pesticides in animal feed that considers the entire supply chain. In response, we propose a framework for defining consistent MRLs for pesticides in animal feed that assesses the impact of defined MRLs on upstream (e.g., MRLs in feed crops) and downstream (e.g., MRLs in livestock products) sectors of the livestock-product supply chain.
resultsThe MRLs determined for the selected pesticides in the feed of cattle and sheep as case study animals indicate that lipophilic pesticides tend to have lower MRLs than hydrophilic pesticides, primarily due to the relatively high toxicity and biotransfer factors of lipophilic pesticides. In addition, we observe that, primarily for lipophilic pesticides, upstream and downstream regulations are not aligned in terms of defining MRLs in feed using current MRLs in crops with relevance to feed and foods of animal origin.
conclusionSome of the current pesticide regulations in the livestock-product supply chain need to be re-evaluated to ensure that MRLs in the upstream sector (i.e., crops) do not result in unacceptable residues in the downstream sector (i.e., MRLs in livestock products affecting animal and human health). Finally, we provide recommendations for optimizing the derivation of MRLs in feed, including the evaluation of residue fate during feed and food manufacturing processes. © 2022 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.
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.