ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2025
Influences on limited antimicrobial use in small-scale freshwater aquaculture farms in central Thailand.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Recent years have shown substantial growth both in the scale and the spread of freshwater aquaculture in Thailand, raising concerns about potential widespread unsustainable use of antimicrobials. Methods: This mixed-methods study used surveys and qualitative interviews to examine conditions of freshwater aquaculture farming in central Thailand in relation to animal health, disease management and patterns of antimicrobial use. Results: Freshwater aquaculture in this area of Thailand was largely a domestic venture operated as a source of additional household income to increase financial security. Aquaculture was often integrated with other types of farming; initial outlay was reduced by repurposing unused crops, food, or animal manure (e.g. chicken droppings and pig dung) to fertilise aquaculture ponds. Among farmers representing twenty farms who were surveyed during 2019, only six farmers representing six farms said they used antimicrobials. These included oxytetracycline, enrofloxacin, norfloxacin, ciprofloxacin and sulphonamides. Farmers doubted the benefits of using antimicrobials to treat aquatic animals; some believed antimicrobials stunted growth. The high cost of medicines and prohibitive regulations also discouraged antimicrobial use. Farmers linked disease occurrence to changes in the weather, the emergence of new diseases and variable water quality. They relied on farm management practices to maintain the health of their aquatic animals, using lime and salt to maintain and improve water quality and pH and to disinfect aquaculture pools. Farmers also reported obtaining juvenile fish and shrimp selectively from farms known to produce healthy stock. Specialised veterinary services for aquatic farming were rare, so farmers relied on their own experimentation with medicines, peer advice and recommendations of shopkeepers who sold both aquatic feed and medicines. Conclusion: This study unexpectedly reveals limited use of antimicrobials linked to socio-economic and ecological features of small-scale family aquaculture farms.
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.