ArticleActa veterinaria Scandinavica2025
Living labs opened dialogues about antibiotic use in dairy cattle and pig sectors - Insights from a Danish case study based on participatory action research.
Article in Acta veterinaria Scandinavica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrudent antimicrobial use (AMU) is paramount for future sustainable animal production. Continuous efforts are required to have a low and well-regulated AMU. Living Labs (LLs) are multistakeholder open innovation platforms that have the potential to allow multiple stakeholders to explore common ground, create dialogues and find solutions to jointly identified problems. The purpose of this study was to stimulate multistakeholder dialogues leading to transitions towards a more prudent AMU in the Danish dairy and pig sectors.
resultsThe two LLs, which focused on pig farms and dairy cattle farms, worked in parallel for 30 months. Stakeholders in the pig and dairy sectors pointed to systemic structures such as logistic conditions and global market structures as the main drivers of the current AMU. Both LLs expressed conflicting interests and perceptions around the concept of prudent AMU related to animal welfare and today's production systems. Thus, the LLs in the Danish context became spaces for opening dialogues and negotiating difficult and sensitive issues in addition to being open-innovation platforms. Both LLs expressed scepticism around the connections between AMU in animal farming and the global threat of antimicrobial resistance to humans. However, this scepticism was more dominant for the stakeholders of the pig sector. The feeling of being a global front-runner in prudent AMU, legislation and transparent monitoring of AMU existed in both sectors, but both LLs identified possibilities and room for improvement. The need to reduce AMU was most consistently articulated in the dairy cattle LL, where the stakeholders increasingly focused on calves from dairy farms and the systemic drivers, which made it challenging to reduce AMU. Some actors in the pig LL kept questioning whether a change towards more prudent AMU was needed in Denmark.
conclusionThe LL approach fostered important dialogues and insights between central stakeholders in the sectors and was thereby helpful in terms of opening and contributing to dialogues about antibiotic usage in dairy cattle and pigs within and across sectors.
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.