ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2024
A mixed method approach to analysing patterns and drivers of antibiotic use and resistance in beef farms in Argentina.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of Veterinary Antimicrobial Residues in Feedlot Soils in Argentina.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Analysis of sales of antimicrobials used in veterinary medicine in Poland compared to Europe.Journal of veterinary research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Antimicrobial resistance is a challenge to be faced by all livestock sectors; within beef farming, antibiotic use patterns vary by country and management practices. Argentina is a country with high beef production & consumption but limited information surrounding antibiotic use. The aims of this project was to understand how antibiotics are being used across the beef industry in Argentina and exploring drivers of usage. Methods: Quantitative and qualitative data was collected by: A survey of breeding and feedlot farms including antibiotic use (from purchase data); a detailed analysis of two feedlot farms' therapeutic antibiotic use records; a survey of vets' views on certain antibiotic practices; and a focus group of farmers and vets focusing on wider influences affecting decision making. Antibiotic use data was calculated using mg/population corrected unit (PCU) (ESVAC) and thematic analysis was used to identify drivers of antibiotic use among participants. Results: The median use across 17 farms that supplied purchase data was 76.52 mg/kg PCU (ESVAC; IQR = 36.81 mg/kg PCU [ESVAC]). The detailed farm records showed that the largest reason for treatment was group treatments (72.92% of treatments) followed by treatment for respiratory disease (12.75% of treatments). Macrolides accounted for 76.37% of treatments. Nearly half of farms used routine prophylactic treatment for arriving animals (n = 7/18). The use of quarantine and 'sick pens' were seen as important by surveyed vets with antibiotic prophylaxis and in-feed antibiotics seen as contributors to antibiotic resistance. The focus group highlighted the influence of the economic and political landscape on husbandry practices and the responsibility the farming sector had towards antibiotic stewardship. Discussion: Overall, Argentine beef feedlots resemble North American beef feedlots in terms of antibiotic practices but with considerably lower usage, with in-feed monensin representing a large proportion of total ABU. The adaptation period presents a challenge to animal health; antibiotics are administered a prophylaxis, metaphylactic and individual treatments depending on farm management practices. Further research into internationally comparable measures of ABU and detailed cost-benefit analysis of practical, on-farm interventions are needed to aid improved antimicrobial stewardship in livestock systems globally.
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.