Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38746928›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2024

An economic assessment of alternative antimicrobial use scenarios on pig farms.

Shailesh Shrestha, Maria R da Costa, Carla Correia-Gomes, Amanda Nevel, Andy McGowan, Sue C Tongue

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Shailesh ShresthaCentral Faculty, Department of Rural Economy, Environment, and Society, SRUC (Scotland's Rural College), Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Maria R da CostaCentre for Epidemiology and Planetary Health, School of Veterinary Medicine, SRUC (Scotland's Rural College), Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Carla Correia-GomesAnimal Health Ireland, Leitrim, Ireland.
Amanda NevelAgriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) Pork, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Andy McGowanWholesome Pigs (Scotland) Ltd., Aberdeenshire, United Kingdom.
Sue C TongueCentre for Epidemiology and Planetary Health, School of Veterinary Medicine, SRUC (Scotland's Rural College), Edinburgh, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper explores the theoretical economic outcome of management changes that result in different levels of antimicrobial use (AMU) in two types of UK pig farm. A static farm economic pig production model (FEPM) was used on a representative 'Top-third' most profitable farm and a representative 'Mid-range' profitable farm. Three AMU theoretical management scenarios were investigated; (a) management changes leading to a reduction of AMU by 35% (AMU35); (b) more extensive management changes leading to a reduction of AMU by 95% (AMU95); and (c) implementing depopulation of the herd (AMU Depop). A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the effect of increases or decreases in pig revenue and feed price on farm gross margin under these scenarios. Over a single year, the AMU35 scenario was estimated to have a small positive impact (+3%) on both farm types. The other two AMU reduction scenarios had higher AMU reduction on farms but required higher variable cost and hence they resulted in lower farm profitability. There was a substantial reduction (up to -50%) in farm gross margin under these two AMU reduction scenarios in the modeled short-term time-period. The impact of the alternative AMU scenarios was slightly higher on a farm representing the 'Top-third' farm type, reducing farm gross margin further by 7% compared to the 'Mid-range' farm. Nevertheless, both farm types stay profitable under all three AMU scenarios. The results showed that in the modeled short-term implementing management changes that result in a reduction of on-farm AMU by 35% had a good economic outcome. In practice, the other two scenarios would be considered as longer-term strategies. Although both require higher initial costs to implement, the improved biosecurity and hygiene will benefit from lower disease occurrence for a longer term. Farm gross margins were, however, found to be highly sensitive to changes on market prices especially increasing feed prices. An increase of more than 15% in feed price moved a profitable farm into a loss-making farm. It will be economically challenging for uptakes of these, or similar, AMU reduction scenarios on farms if the market prices become un-favorable to pig farmers.

Indexed as

antimicrobial resistanceantimicrobial usageeconomic assessmentfarm level modelingpig farm

Identifiers

PMID38746928
PMCPMC11091415

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.