| Title |
Risk factors for oral antimicrobial consumption in Swiss fattening pig farms – a case–control study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Porcine Health Management, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40813-016-0024-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Corinne Arnold, Gertraud Schüpbach-Regula, Patricia Hirsiger, Julia Malik, Patricia Scheer, Xaver Sidler, Peter Spring, Judith Peter-Egli, Myriam Harisberger |
| Abstract |
Antimicrobial consumption in veterinary medicine is of great importance. Increased awareness by the public and media has led to demands for decreased use of antimicrobials in pigs. This study aimed to identify risk factors for regular oral antimicrobial consumption in Swiss fattening pig farms, and to quantify the amount of antimicrobial active substances administered orally to pigs at the farm level. A case-control study was performed on 99 fattening farms between May 2014 and January 2015. Seventy-two case farms (with oral group treatment of antimicrobials in at least 50 % of pigs) and 27 control farms (with no regular oral group treatment) were visited once during the study. Data about potential risk factors and antimicrobial consumption were collected by questionnaire. Antimicrobial consumption was recorded and treatment incidence (TI) was calculated for all farms over a one year period. Sulphonamides and tetracyclines were the antimicrobials consumed in the greatest quantity. The median TI for oral antimicrobial use in the case group was 224.7. In the control group, the median TI was 0 for oral antimicrobial use, with values ranging from 0 to 140.1. In a multivariable regression model, seven risk factors associated with regular oral antimicrobial group treatment were identified: mixing pigs from different suppliers within the same pen, absence of a work protocol that ensures treating of healthy pigs before sick pigs, distance to next pig farm < 500 metres, external analysis of production parameters, no availability of dirty visitor boots, the farmer not working on other farms, and no application of homoeopathic agents. The results of this study point out the importance of increasing farmers' awareness of good farming practices and biosecurity. Important recommendations for decreasing oral antimicrobial consumption identified by this study include avoiding mixing pigs from different suppliers in the same pen and strictly handling sick pigs after healthy ones. Improvements in these areas could enhance the overall health of pigs and thereby reduce the consumption of antimicrobials on pig farms. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 3% |
| Brazil | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 34 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 22% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 9 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 15 | 42% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 February 2016.
All research outputs
#15,356,841
of 22,844,985 outputs
Outputs from Porcine Health Management
#153
of 221 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,028
of 400,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Porcine Health Management
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,844,985 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 221 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 400,364 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.