| Title |
Antimicrobial Consumption in Medicated Feeds in Vietnamese Pig and Poultry Production
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
EcoHealth, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10393-016-1130-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nguyen Van Cuong, Nguyen Thi Nhung, Nguyen Huu Nghia, Nguyen Thi Mai Hoa, Nguyen Vinh Trung, Guy Thwaites, Juan Carrique-Mas |
| Abstract |
Antimicrobials are extensively used as growth promoters in animal feeds worldwide, but reliable estimates are lacking. We conducted an internet-based survey of commercial chicken and pig feed products officially approved for sale in Vietnam over the period March-June 2015. Information on the antimicrobial contents in feed products, alongside animal production data, was used to estimate in-feed antimicrobial consumption to produce one kilogram of live animal (chicken, pig), as well as to estimate country-wide antimicrobial consumption through animal feeds. A total of 1462 commercial feed formulations were examined. The survey-adjusted estimated antimicrobial contents were 25.7 and 62.3 mg/kg in chicken and pig feeds, respectively. Overall, it was estimated that 77.4 mg [95% CI 48.1-106.8] and 286.6 mg [95% CI 191.6-418.3] of in-feed antimicrobials were used to raise 1 kg of live chicken and pig, respectively. Bacitracin (15.5% feeds), chlortetracycline (11.4%), and enramycin (10.8%) were the most common antimicrobials present in chicken feed formulations, whereas bacitracin (24.8%), chlortetracycline (23.9%), and florfenicol (17.4%) were the most common in pig feed formulations. Overall, 57% of the total quantitative usage consisted of antimicrobials regarded by WHO of importance for human medicine, including amoxicillin, colistin, tetracyclines, neomycin, lincomycin, and bacitracin. These figures confirm a very high magnitude of in-feed consumption of antimicrobials, especially in pig production. Results from this study should encourage further monitoring of antimicrobials used in animal production, and foster discussion about existing policies on inclusion of antimicrobials in animal feed rations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 152 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 23 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 22 | 14% |
| Unknown | 51 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 24 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 21 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 8 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 25 | 16% |
| Unknown | 57 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 July 2020.
All research outputs
#6,592,660
of 23,322,258 outputs
Outputs from EcoHealth
#326
of 710 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,379
of 335,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EcoHealth
#6
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,322,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 710 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,630 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.